Obrázky stránek

Mr. HINSHAw. Do you know what it costs for the training of one pilot, through the preliminary training given under the Civilian Pilot Training Act? Colonel GoRRELL. I do not know that figure accurately. I know enough about the subject to make a wild guess. Mr. HINshAw. That would be interesting. Colonel GoRRELL. I don’t know the exact figure but in the last war we spent $5,000 to give training to a pilot before he reached a flying unit. When you go further and carry, a man, through the course to make a fully trained military flying pilot it might cost you about $40,000 if you are training him for the latest machines. The elementary C. P. T. C. Course is done by contract for about $500. We paid the British for the training they provided our pilots in the last war a fat sum of $5,000 per individual. Mr. HINSHAw. As I remember it, and this is offhand memory, the contribution made by the individual in the civil pilot training for a laboratory fee was something in the neighborhood of $30 or $35, was it not, Mr. Chairman? " The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Mr. HINSHAw. And then that would be the only requirement that you would place on the person taking the course? Colonel &: For the moment, sir. There are other things you can do. I will give you one minor example, which would be a major item toward making aviation as well known as the squirrel gun to the youth of the country. Our Government collects in taxes a very minor sum from the flyers of this country but when the flyer goes out on Sunday morning to keep his hand in and pays 7 or 8 cents a gallon taxes, his taxes may run him anywhere from $7 to $8 an hour 5. in order to keep himself able to fly military types of machines in case this country calls him. That tax money is often not refunded and it is too much for the youth of the country to stand. Mr. HINSHAw. In other words, you would advocate that gasoline taxes applying to aviation gasoline should be transferred to the fund of the Civil Aeronautics Administration for the purpose of supplementing their present income from the Congress? Colonel GoRRELL. No, sir. In view of the fact that the return on gasoline in the form of Federal taxes is only a drop in the bucket to our Treasury, and if you do not get the training of the youth of the country it costs billions to make up for such lack of preparation, if I were able to do so, I, as Uncle Sam, would waive the minor amount of Federal gasoline taxes for flying around in the air. Which as I said before, it is only a drop in the bucket, it is enough though to prevent the youth of the country from doing much flying for military training out of their own pockets. Mr. HINSHAw. I did not know that aviation gasoline was subject to the Federal gasoline tax? Colonel GoRRELL. Yes, sir; a cent and a half a gallon Federal taxes. Now, if Uncle Sam would waive the tax, the States would probably take that as an example and go along on it but today Uncle §. Sets the precedent. . Mr. HINSHAw. I understood that the primary purpose of the gasoline tax was to provide roads in the country.


Colonel GoRRELL. That is what it started out to be. Since then, in some States, it has been used for other purposes. I doubt if Uncle Sam gets $100,000 a year in taxes out of it; but it prohibits the youth from going out, because it is too much for their pocketbooks. The CHAIRMAN. I might say in that connection that the object of the gasoline tax, of course, in the States is principally for road purposes, but the Federal tax is intended to go into the general fund. Mr. HINSHAw. Is it the chairman's understanding that for instance in his own State, which is likewise mine, that the gasoline taxes collected there are also on navigation gasoline? The CHAIRMAN. For the Federal Government. Mr. HINSHAw. No; I mean for the State government. The CHAIRMAN. Yes; I think it is true. Colonel GoRRELL. Most all States collect a tax per gallon. The CHAIRMAN. Maybe I am mistaken, but there are a few States where exemptions are made. Colonel GoRRELL. There are a few States that do not charge a gas tax on aviation gasoline, but very few. There are other States that refund it, and some that do not refund. The CHAIRMAN. While we are on this subject, for the record, I wish you would give us a little information about the cost of gasoline, the consumption of gasoline by airplanes, to indicate what this tax would be. Colonel GoRRELL. If you were going to let the youth fly, and keep his hand in for flying military machines, let me point out that we have engines today that burn a gallon a mile. We have engines that are coming through that will burn more than that, and if you put two or four of them in an airplane, it runs up to 2, 3, or 4 gallons a minute. Mr. HINSHAw, I should think, Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would insert in his remarks at this point information which he can obtain later concerning the gasoline consumption per hour of flight in various categories of horsepower of engines, that would be very interesting, because then we could estimate in the number of hours of flight that could be conducted within a given area on given types of airplanes, the total gasoline, consumption or it might be that figures could be had of some particular area as to the amount of gasoline sold in that area for aviation purposes that is subject to tax and, that would be interesting information. Colonel GoRRELL. I shall be happy to do that. Mr. REECE. Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Reece. Mr. REECE. As I understand it is not the colonel's suggestion however that, the tax on all aviation gasoline be foregone, but only on the fooline used for pilot training and pilot maintenance, so to speak. Colonel GoRRELL. I am here discussing only the latter suggestion. You might some time wish to consider the fact. The railroads do * pay a tax on the fuel they use for propulsion nor do the steamships. Mr. REECE. That may be true. I had in mind the matter you were discussing. Colonel GoRRELL. I was here discussing only the pilot training of the youth of the country.


