Senator GRISWOLD. I have a telegram just delivered, addressed to me as follows:

Regarding your hearing Wednesday morning, March 31, air transport division of Transport Workers Union, CIO, representing 15,000 mechanical and other airline employees, objects to words "or employed by a certificated repair station" presently contained in H. R. 7395 or S. 2815. Unless these words are deleted, bill would reduce safety standards required by present law by exempting persons employed by certificated repair stations to be in charge of inspection. Maintenance overhaul or repair of transport planes carrying the traveling public from necessity of passing CAA examinations and obtaining an airman certificate. This amendment would reduce present standards for mechanical repairs and unnecessarily increase the dangers of aviation to the public. Bill as it stands would also be discriminatory in that supervisory mechanical employee of airlines would be required to hold an airman's certificate while similar employees of certificated repair stations would not. We therefore urge that you oppose H. R. 7395 or S. 2815 unless the words certificated repair station are stricken from the bill. JAMES F. HORST, International Vice President and Director, Air Transport Division, TWU, 80-07.

We will enter that in the record and, in view of the fact that this protest has now been received, we might back up a little and if Senator Gurney wants to comment on this telegram in addition to his previous comments, we will be glad to hear from him.

(Telegram, dated March 31, 1954, from James F. Horst, is as follows:)

Hon. DWIGHT GRISWOLD,

WASHINGTON, D. C., March 30, 1954.

Senate Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee,

The Capitol, Washington, D. C.

Regarding your hearing Wednesday morning, March 31, air transport division of Transport Workers Union, CIO, representing 15,000 mechanical and other airline employees, objects to words "or employed by a certificated repair station" presently contained in H. R. 7395 or S. 2815. Unless these words are deleted bill would reduce safety standards required by present law by exempting persons employed by certificated repair stations to be in charge of inspection. Maintenance overhaul or repair of transport planes carrying the traveling public from necessity of passing CAA examinations and obtaining an airman certificate. This amendment would reduce present standards for mechanical repairs and unnecessarily increase the dangers of aviation to the public. Bill as it stands would also be discriminatory in that supervisory mechanical employees of airlines would be required to hold an airman's certificate while similar employees of certificated repair stations would not. We, therefore, urge that you oppose H. R. 7395 or S. 2815 unless the words "certificated repair station" are stricken from the bill. JAMES F. HORST,

International Vice President and Director, Air Transport Division, TWU, 80-07 Broadway, Elmhurst 73, N. Y.

Mr. GURNEY. No. 1, I am sure that the Board would all agree that if certificated repair stations were to come under the provisions of this act, making it permissive to certify the employer instead of all the employees, maintenance shops of the certificated airlines should have similar treatment.

As to the other phase of the matter, referred to in the telegram you have just read, the legislation is permissive and the Board would not exempt the individual employees if any showing was made that that would be bad for safety generally.

Senator GRISWOLD. You have no intention of using this permissive legislation to lower the standards?

Mr. GURNEY. I certainly would not. There would have to be complete justification under permissive language before we would in any way waive the present stringent requirements.

Senator GRISWOLD. Did you have any comment, Mr. Lee, regarding the telegram?

Mr. LEE. I have a general statement on the legislation, Mr. Chairman. On this particular message which has been received from the Transport Workers Union, I think some of those points are covered in our general statement.

Senator GRISWOLD. We will be glad to hear from you at this time. Mr. LEE. This legislation would amend the definition of "airman" as it appears in section 1 (6) of the Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938, as amended. That section defines the aeronautical activities for which inspection and certification by the Federal Government is required before a person may engage therein. Among other activities covered by this section is the trade of aviation mechanic. However, under the present language of this section the Civil Aeronautics Board may exempt from the requirement of certification certain aviation mechanics who are employed outside the United States. In the exercise of this authority, the Board, in part 52 of the civil air regulations (providing for certification of repair stations), has exempted persons employed by foreign repair stations from the requirement that such personnel be certificated as mechanics when employed and performing maintenance and repair of United States registered aircraft. This legislation would extend this permissive exemption authority to permit the Board, to the extent which it may provide by regulations in the future, to exempt domestic certificated repair stations and manufacturers from the requirement that repairs be supervised by certificated mechanics.

