« PreviousContinue »
Mr. Fagg. That was one-fifth of what the men in the field think we need.
Mr. TARVER. Has the Executive order been modified with reference to departmental officials suggesting increases over the Budget submitted to the committee, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. MCMILLAN. I think not.
Amendment 39 is a matter concerning which the Senate cut out some of the House language. Have you any comment on that amendment, Mr. Fagg?
Mr. Fagg. No, sir.
AIRCRAFT IN COMMERCE
Mr. McMillax. In amendment 40, what is the effect of that language?
Mír. Fagg. That is consistent with our recommendation to the Senate committee, a little less than what was requested.
Mr. TARVER. is that all of the explanation you offer for an increase of over $700,000, or practically doubling the amount on this item?
Mr. Fagg. I thought that you believed it inappropriate for me to develop that presentation.
Mr. TARVER. I think it is very appropriate for you to develop the facts which you think justify this item, which involves the doubling of an appropriation made by the House.
Mr. Facci. I will attempt to do that. This appropriation covers four types of activity which we have. First, we have three types of inspection service. The "general" inspection service is established for all of the aircraft in the United States that move in interstate commerce other than scheduled airline craft. There are at the present time nearly 10,000 aircraft within the United States. Of those, about 600 only are used in scheduled operation. Therefore, for the rest of the aircraft (with over 80 percent of all of the aircraft in the United States being required by State law to have a Federal license) our inspectors of personnel, consisting of some 60 people, are responsible for the licensing of those airplanes, and of all of the pilots that operate those airplanes, are responsible for the condition of the aircraft motors, for the licensing or rating of all air schools in the country, for navigation lights, intermediate fields, and so forth. All of this general inspection work is done by a very limited personnel. Is Colonel Johnson has said, in 1932, it was then thought to be necessary to have 125 inspectors to carry on the work that had to be done and, with over a 300-percent incre:ise in volume of work, we have less than half that inspector force at the present time. We introduced into the record letters from individuals stating the period of weeks it had been since a Federal inspector liad been on the field.
Dr. VicMillan. Does that testimony appear in the Senate hearings?
VIr. Fagg. Not that testimony, but this record bere showing the facts involved, which they allowed us to introduce into the record in the Senate
A few weeks ago I went to New York to help dedicate Floyd Bennett Field, and was told that a Department of Commerce inspector, at that ciiss 1 vielu, had not been there for 6 weeks, and it was not known when he could get there. One of our inspectors wore himself out because of the overwork and developed tuberculosis; one lost his
license from overwork because his eyesight had been impaired so that we could not use him. Many of our field men work over 11 hours a day to do the routine job. We are losing good men constantly to the oil companies and to the air companies regularly.
So our position is either that we should definitely provide the increase necessary to do that work, or else the United States Government might just as well turn it back to the States and admit that we cannot do it.
Mr. TARVER. Do you have a system of charging fees for that inspection, and so forth, so as to enable those who get the benefit of these acts or operations on the part of the Bureau to pay the cost?
Mr. Fagg. That could be done. It is done in some States, but it would not contribute anything toward the promotion of aeronautics. There are already so many charges placed on aviation that, if we are definitely in the field of promoting, that is just one service which we should continue to render.
Secondly, we have the air-line inspection service, with only eight inspectors for all the country. Thirdly, our traffic control has just been set up, and we established eight stations and we probably should double that number in the country for safe operation.
There is no one in the United States, other than our Bureau, to handle the flow of air traffic in the country. If there is no supervision of that, we simply are having a set of aerial highways without any control agencies whatsoever.
Mr. TARVER. $740,000 would pay for a large number of inspectors?
Mr. Fagg. Not with the equipment that they will need. We asked for a little over a million dollars in our request to the Budget on that.
Mr. McMillan. You have how many inspectors now?
Mr. McMillan. How many inspectors of all classes do you conservatively feel the Bureau needs in order to properly carry out the purposes provided for by law?
Mr. Fagg. We need at least double that number, conservatively.
Mr. McMILLAN. And this item here that was passed by the Senate, if allowed, would enable you, to some extent, to take care of that condition?
Mr. Fagg. To do that job.
Mr. McMILLAN. Now, amendment 41 is next, and we will not bother you to take that up, because that is clearly a matter for the Congress to handle.
SAFETY AND PLANNING
In amendment 42 there is apparently some new language carried in the bill, and $400,000 appropriated for that purpose, and I understand that there was no estimate submitted by the Bureau of the Budget on that. Is that correct?
Mr. Fagg. Not quite, but for which no specific appropriation was made. In order to explain the way in which that came about, may I refer you back to the appropriation for the establishment of air navigation facilities?
In connection with our original presentation to the Bureau of the Budget, covering the item "Establishment of air navigation facilities," the Bureau of the Budget set up some $165,000. The House gave us $50,000, and carried it over, and may I say for Mr. Tarver's benefit that the Senate, by way of compromise, took $100,000 that they originally allowed us in addition to this $700,000 under "Aircraft in commerce,”—they took that from that amount and put it over under “Safety and planning” to get it in one place, and then added $135,000 in addition
Mr. MCMILLAN. It is a transfer of funds from one item to another!
Mr. Fagg. It is $135,000 over the $100,000 we took from "Aircraft in commerce", plus the $165,000 which the Budget allowed us for radio aids.
Mr. Tarver. It is $400,000 over the appropriation for this purpose in House bill?
Mr. Fagg. $350,000 over that amount, as the House allowed $50,000 in the paragraph for “Establishment of air navigation facilities”, which could be used for this purpose. I might say that we are hazarding a great deal to present it this way, but we feel that this money should be definitely earmarked for the job.
Mr. TARVER. These other tiems, with reference to the amounts for the expense of packing, crating, transporting household effects, and so forth, all seem to me to be incidental matters.
Mr. McMillan. Yes. I do not think, Mr. Fagg, that it is worth your while to go into those matters.
Now, Mr. Fagg, I think that it would be well, however, for you to insert in the record a break-down showing how you do expect to expend this $400,000, if it is allowed, under this new proposal of the Senate's.
Mr. Fagg. Yes, sir.
The major function of the Safety and Planning Division will be to study the trend and development of aviation and to coordinate the activities and long-range plans for the Bureau's work in harmony with the trend and progress of aviation. There is a very definite need for this type of service and it is not directly or intimately related to any one of our existing appropriations but it does have a direct bearing upon the functions covered by all of them. It is planned that the division will be adequately manned by persons well equipped by training and experience to devote their entire time to thoughtful planning for future Bureau activities and policies.
In compliance with your request I submit for the record the following detailed break-down of the item of $400,000 for safety and planning: Development of air navigation aids..
$55, 200 Traffic control studies..
7, 900 Pilot and passenger fatigue studies.
33, 320 Cost studies (relation between financial condition of operating com
panies and safety). Aircraft (.studies looking to improvement of safety factors)
116, 180 Aircraft power plants and accessories (studies looking to improvement of safety factors).
106, 540 Flight testing in connection with study of safety factors
Lighter-than-air aircraft (studies of safety factors and commercial possibilities)
$9, 420 International developments (studies to protect American interests in the international field).
14, 420 Educational (national program of educational work in schools to further the development of safety factor in flying training)
8, 420 Total.
400, 000 Mr. McMILLAN. Mr. Fagg, this is the first chance we have had to meet you, and we expect to be able to meet you again from time to time.
Mr. Fag. Thank you.