istrator is really in the nature of a limited and more or less last resort power. The objective is to achieve Nation-wide action with reasonably uniform conditions in order that the approaches to airports can be so protected as to make airports reasonably safe not only for civil air commerce but also for the military air service.

The matter of airport zoning is one which has been generally discussed for a great many years. The need for taking constructive action has been forcefully brought out by the very excellent analysis of the problem contained in the recent report of the House Select Committee to Investigate Air Accidents. See pages 40 and 44 of House Report No. 1, Seventy-eighth Congress. Among other things that committee states:

The sound development of commercial aviation necessitates the building and maintenance of many airports throughout our country. We believe that such airports should be protected by a Federal zoning law.

The evolution of thinking on this subject is of interest.

It will be recalled that in 1934 this committee made certain proposals leading to an amendment of the Air Commerce Act of 1926 so as to provide that persons owning structures of various kinds. should be required to maintain signals on such structures at their own expense for the protection of air navigation under regulations of the Secretary of Commerce. That provision appeared as section 5 (g) of the Air Commerce Act, as amended. As originally drawn, the provision was open to the interpretation that it applied to bridges and other similar structures whether or not they were built over navigable waters, but by interpretation it appears that the section was finally generally regarded as being limited to bridges and similar structures over navigable waters. The provision was eliminated by section 1107 of the Civil Aeronautics Act, presumably because it had failed to accomplish any very constructive purpose.

The committee will recall that during the consideration of the civil aeronautics bill there were several proposals for requiring the marking of structures without regard to their location on navigable waters. And there was considerable discussion both before your committee and in the Senate concerning the desirability for taking some constructive steps toward solving the problem of protecting airport approaches. However, the action finally taken was simply to give to the Civil Aeronautics Authority power to require the giving of proper notice of structures which might affect safety in the air commerce. That provision will be found in section 1101 of the Civil Aeronautics Act.

Then in the airport survey made by the Civil Aeronautics Authority, as called for in the Civil Aeronautics Act, the Authority touched on a related question. Its airport survey appears as House Document No. 245, Seventy-sixth Congress, dated March 24, 1939. In that survey the Authority points out in a very interesting review, at Pages XVIII of the summary at the beginning of its report, that airports serve not only a local but a very vital national interest, providing as they do the means for miscellaneous and commercial operations and auxiliary bases for military aircraft and intermediate servicing points for such aircraft. Then, recognizing that an airport is of no use unless it can be safely reached, the Authority included among its recommendations, see page 150 of the report, a proposal that, in determining whether

Federal funds should be spent on a given airport, there should be taken into account the question of the policy adopted by local authorities in protecting the approaches to airports.

There has been continued discussion and thought given to the question in the last several years, and the Administrator of Civil Aeronautics has proposed to the States two uniform laws, embodying slightly different theories, which would provide for airport zoning. These laws were proposed by the Administrator early in 1941, and reflected a considerable amount of study which had been made by a number of interested groups.

While certain legislative steps have been taken by States and municipalities looking to the protection of airport approaches, these steps remain seriously inadequate, are quite limited in number, and do not follow a uniform pattern. We are advised by the Civil Aeronautics Administration that there are only seven States which have airport zoning legislation of any real consequence; and even among these seven States there is considerable variation in the legislation. In the meantime, the need for such zoning has grown tremendously and the report of the House select committee cannot be read without realizing how vital it is that some steps be taken before it is too late. An especially significant passage from the committee's very compelling treatment of this subject is as follows:

The location, ownership and operation of airports constitute serious problems affecting the safety of interstate air commerce. At this time the Federal Government has no jurisdiction to zone the approaches to airports owned and operated by municipilities, counties, or States. It is perfectly possible that a structure could, under existing laws, be erected at any time within from 1 to 3 miles of many such airports, which would impair or destroy their usefulness in interstate commerce and render valueless the investment of millions of dollars in runways and improvements by municipalities and the Federal Government. (H. Rep. #1, 78th Cong., p. 40).

