FUNDS COLLECTED Mr. ROONEY. How much did you collect in fiscal year 1949 in fees as a result of the operations of this section? Mr. HENSLEY. The registration and recordation fees collected in 1949 were $174,318. We have additional fees for furnishing copies of aircraft records where we estimate an additional $10,000. That, however, is not an actual figure. Mr. ROONEY. What is the situation with regard to registration of airmen? That is covered in this section, is it not? Mr. HENSLEY. No, sir; I prepared a separate study on that particular record branch which I will be glad to furnish the committee. Mr. ROONEY. In other words, when we were speaking of 55 people last year registering aircraft and handling transfers of title, these people were concerned only with the plane itself. Is that correct? They were not concerned with the registration of the pilots and airmen? Mr. HENSLEY. That is correct, sir; they deal only with the aircraft itself. That is correct. Mr. ROONEY. And after the recommendation for this committee last year, you were unable to reduce the number from 55 to 48, although there has been a decrease of approximately 7,000 in plane reservations. Is that correct? Mr. HENSLEY. That is correct. (NOTE. The witness later advised the committee that a check of the record revealed that the actual reduction in aircraft registration is 4,668-not 7,000.) ANALYSIS OF OTHER COSTS Mr. ROONEY. What is this for your outfit, an increase of $93,651? I had not intended to look at these things at all, but again my curiosity gets the better of me because we do not think you are entitled to them. Mr. HENSLEY. I break that $93,651 figure down to increased manyear requirements, $15,180; indoctrination training for 35 employees, $10,500; rotation of foreign field employees and families, $21,251; increase for Public Law 92, $38,720; and ICAO conference, $8,000. PERSONNEL DATA Mr. ROONEY. This decrease in 32 positions shown at page 241 in the Aviation Safety Division, does that mean 32 human bodies are not going to go through the doors of the Division of Aviation Safety? Mr. HENSLEY. Yes, that is a reduction in the authorized positions of 32. Mr. ROONEY. Those are actual people, is that correct? Mr. HENSLEY. May I answer it this way, Mr. Chairman: I would like to point out that we have honestly reduced the authorized number of positions by 32. Mr. ROONEY. That is not what I asked. I asked, "Does this mean that 32 actual human beings are not going to be connected with the Bureau of Aviation Safety from here on?" Mr. HENSLEY. I would have to say "Yes." That is what it means. NOTE. The witness later advised the committee that it had been determined that the reduction of 32 in the number of established positions would not result in the elimination of employees presently on the pay roll of the Office of Aviation Safety. Mr. ROONEY. May I say my attention is called to the fact that your employment as of November 30, 1949 was 1,793; that your average employment for the current fiscal year is 1,814, and you are asking in the current year for an average employment of 1,844, which would be an increase in average employment of 30 people; is that right? Mr. HENSLEY. That would be correct; yes, sir. Mr. ROONEY. Then how do you reconcile that statement with the answer you gave just a while ago? Mr. HENSLEY. Because we are asking for a higher man-year rate or a lower lapse rate applied to the lower number of positions requested. Mr. ROONEY. Do you understand this yourself? Mr. HENSLEY. Yes, sir. AIR-LINE USE OF JET PROPULSION Mr. FLOOD. Mr. Rentzel, when this subcommittee was in western Europe this past fall, we observed in the public press, in the nativelanguage press in Rome, Paris, and London, considerable space in their news columns and in their special aviation columns, to the great manner in which foreign-flag lines and foreign air lines generally were advancing in the use of jet propulsion for multiple-motor commercial transport, passenger and freight, far beyond, far superior, and far ahead of the United States of America. Is that true as a fact, or what is the situation? Mr. RENTZEL. Yes, sir; it is true. There are two nations that have. a jet transport in existence. We have none. We have no plans for immediate production. The principal reason is that the Government, .. in the case of the United Kingdom and Canada, has supported, by contract and underwriting of research and development, a production of jet transport aircraft. We have not undertaken any such program and none of our manufacturers have because of the large amount of money involved. They are not interested at the moment in building a jet transport. Mr. FLOOD. Merely as an opinion, and not as an official opinion, is it desirable, meritorious, and a material contribution to safety and other factors of transport, freight and passenger, to have jet propulsion of multiple-engine jobs? Mr. RENTZEL. Jet propulsion is a necessary and desirable thing for the future. I think we will have to do something to break the log' jam and get some development done in this field so we can get such transports; whether they take the form of a turbo jet or a jet-propeller combination does not make too much difference as long as we get them. From a safety point of view I do not think there is anything to be gained particularly, but of course from the speed and performance point of view there is something. Mr. FLOOD. It is also desirable from the national-defense standpoint, is it not? Mr. RENTZEL. The national-defense people do not anticipate an immediate need for any jet transport types of aircraft. They are concentrating on jets, of course, in their combat types, but at the moment, as recently expressed to a Senate committee investigating the subject, they did not voice a desire to have such aircraft at the time. Because of their cargo lifts, they are content with the pistonengine type of aircraft. Mr. FLOOD. Why, as a matter of policy, do we not have a program, sponsored by whatever governmental agency or individuals are burdened with that duty, of projecting jet propulsion for commercial aircraft? Mr. RENTZEL. The Air Force did, in