Today, aircraft have increased in mechanical complexity to such an extent that there has been a tendency for repair stations and individual mechanics as well, to become more specialized. The day of the aircraft and engine mechanic who knew all about everything with respect to all aircraft, has passed. In his place, there are a number of expert specialists in the fields of electronics and radio, carburetion, instruments, hydraulics, et cetera, who actually do the work and check out completed repairs at specialized repair stations. Since, under the present law, all such repairs must be accomplished under the supervision of a certificated mechanic, current practice permits repair stations to hire an A. and E. mechanic to sign out all repair work. In most instances, this mechanic not only has had no connection with the repair operation actually performed, but lacks the specialized skill to judge whether the job was done properly. The persons who actually performed or supervised the repairs, although experts in their particular field, for the most part did not have and did not require the general knowledge necessary to qualify for an A. and E. mechanic certificate. The proposed legislation would permit the Civil Aeronautics Board to approach this problem realistically, by relieving qualified repair stations from the necessity of having an A. and E. mechanic to sign. for completed work if the work does not in fact require it. Under such a system the repair station, as the only certificated agency involved, would be solely responsible to the CAA for the quality of work which it does. Any responsibility for poor quality of work could not be shifted to its employees, as tends to be the case where they, too,

are certificated. This element of increasing the responsibility of the repair stations for the quality of their work is one of the most important reasons for this legislation. A repair station with substantial investment in plant and good will would be more apt to exercise extreme caution to provide the type of services required to maintain its certificate than would individual certificated mechanics in its employ. Furthermore, from an administrative standpoint it is impossible, without employing a multitude of inspectors, to maintain proper supervision over a host of individual certificated repairmen. Instead, it is our intention to examine into the repair station organization and system used in their operations, making the management itself responsible for providing adequate repair facilities. In this connection, for example, the present Civil Air Regulations provide that persons directly in charge of maintenance and repair in repair stations have at least 18 months' practical experience in functions related to the work for which the particular repair station is rated. Since employee qualifications are cumulatively passed upon in connection with this Government certification and inspection program, it is unnecessary duplication to require in addition a check upon, and a certification of, the qualifications of the individual supervisory employees. Thus, the responsibility for providing adequate repair personnel and facilities is placed directly upon repair station management which will greatly facilitate the inspection and enforcement functions of the Civil Aeronautics Administration.

A similar situation exists in connection with repairs made at the factory which originally manufactured the aircraft. A certificated mechanic is now required to supervise repair of an aircraft by a manufacturer after production, but not required for work in connection with the original production of the aircraft. It should be obvious, however, that the manufacturer authorized to produce and market the aircraft under a production certificate should be competent to maintain quality control in rebuilding or repairing the same aircraft. Such firms have a greater interest in maintaining quality control to protect their good will and reputation than would an employee certificated mechanic.

Senator GRISWOLD. Thank you, Mr. Lee.

Senator SMATHERS. You are satisfied that by the adoption of this bill it would not result in less safety to the riding public in airplanes? Mr. LEE. Yes, sir; we are satisfied. In fact, we feel that it would ease the job of the Civil Aeronautics Administration in enforcing greater safety, seeing that we would have the management of each repair station to look to, to insure that qualified personnel are kept on the job at all times and that the work is kept up to standard.

This is in line with our desire to keep our activities in pace with the growth of aviation and that growth has involved such great complexity in the aircraft itself that they must have specialists who must know more about each plane and its components.

Senator GRISWOLD. You are certain that in actual operation in the field, the mechanic who checks the plane for the air pressure is usually a specialist in that field, but he may not have a certificate as an A. and E, mechanic?

Mr. LEE. That is correct.

Senator GRISWOLD. And then someone else checks the different things to do with the different kinds of instruments, but finally the approval, the written approval, is signed by the certificated airman?

Mr. LEE. At the present time, yes, sir, in domestic practice. Senator GRISWOLD. But many of the people who actually did the work are not certificated?

Mr. LEE. Yes, sir.

Senator GRISWOLD. And in actual practice there would be no change in the procedure if this bill is passed then, although actually happening at the present time. Someone overall would be held responsible, and under him would be specialists who did the repair work, each in their own field?

Mr. LEE. That is correct; yes, sir.

Senator GRISWOLD. And the opposition to the position, the permissive exemption of repair stations, as expressed by Mr. Horst, is, in your judgment, not justified? You do not feel it would make any difference? There would be someone still there over all in charge who would sign it out as being in good order just as they do at the present time?

