establishment of such new routes for air-transportation services where applications therefor are not first filed by private individuals or companies, although the Board has power under the act to require amendments to certificates on its own initiative without application by the carrier, after notice and hearing. The word "amendment" is vague and carries with it a limited concept. Consequently it has been argued that the Act now appears to contemplate that the Board shall await the filing of applications in order to authorize any substantial new service. If the Board is to develop air transportation in such manner as to keep pace with the requirements of national defense and our general national interests it must be given the power to initiate proceedings upon its own initiative for the purpose of determining the particular routes not then in operation which should be established. Section 401 (n) of the act authorizes the Postmaster General to certify to the Board that new routes are required for the transportation of mail. Congress, therefore, has aleady decided that it is sound policy to provide for a power in the Government to initiate proceedings with respect to the establishment of new mail routes and the need is equally clear for such a power with respect to the establishing of all new routes.

C. ADDITIONAL SUGGESTIONS BY THE BOARD

Inasmuch as the bill before us is a rather comprehensive bill, the Board has under consideration now the possibility of making some additional recommendations for amendments over and above those listed in its annual report. In due course any comments that we have to make in this respect will be given to your committee along with our formal comments on the provisions of the bill which you have requested.

D. NATIONAL DEFENSE

In advance of the submission of our detailed comments on the bill I think it proper to say now that this bill represents an effort to provide answers to a number of problems of major importance to aviation. One very important provision in this bill deals with the enlarged concept of national defense, one of the standards under which the Board is to act, as set forth in sections 17 and 23 of the bill. These proposed amendments to the extent that they are directed toward the future role of air transportation as an auxiliary to the armed forces in time of national emergency deserve most careful consideration and will, of course, be dealt with when our formal comments are submitted to you.

I will also refer specifically today to the problems dealt with in this bill of (1) State regulation of aviation and Federal regulation of intrastate operations, (2) airport development, (3) airport zoning, (4) the regulation of air contractors, and (5) aviation education.

E. STATE REGULATION AND INTRASTATE OPERATIONS

From the beginning air carriers have formed systems of transportation traversing several States. There are few States, indeed, which cannot be crossed in 2 hours' flying time. The average pas

83838-43- -4

senger's trip by air carrier is nearly 400 miles in length, whereas the average rail passenger's trip is less than 50 miles in length. Large air liners now travel, as I have indicated, on the average over 1,600 miles per day. While railroads serving thousands of towns are heavily used for local passenger travel, air transportation up to now has been used predominantly by long-trip passengers. It is, of course, no new doctrine that interstate commerce may include activity which occurs wholly within a single State. American Airlines flies over 23 States, United Air Lines 15, Transcontinental & Western Air 14, and Eastern Air Lines 18. Picture the 23 States over which American flies each regulating local rates, each passing on the issuance of new securities, on mergers, consolidations, interlocking relationships, and each requiring the filing of extensive reports and information. Because of this national character of air transportation, the air-transport industry has from the beginning urged exclusive Federal control; and the Civil Aeronautics Act, molded by the needs of air transportation, has gone far to effect this purpose. It seems apparent that the law should continue to be molded in this direction. In the field of safety regulation, the Board's authority now extends to all operations in interstate commerce and to all operations which directly affect or which may endanger safety in interstate, overseas, or foreign air commerce. It is inevitable that this phraseology will receive a broad and liberal interpretation. This young and complicated industry has required, for safe operation, the establishment of extensive Federal standards and regulations. Everything about a flight in the air from 100 to 500 miles per hour must be better than passableit must be good. Whether we like it or not, we know that that result cannot be obtained without regulation. The pilot, the mechanic, the airplane, the rules of the air, and the controller of air traffic must each meet a high standard of safety. Flight is no exception to the old rule that a chain is no stronger than its weakest link. Here again, Federal uniformity of regulation is essential. Think of United Air Lines' pilots having to comply with safety rules changing 15 times going between New York and San Francisco during one night. It simply could not work-not with planes traveling 1,600 miles per day on the average. And it is not only air lines which must have uniform rules. Substantially every aircraft in the air "may endanger safety in interstate commerce." Any plane is capable of flying great distances, of flying on the Federal airways, of interfering with interstate flying in a hundred ways. The pilot of any plane is responsible not only for his own safety and that of his passengers, if any, but to a great extent for the safety of all planes passing nearby. Every commercial plane in the air is subject to whatever hazards may arise from the operation of all other planes in every locality through which it passes. Planes improperly equipped, maintained, or operated are all factors in the equation of air safety. A plane out of control for mechanical failure or lack of flying ability on the part of the pilot or a reckless pilot engaging in acrobatics is a source of danger to all flying operations in the vicinity.