Mr. HINSHAW. I think also, Mr. Chairman; that if the air lines are going to contribute to the States in the form of taxation for gasoline consumption, that in all probability it might prove more profitable to the air lines in certain instances to take on lesser gas loads in certain States than they would in others.

Colonel GORRELL. And in some cases completely to pass up the States.

Mr. HINSHAW. Exactly so, because of the high rates in those States. And, I think, that in itself is a subject that this committee and this Congress might well study.

Colonel GORRELL. Then, too, the day of international flying is almost with us now. If you should have what people call freedom of the air, and a man from some other country lands on one of our airports and is taxed X cents a gallon, his own country, thinking that Americans are rich, probably would retaliate with two X cents a gallon when you landed in his country.

Mr. HINSHAW. That is correct; and also we might say that for agricultural uses—that is, off-of-the-highway uses-farmers are exempt from gasoline taxes in most States.

Colonel GORRELL. Yes.

Mr. WINTER. I might say that in Kansas they first pay the tax and then they have to go through the procedure of getting a refund, and I think that is true as far as gasoline is concerned.

Mr. NEWSOME (interposing). And the man with a small pocketbook cannot do that.

Colonel GORRELL. I doubt if America collects very may dollars in aviation-gasoline taxes, but I do know that it stops a lot of flying by virtue of the fact that many people cannot afford it and cannot afford to put up the cash capital to be tied up temporarily even in case they can get a refund later on.

The CHAIRMAN. I think it would help us in considering the matter if we had information showing the consumption of the different classes of machines; that is, if we had it classified according to the gas consumed.

Colonel GORRELL. I shall be very happy to insert that in the record, sir.

(The requested insert follows herewith :)


A study made by the Public Roads Administration of the Federal Works Agency entitled "Analysis of Motor Fuel Usage in Calendar Year 1941” reveals the fact that approximately 25,712,731,000 gallons of motor fuel were consumed by private and commercial use in the States and the District of Columbia during the calendar year 1941. Of this total 23,637,867,000 gallons went for highway purposes while 2,074,864,000 gallons for nonhighway use (table G-21, 1941, issued December 1942).

Another study by the same authority entitled “Nonhighway Use of Motor Fuel in 1941” analyzed the 2,074,864,000 gallons of private and commercial use for other than highway purposes such as "agricultural," "aviation,” “industrial and commercial," "construction work," "domestic," "marine,” and “miscellaneous” (table G-24, 1941, issued December 1942).

So far as consumption for aviation uses were concerned, however, the figures were incomplete because as stated in a footnote of the tabulation, “Data on private and commercial nonhighway use of motor fuel were obtained by analysis of reported exemptions and refunds” of the States' motor-fuel taxes. Obviously, in the 13 States which in 1941 did not allow exemptions or refunds there could be no such information. Moreover, there were 13 other States and the District of


Columbia which “failed to report a classification of exemptions or refunds according to use.” Even so there were complete data for the 22 States shown on the above-mentioned memorandum whose tabulation show (1) total amount of gasoline consumed in 1941 for private and commercial use, (2) portion thereof that went for aviation purposes, and (3) the ratio of such aviation use to the total amount of gasoline consumed in each State during the year 1941. When it is realized that in these particular 22 States 13,302,462,000 gallons, or over 50 percent of the total of 25,712,731,000 gallons, were used, it is logical to assume that the same ratio of consumption obtained in the other 26 States and the District of Columbia. On this premise, therefore, it can be seen that the total of gasoline consumed in aviation in the 48 States and the District of Columbia was aproximately 146,000,000 gallons (about twice the 72,972,000 gallons consumed in the 22 States listed), or a little over .05 percent of the total 25,712,731,000 gallons. On the basis of these figures it can be seen that the yield to the Federal Government of gasoline taxes at the rate of 1% cents per gallon was $2,190,000 from the fuel consumed in all types of aviation, as against more than $197,000,000 derived from motor fuel consumed for other purposes. In many of the individual States the relationship between the amount of gasoline consumed for aviation purposes therein is very much lower than the ratio for the country as a whole, as can be seen by consulting the conditions in the 22' States listed on the attached memorandum.