spite of the things I mentioned, present some legislation to the Bureau of the Budget to develop such an airplane or a group of airplanes and was rejected by the Bureau of the Budget as not consistent with the President's program. However, I believe the door is open for a modified program to be undertaken by industry and Government jointly to obtain such results. Mr. FLOOD. Well, we are behind the times, are we not? Mr. RENTZEL. Yes, sir. Mr. FLOOD. Is there anything being done to catch up? Mr. RENTZEL. Well, I think we could catch up pretty rapidly. The question is how is the best way to go about it. That has been the chief argument for over a year and one-half. Mr. FLOOD. The foreign press is pounding it. With all these American tourists over there, they are selling them foreign air transport. Mr. RENTZEL. Based on what they will have in 1952. Mr. FLOOD. All kinds of things. Mr. RENTZEL. This airplane, I might add, Mr. Flood, will not be available for any general use before 1952, the British or the Canadian. COOPERATION WITH OTHER NATIONS Mr. FLOOD. Secondly, on the same subject, I have observed some indication in our press and in the foreign press that the foreign governments are not cooperating with your shop in utilizing and accepting your know-how and physical equipment as equipment typical of the best safety devices, DME and other such matters. Is that a fact? Mr. RENTZEL. That is not the fact. The situation is of course that they are not too happy about the fact that they have not been able to produce anything that is good. Mr. FLOOD. What is that, national pride? Mr. RENTZEL. National pride, partly. The fact is, however, that officially, at the last meeting in Montreal, in March 1949, the International Čivil Aviation Organization did adopt our system as the international standard. Mr. FLOOD. I know about the meeting and I know the standards have been set and I know they have been adopted, but it has been indicated in the American press that we have sent crews over there who have been sitting around twiddling their thumbs for months until the British in the islands, and the British Isles particularly, on the Scottish coast and the main island of England, could make up their minds as to whether they would accept this equipment, or install it, or all kinds of things. Mr. RENTZEL. We have not wasted any people on that. We did send a technician over for about 2 weeks to show them how to locate the facilities and they are installing them now. The bird watchers and other societies were wondering whether you could put in such things that would destroy the life of the homing pigeon and a few other things, but after consultation with our local staff we finally got it settled. I can say definitely that the British are installing such facilities and the French are doing likewise and while they have some difference of opinion as to what should be used locally, and while they have a local system known as Decca which they champion with some pride, actually for international use they will use our system. BRITISH RADAR SYSTEMS Mr. FLOOD. The British are considerably ahead of us on surveillance and spotter precision radar, are they not? Mr. RENTZEL. No, sir; they are not. Mr. FLOOD. They are not? Mr. RENTZEL. No, sir. Mr. FLOOD. Is that the general opinion? Mr. FLOOD. Excepting the British, of course. Mr. RENTZEL. No, sir; I think they would agree with that. They are in fact using our type of military equipment for radar purposes over there, for aviation purposes. They were initially advanced, because of the war, in surveillance radar and in the Battle of Britain it proved to be a useful implement to them and they have done a great deal of work of that type. Mr. FLOOD. I am glad to hear that because I had the impression that the general opinion was otherwise. Mr. RENTZEL. I do not believe that is the case, Mr. Flood. I believe we have the best radar equipment in the world and I know they are using some of our military types as is the RAF. INADEQUATE PRESS COVERAGE OF CAA ACCOMPLISHMENTS Mr. FLOOD. If your shop is as good as you say it is, why do you not have a better press? Mr. RENTZEL. I thought it was pretty good, Mr. Flood. I did not realize it was so bad. Mr. FLOOD. The quality is probably good, but I do not think you are getting enough of it. I think you deserve many more bouquets, as compared to the brickbats you are getting. I cannot imagine a Government agency of your size with a budget of this size, without a collection of information specialists of some kind or other. I do not know how you hide them down there, under what guise, but I wonder if you cannot stir up the boys. Mr. RENTZEL. We have taken this attitude that we should publish information that is of use to the industry and the public. Perhaps we have not gotten as much general national notice as we would like, and we do have an Information Division. We have not sought as much publicity perhaps as we should. Mr. FLOOD. That is being unnecessarily modest. I do not mean so much in the metropolitan press but in the presses of the area of towns of 100,000 and below that, I have the impression that you do not get attention or coverage. You might examine that. it. Mr. RENTZEL. I think that is probably true and we will examine As far as the brickbats are concerned, I am afraid that in our position as policemen, and particularly regulators, we are liable to continue to get those. Mr. ROONEY. Are there any further questions, gentlemen? WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 1950. AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT WITNESSES PHILLIPS MOORE, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF AIRPORTS Mr. ROONEY. If there are no further questions, gentlemen, we will proceed to the item entitled "Airport Development" which appears beginning at page 247 of the justifications. At this point, we shall insert in the record the chart at page 247 which shows a requested increase of $32,573 above a current appropriation of $797,427. We shall also insert the chart at page 249 which contains a summary of requirements by objects. (The pages referred to are as follows:) |