It cannot be ascertained in advance which planes will be operated so close to commercial operations as to endanger those operations in case of mechanical failure, lack of flying ability, or irresponsible conduct. A graphic illustration of this general problem is found in a

recent case involving the safety provisions of the Civil Aeronautics Act, in which proceedings had been instituted by the Federal Government to impose a civil penalty for the operation by the defendant of an uncertificated aircraft on a civil airway (Rosenham v. United States, Circuit Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit, decided November 16, 1942). The defendant offered to prove that the aircraft was certificated as airworthy by the Utah State Aeronautics Commission, that the operations of the aircraft had been exclusively intrastate, and that its operation on the airway had been at a time when there was no interstate traffic in the vicinity which could be affected by defendant's flight. The United States district court, however, entered judgment against the defendant on the pleadings and this decision was upheld by the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, on the ground that he might endanger safety in air commerce and Congress had acted in that field and that that was a valid action.

From the standpoint of the number of accidents per plane_or passenger-mile, commercial air operations are not dangerous. The safety record is impressive. But air accidents when they do occur are often serious. Their virtual elimination is worth every effort. One irresponsible private pilot, one mechanically faulty private plane, one careless plane mechanic, may mean the crash of a commercial airliner. Fairly strict uniform safety regulation, covering the entire field of air activity, is, therefore, essential. Certainly the inherently national character of aviation will exert its influence in favor of practically complete Federal regulation. There can be no serious disagreement as to the desirability of uniform regulation, no difference of opinion in the desire to benefit aviation, and I think few, indeed, will doubt the constitutional authority of the Federal Government to meet the Nation's need in this new and important field.

F. THE DEVELOPMENT OF AIRPORTS

The problem of securing an adequate number of safe airports is an important part of the aviation picture. While jurisdiction in that field is largely vested in the Administrator of Civil Aeronautics, in view of the relation which airports bear to the economic development of air transportation, it is appropriate for me to comment on the subject in a general way.

Highways were indispensable to the entire development of the automobile industry, and without them we would not have secured the economic and social benefits flowing from the use of the automobile. The airport bears an analogous relationship to aviation. Both the needs and specific methods of meeting them are difficult to foresee. We are accustomed to thinking of one airport or two or three for locality, but the capacity of airports is definitely limited. As there are many roads for every locality, there must be, and will be, I prophesy, many airports, probably different ones for different types of operations. Landing fields, far removed from the centers of cities, cause delay in a mode of travel where speed is of the essence. Overhead landing platforms in the hearts of cities may be the answer here. Landing strips at factory sites for air cargo seems probable. Landing fields for suburbs, special fields for special types of institutions and organizations, both public and private, may well develop.

G. AIRPORT ZONING

Another airport problem which thus far has rested for solution with the States is that of assuring that aerial approaches to airports shall be safe and free from obstructions. A related problem is that of assuring that airports will not be abated as nuisances at the suit of surrounding property owners, which has occurred in isolated cases. Our most careful plans for the development of aviation can be frustrated if appropriate provision is not made to secure maximum safety and utility in operation at airports. The factors which I have previously outlined as a basis for Federal safety regulation of all flying appear to require that careful study be given to the feasibility of providing the Federal action necessary to insure uniform and reasonable regulation of structures and objects adjacent to airports.