Total gall #. Otal gallons - - - percentage o State consumed Aviation use total for aviation use Arizona------------------------------------------------- 117,611,000 2,178,000 2.00" Colorado-------------- ---------------------------------- 249,326,000 1,714,000 . 07 Connecticut-------------------------------------------- 413, 661, 409,000 .01 Illinois-------------------------------------------------- 1,647,459,000 7,888,000 .05 613, 586,000 564,000 .01 167,750,000 382,000 .02 775, 754,000 1,996,000 . 02" 1,335,887,000 3,426,000 03 603, 330,000 676,000 01 777,725,000 5,454,000 07 137,006,000 1,424,000 .01 45,205,000 1, 294,000 . 03" 98,749,000 - . 01 987, 565,000 18, 313,000 . 02" 980,684,000 10,827,000 . 05289, 119,000 1,926,000 07 140,366,000 391,000 151,035,000 522,000 .031, 528, 214,000 11, 318,000 . 07 408, 188,000 1,349,000 .03 232,419,000 280,000 .01 604, 823,000 558,000 .01 Total--------------------------------------------- 13, 302, 462,000 72,972,000 .06.

Sample of gasoline consumption on a few types of aircraft of various sizes

> Gallons |Miles per|Miles per Gallons

A few types of airplanes per mile gallon hour per hour

C-46, Curtiss-Wright Commando------------------------------ 0.609 1.5 205 124 C-87, Consolidated.--------------------------------------------- .78 1. 3 220 171 C-54, Douglas Sky-Master------------------------------------- 1.00 1.0 205 205 DC-3, Douglas------------------------------------------------- .4275 2.3 170 78 Lockheed Lodestar--------------------------------------------- . 39 2.5 200 78 Beechcraft (1,000 horsepower)---------------------------------- . 2138 4.7 180 38 Stinson Lycoming (250 horsepower)---------------------------- . 15 6.7 120 18 Spartan (525 horsepower)--------------------------------------- ... 1069 9.4 180 19 Piper Cub (75 horsepower)------------------------------------- ... 10 10. 0 80 8


Mr. HINSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I should like to continue with one or two questions on the subject of pilot training.

Is it the idea, Colonel, that this training should be done by the Civil Aeronautics Administration or merely through them? I noted as I read the sections that it provides that this training may be conducted by the Administration or through them.

Colonel GORRELL. I would presume that a better word would be “through."

They should be in charge, but they should be allowed to use whatever business instrument is most feasible, most economical, and most efficient.

Mr. HINSHAW. Your idea is not that the private schools now being employed by the Administration for civilian pilot training should be amalgamated with and become a part of the Civil Aeronautics Administration?

Colonel GORRELL. By no means, sir. I think it should be farmed out to civilian institutions already existing or that can be created in private life.

Mr. HINSHAW. Would you be willing to suggest, if it is necessary, any suitable language which would impress upon the Administrator the desirability of that policy in distinction to the policy that could be adopted under the act of actually conducting the training schools by the Administration ?

Colonel GORRELL. Yes, sir; it is my intention to go over the proposed bill and make suggestions as to draftsmanship.

Mr. HINSHAW. That would hold true as to the training of mechanics, as well as pilot training?

Colonel GORRELL. The same principle applies.

In this connection there have been various proposals in both Houses of Congress for the training of special technicians, notably air-trafficcontrol-tower operators and technician personnel of the Civil Aeronuatics Administration. Mr. Nichols introduced two such bills during the last session of Congress, H. R. 5116 and H. R. 5119, the texts of which are set forth in the appendix to the recent report of the Select Committee to Investigate Air Accidents. In the Senate, Senator McCarran has introduced similar bills, S. 13 and S. 15, Seventy-eighth Congress.

In view of last year's amendments to the Civilian Pilot Training Act which broaden its scope so as to include not only pilots but also “other technicians and mechanics," it would appear probable that the objectives of these bills could be achieved under existing law—at least in substantial part. The broadening amendments, you will recall, occurred in July of this past year. However, if there is any question concerning the adequacy of the 1942 amendments to the Civilian Pilot Training Act, the committee will doubtless wish to consider revision in the provisions of the proposed new section 308, as set forth at page 11 of the present bill.

With respect to the matter of aeronautical education, the proposed new section 309 of the Civil Aeronautics Act, which appears in the bill before you at pages 12 to 13, substantially follows, as we understand it, various proposals reflected in bills introduced by Congressman Randolph, Senator McCarran, and others, looking to the stimulation of aeronautical education. However, the present proposal would cen

beforection 309 of the matter of aerona

« PředchozíPokračovat »