The fact of the matter is that a surprising percentage of aircraft accidents occur upon the approach to an airport. Again, a reference to the select committee's review of recent accidents will bring out that point quite forcefully. And it is doubtless the case that in certain instances, even where the accident may not have resulted directly from encountering an obstruction, the existence of obstructions caused the pilot to make some false step leading to disaster.

Moreover, it is unfortunately true, as this committee will recall from the discussions before it in 1938, that serious obstructions have been placed in the approach paths literally overnight, which inevitably have caused the loss of life.

And unfortunately there are a number of instances which have occurred within recent experience where, for no apparent reason other than pure spite or a desire to drive an unconscionable bargain, obstructions such a chimneys, poles, and so forth, have either been erected or have been left standing despite the fact that they have not been used, in circumstances creating serious hazards. Indeed, there are instances where trees have been deliberately planted and grown directly in the approach paths.

Mr. Chairman, may I give two or three illustrations of what I have in mind?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Colonel GORRELL. Before doing so, may I also say that within a few days after Pearl Harbor our military forces moved in on more than 100 of the Nation's airports, which had been built in the past and which people thought had been constructed for commercial

reasons.

The military moved in and air traffic that interfered with the military had to move out.

power

To give you a few illustrations: The most outstanding accident and illustration of the lack of proper zoning of airports is one which occurred to the Eastern Airlines. You will remember that the company erected a line at the southern edge of the Daytona Airport in the dark, one night, without giving notice to anyone and an Eastern Airlines plane later took off in the way which had been safe for a long time. Eastern Airlines had flown for 10 or 12 years without a fatal accident. That airplane collided with the power line which had been erected without notice and the crew and a couple of passengers were killed.

You provided in the Civil Aeronautics Act that in the future notice had to be given."

At another city, a property owner erected two 50-foot poles on top of her house. These poles were unlighted and extended 15 feet above the obstruction lights at the boundary of the airport. As a result the air line was required in the interest of safety to pass up this city with mail and passengers and cargo until the situation was cured. The property owner did this after losing a suit for damages against the city and the air lines in the district court. There are no laws of the city, county or State at that spot to handle such a situation.

In another city, 1 mile north of the airport, there is a stack 348 feet high. The city has tried for several years to have this lowered or at least to have it marked with a red light, but has been without success so far.

In another city a pole 35 feet high, an unlighted pole, was erected by a telephone company 1,700 feet from the south boundary of the airport. This pole was on the direct approach and take-off from the airport. Nothing could be done and nothing has been done about getting this pole lighted or placed in another spot.

Another instance

The CHAIRMAN. In that connection, was the pole placed there before or after the airfield was established?

Colonel GORRELL. After the air field and after the runways had been built. The pole could have been moved right or left or at least a few feet of wire could have been put under ground.

In another city there is a gas tank about 2 miles from the airport. That gas tank is repainted every 5 years. The people who own the gas tank have just recently repainted it and spent $18,000 to do so, yet it has been painted in a way that does not help the pilots properly to see it.

Were there some method of handling this situation the rules and regulations might possibly specify the color of the paint or some other marking to help the pilots avoid the object.

Mr. HINSHAW. That is the Chicago Airport?
Colonel GORRELL. It is.

Mr. HINSHAW. Would the gentleman explain that that tank extend into the overcast, when the overcast is down to minimum, and that it is absolutely impossible for any pilot to see it until he first comes out under the overcast.

Colonel GORRELL. For that reason, when the overcast gets that low we now have to cancel out. When we have instrument landing devices, that tank will be a hazard. That is a hazard, adjacent to one of the most important airports in the United States, and as I understand it, it is largely the fear the pilots have of closing in in the vicinity that has kept them clear of the tank, and thus aided them. `in avoiding accidents. Some military pilot coming in there who does not know about that hazard may very easily run right into it. That could happen to military pilots or private flyers who are not in and out of that port frequently.

Mr. HINSHAW. If he did hit that tank, and his ship as a result of the impact burst into flames, it would be a disaster of untold proportions, because it is an enormous gas tank and the explosion would be terrific.