H. NON-COMMON-CARRIER OPERATIONS

The prospect, to which I have previously referred, of thousands of young men, trained in some phase of aviation, returning to civil life at the close of the war has its own. special problem. We all recall the so-called "barnstorming" days of aviation which followed World War I. We may well expect a somewhat similar tendency at the close of the present war, which will be accentuated by the large number of aircraft now used for military purposes, but available for conversion to peacetime uses after the war. Due to the more mature stage of aviation now, however, it can be expected that the development will not be simply along the lines of sightseeing flights or similar operations, but that many of these individuals, to the extent that they are not absorbed into the organizations of the regular airlines, will seek to engage in the carriage of passengers and cargo for hire. The problem will not be simply one of safety, but could be a substantial economic one. Inasmuch as there is no existing provision in the Civil Aeronautics Act for the economic regualtion of persons operating by air who do not operate as common carriers, some measures of economic control over non-common-carrier operations may be necessary to avoid chaotic conditions in the industry. And I notice in that connection an important provision in your bill. We commented upon the needed regulation in this field in our annual report.

I. AVIATION EDUCATION

Aviation's future role requires that we give the most careful attention to aviation education-this again is in the Administrator's field, but it is so important that I feel justified in commenting upon it briefly. The youth of the Nation, as its future leaders, must be prepared to utilize this new economic and political force. The Civil Aeronautics Administration has already embarked on a program of training in schools and colleges in the technical phases of aviation. Courses in the economics of air transportation are attracting increasing interest in colleges. Every effort it seems to me should be made to devise a program to foster this phase of aviation's future.

IX. CONCLUSION

The war has demonstrated, if the proposition needed proof, that it is of profound importance to the future of the Nation and the world that with respect to aviation the Congress legislate wisely, and the executive agencies vested with jurisdiction administer the laws with care and understanding. The law, particularly that embodied in regulatory statutes, may well determine the degree of our success in achieving the maximum use of aviation's possibilities.

I think, Mr. Chairman, that completes the general statement I had to offer. I will be delighted to endeavor to answer any questions. If I do not have the answers, I will try to get them.

The CHAIRMAN. We will now adjourn until tomorrow at 10 a. m. Mr. BOREN. Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Boren.

Mr. BOREN. Will you permit me to make one suggestion before we adjourn?

The CHAIRMAN. Certainly.

Mr. BOREN. It has occurred to me that it would be of interest to this committee if we had a graph as a part of your statement, showing the air accidents, as related to air passenger-miles, or man-miles, or whatever you may call it, having that graph drawn, if possible, to indicate not only the accidents which have occurred since the enactment of this law, but perhaps going back somewhat behind that.

Mr. POGUE. I would be glad to have that prepared.

(The material referred to appears at the end of today's hearing.) Mr. BOREN. Is that agreeable?

The CHAIRMAN. Following witnesses who are to appear here we will go into a more detailed discussion of these matters, including the proposed changes in the law. So, we will have a more detailed discussion of all of these proposals that are included in the bill, and suggestions that may be made for legislation, and also covering the safety problems and whatever other problems that are involved.

Mr. BOREN. I thought that that might be of interest.
The CHAIRMAN. That is all right.

Mr. WOLVERTON. Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Wolverton.

Mr. WOLVERTON. Mr. Pogue, I think it would be helpful at the conclusion of this statement which you have given and which I may say is a very complete and informative statement, to have set forth the different departments or bureaus, or divisions that come under the agency, together with the number of persons engaged in each, who is at the head, and the general scope of their work, so that we may have a short résumé of just what the Civil Aeronautics Board does and by what means it accomplishes its purposes.

Mr. POGUE. I shall be glad to supply that.

(The material referred to appears at the end of today's hearing.) The CHAIRMAN. The committee will adjourn until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning.

(Thereupon, at 11:50 a. m., the committee adjourned to meet at 10 a. m. the following day, Wednesday, February 3, 1943.)