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:)

AVIATION USE OF MOTOR FUEL

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 12 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.

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

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

tralize in the Administrator of Civil Aeronautics responsibility for seeing that the job is done, instead of creating a new section or division in the Office of Education, as would be done by some of the other proposals.

The importance of promoting aeronautical skill and technique among the youth of the Nation can hardly be overemphasized. It is perhaps not fully appreciated how the Germans were able, despite the limitations of the Versailles Treaty, to lay the ground work for the powerful Luftwaffe even before Mr. Hitler began accelerating Germany's preparation for war. The ink on the Versailles Treaty was not yet dry when a German engineer, Oskar Ursinus, set diligently to work to stimulate interest in gliding and soaring among German youth. So immediately successful was he that by 1920 he was able to put on a gliding and soaring meet at Wasserkuppe. Widespread stimulation of gliding and soaring instruction throughout Germany ensued. Finally, advanced schools were started, giving instruction to students chosen from thousands of glider clubs throughout Germany. These schools were run almost like military barracks, with three courses of about 1 month each through which progressive advanced training was furnished. At the same time and in conjunction with the schools a very considerable amount of engineering experimentation was conducted with small wind tunnels, and intense development of new glider models ensued. It is not surprising that Gen. Ernst Udet is said to have credited such glider training as the source of the reservoir from which his best combat pilots were drawn.

Mr. Chairman, if you have the executive session of which you spoke, I would like to say another word or two on that subject. The CHAIRMAN. Very well.

Colonel GORRELL. When Hitler came to power, there started, of course, greatly accelerated aeronautical education beginning almost literally from the cradle. And in the 5 years, beginning in 1935, it is estimated that more than 120,000 German youngsters were given a complete course in soaring as a preliminary to the more serious business of training in the Luftwaffe.

Aeronautical education in Germany began in the primary grades with boys 7 to 8 years old. Instead of learning their ABC's, as we and our children have, German children in recent years have learned theirs with aeronautical terminology. Early in their schooling they have learned to read simple drawings and to make aircraft models. Shortly thereafter they actually made simple working drawings. Interest was stimulated by the intense local competitions, leading finally to national competitive meets. By the time students reached the age of 12 to 14, they had a working knowledge of elementary design and were skilled in the construction of models. Then from 14 to 16 their work was carried into the study of aerodynamics and the actual construction of man-carrying gliders. By the time the student had reached the age of 18 he had received approximately 10 years' training in aeronautics and was ready to go directly from school into the air service.

The question is not one of emulating Germany. Rather, it is one of learning from experience and then, consistent with the ways of our own democracy, putting the lessons of experience into effect.

As we read the proposal before your committee, it is that the Administrator of Civil Aeronautics, equipped as he is with aeronautical knowledge and facilities, should become the focal point for stimulating the efforts of all our agencies of education, Federal and State, to promote aeronautical education, and to foster aeronautical clubs and other aeronautical activities, particularly among the Nation's youth.

The next provision of the bill would insert in the Civil Aeronautics Act

Mr. PRIEST. Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Priest.

Mr. PRIEST. May I ask one question on that subject?
Colonel GORRELL, Yes, Mr. Priest.

Mr. PRIEST. I gather that it is your thought that this supervision of aeronautical education can better be done by placing it under the Administrator, if the Administrator would cooperate with all of the other educational agencies, rather than centering it in the Office of Education.

Colonel GORRELL. Yes, sir. There should be some one spot in Washington that would act as the spur and if the administration or the War Department has something to do they can take it to that one spot and, with its facilities, its skill, and knowledge it can spur the others on and use the others to accomplish the results desired.

AIRPORT ZONING

The next provision of the bill would insert in the Civil Aeronautics Act a new title III-A, providing for the regulation of ground hazards to aerial navigation. This proposal begins at page 13 of the bill. Mr. Chairman, we usually call this "zoning."

The proposal directs the Administrator of Civil Aeronautics to work out a program for the regulation of the height of structures in the vicinity of airports and in certain other places where the safety of aerial navigation might be impaired. This program, while it is to be in essence a Nation-wide program, is to be worked out and then executed in cooperation with the various State and local authorities. The bill wisely provides that the Administrator, before taking regulatory action himself, is to encourage in every way local treatment of the problem.

Where necessary, however, the Administrator is given power to prescribe areas in the vicinity of airports and to promulgate zoning regulations which will govern the height of structures which may be built within those areas subsequent to the promulgation of the regulations. Judicial review is provided and provision is also made for compensation in the event it becomes necessary to alter a structure which exists prior to the adoption of the regulations. Certain powers are conferred to require the alteration of structures not in the vicinity of airports but which exceed specified heights, where it is found that such structures are necessary to carry out the zoning program, and in those unusual cases compensation is likewise provided.

It should be understood, of course, that, as we have said, the proposal in the bill contemplates local initiative by the States or other appropriate local agencies. The power conferred upon the Admin