Colonel GORRELL. But it seems ridiculous that nobody can tell those people how they should mark it, or what color paint they should use when they have to paint it.

Mr. WINTER. Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Winter.

Mr. WINTER. In this particular case, was this gas tank there before the construction of the airport?

Colonel GORRELL. That particular tank was; yes, sir.

Mr. HOLMES. That is a municipal gas plant, is it not.

Mr. HINSHAW. No; I do not think so. I think it is the People's Gas Light & Coke Co., of Chicago.

Mr. HOLMES. Natural gas.

Mr. HINSHAW. Mr. Holmes, the tank is a great high thing. It runs away up in the air.

Mr. HOLMES. I have seen it.

Mr. HINSHAW. The capacity could be just as well contained for its purposes, and the use of the people of Chicago, by several lower tanks or a much broader tank, but this is a great big tall cylinder that rises up how many feet-550 feet?

Colonel GORRELL. 502 feet.

Mr. HINSHAW. 502 feet in the air.

Colonel GORRELL. And 283 feet in diameter.

Mr. HINSHAW. And it is not very far away from the field.

Colonel GORRELL. Two miles, sir.

Mr. SADOWSKI, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Sadowski.

Mr. SADOWSKI. In Detroit we have a similar situation, and I believe that that one is pretty well marked.

Colonel GORRELL. That is pretty well marked, sir, and very well known.

Mr. O'HARA. Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. O'Hara.

Mr. O'HARA. Colonel, I am quite interested in your proposition of zoning and, of course, the statements relative to these approaches to these airports, but where you have a situation where structures have

been in existence for some time before the existence of the airport, there certainly must be some procedure for protection of these property owners who might be put in the position where their structure might have to be removed for the airport to be protected. I do not see anything in the language of this statute, but it may be in there, Mr. Chairman; but I certainly think that simply because the airport comes along now and has a hazard to deal with, justice would require the insertion of the proper safeguards for protection of property

owners.

Colonel GORRELL. The proposal in the bill before you takes all those phases into consideration, does not attempt to act arbitrarily, and in all cases compensation is provided in case the Government does have

to act.

Mr. O'HARA. By whom, the Government?

Colonel GORRELL. Compensation by the Government, in accordance with the language before you.

Mr. HINSHAW. Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Hinshaw.

Mr. HINSHAW. In addition to the hazards which can be built off an airport, there is also a very important subject in the construction of hazards on the airport by municipalities. For example, hazards constructed by or through a municipality which may own the ground on which the airport stands.

I have in mind, for example, the municipal airport in St. Louis, Mo., in which, as I remember, 30-odd acres were allocated or assigned, or leased to the Curtiss-Wright Corporation for the construction of a factory on the airport ground itself. Now, the Federal Government has made large contributions, as I understand it, toward supplying the facilities on that airport and yet the city of St. Louis can go out and sell these sites, or lease them, or what not, these acreages, which crowd that airport and make it of much less value as an airport than it was before the Government installed the facilities.

Now, if the Government, the Federal Government, is to contribute to the improvement of airports, owned by municipalities, counties, or States, or whatever it may be, then certainly some check must be had against the rendering unsafe for flight of such airports. Is that not correct?

Colonel GORRELL. Perfectly so, sir.

Mr. HINSHAW. I do not see that that is anywhere included in this bill, but I think it is important.

Colonel GORRELL. You have a section in the Civil Aeronautics Act where the Administrator is required to use his judgment in allocating Government funds under conditions such as you mention.

Mr. HINSHAW. Yes, but I am speaking of airports which have already had funds allocated to them and improvements have already been made and then the municipality comes along and crowds the airport space by leasing airport space that supposedly was in the clear before the installation was made by the Federal Government; and now thereafter becomes crowded with buildings or hangars, or whatever it may be, from which the municipality may obtain some revenue. Colonel GORRELL. I would presume, sir, that the bill would contemplate that its provisions take care of things around the airport and also things on the airport, because in one paragraph it is contemplated