Mr. LEE. Yes; I feel we would be able to concentrate responsibility more and we would expect to get a better operation. It would not affect the individuals adversely, we feel, within the repair station or employers' organization.

Senator GRISWOLD. Mr. Horst makes no protest on the exemption of the manufacturers, but only with respect to the repair stations. Mr. LEE. Yes, sir. In that respect, I would repeat that we feel that the individual technicians within the repair stations would not be adversely affected.

Senator SMATHERS. Do you know of any opposition to this proposed amendment here, any organized opposition?

Mr. LEE. This telegram is the first opposition that we have heard of it.

Senator SMATHERS. And, of course, they suggest an amendment. Senator PAYNE. I would like to ask this, Mr. Chairman: Mr. Lee, I wonder if you would comment as to why the certified carriers, airlines, could not be placed under this same status?

Mr. LEE. If I could, I would like to hear the nature of the amendment proposed by the Air Transport Association and then if we could have an opportunity to comment on that, I would appreciate it.

Senator PAYNE. Going back for a moment to the question Senator Smathers raised with reference to a definite plan of rotation, isn't it true that after all the performance of the inspector or agent, as you call him, in the history of the company to which he is assigned or the line to which he is assigned, determines to a very marked degree whether or not he is faithfully and conscientiously carrying out his duties in the interest of air safety?

Mr. LEE. Yes, sir.

Senator PAYNE. And if it were not true that it was good business to keep a person on a job a pretty reasonable period of time, then certainly major industries and business would be making continual changes in the auditors that they bring in to do the auditing work of their firms, because it is a well recognized fact that familiarity breeds contempt but, nevertheless, a man coming in and checking you over a period of time has learned to know the weaknesses of the company and is much more quickly apt to pick up the errors that do creep in because he knows by force of habit and personal observation exactly what trends that person may follow, and by constant observation he

46488-54

is in a better position to bring those corrective features into play that are desirable in seeing that the overall picture is carried out more satisfactorily.

Mr. LEE. Yes, sir; and I would like to say, to enlarge on one of those thoughts, Senator Payne, that we do evaluate the work of the agents associated with the airlines on a continuing basis and we feel that we can pick up any deficiencies.

Senator PAYNE. You have a pretty good chance to pick up the fellow who isn't doing his job conscientiously and there wouldn't be much question about his being rotated quickly.

Mr. LEE. Yes, sir.

Senator GRISWOLD. Do you have a right to rotate them clear out of their job if you feel they are not doing their job correctly? Mr. LEE. Yes, sir.

Senator GRISWOLD. Do you have a right to discharge them?

Mr. LEE. Yes, sir. We feel that if they are not doing their job, safety being something that requires a very high standard of performance, we want them that way. You have that same guaranty as you do in any malfeasance in any Federal job.

Senator SMATHERS. Do you see any great similarity, however, between a company hiring an accountant and paying for that accountant themselves and an accountant who is supposed to represent them as an individual company and not the general public or not the Federal Government? Do you see any similarity between a situation like that and a situation where you have an inspector who inspects two parties? He is responsible first to the general public, to three parties, actually. He represents the Civil Aeronautics Administration and then, in effect, he represents the airline. Do you believe there is any similarity between a company hiring an accountant who is to represent that company's business and to get the most favorable consideration that he can from the Bureau of Internal Revenue, we will say, and on the other hand is that similar to somebody hiring an internal revenue agent or a Civil Aeronautics Administration inspector where he is not to represent just the company but the public also?

Senator PAYNE. I would like to comment on this for a moment. If he is well aware of the type of code of ethics of the accounting field and of those who are certified accountants, he will know that they take a very definite pride in the type of work that they do and they are subject to removal in the failure of their ability to carry out their work in a competent manner, and there have been instances where that has happened. So that while they are hired by the person, that is true, nevertheless, a good firm of accountants will not in any way color or disguise or hide any facts that may result from the audit. itself because to do so and to reflect a condition that does not exist would automatically mean that they would be put right out of business. Senator SMATHERS. I recognize what the Senator is saying is absolutely correct. But on the other hand that is vastly different. I know many lawyers who operate exactly the same way. They wouldn't try to change the facts on anything. But when they are paid a fee to represent the interests of that particular company, they represent that particular viewpoint to the best of their ability. We have an entirely different situation here. We have a person working for the Federal Government who does not represent that company. He represents, on the contrary, the general public. If he continues to