Mr. WILSON. No. I could bring testimony here to the effect that there are lads who have got to fly, through some carelessness, but I do not want to bring up individual things, because I do not think they have a bearing on this subject.

I think, by and large, that the physical requirements, the aircraft worthiness certificates are two very constructive things.

We must watch this, however. As certain developments like heliocopters, and developments of that kind come in, it is going to be possible for individuals with restricted physical abilities to participate in flight. That will have to be made possible, but so far as the authority to do it, Mr. Lea, I think definitely it should belong to the Federal Govern

ment.

The CHAIRMAN. I presume you have not know any instances in which the Federal regulations have interfered with experimental efforts, have you, in any substantial character?

Mr. WILSON. Oh, yes; but in the over-all picture; no. Oftentimes you hear about a bunch of boys building a glider, or an airplane. They want to go out and participate. Once maybe out of a few hundred times they have something; but in the great proportion of times they would kill themselves.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; but I do not know that I understood your answer. Do you thing that the Federal regulations have interfered with experimentation and development?

Mr. WILSON. Oh, yes; but I do not say unconstructively.

Mr. O'HARA. Pardon me. I did not understand you.

Mr. WILSON. Unconstructively.

Mr. O'HARA. Had you concluded?

The CHAIRMAN. I was going to ask another question.

Mr. O'HARA. Pardon me; go ahead.

Mr. BULWINKLE. But the regulation has been constructive interference, you say?

Mr. WILSON. So far as the aircraft airworthiness certificate is concerned; yes.

The CHAIRMAN. That is, you have not known of any case where substantial retardation of experimentation has occurred on account of it?

Mr. WILSON. I do not think there has been substantial retardation of air progress, Mr. Lea. That there has been retarding of experiment, there is no shadow of a doubt; but that retarding may have been constructive; it may have saved a good many boys' lives. I have no quarrel with that.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. When you go into the air lanes, I take it, so far as the air lanes are concerned, you take the view that the Federal Government should have complete jurisdiction?

Mr. WILSON. I certainly do.

The CHAIRMAN. Over the airplanes and the air lanes, whether it is Army, or private fliers, or commercial liners, that they should comply with the rules of the road?

Mr. WILSON. Absolutely.

The CHAIRMAN. I take it that that is elementary.

Mr. WILSON. That is right.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, when you get off the main lines-I take it

that in the future we are going to have a lot of flying off the lines.

Mr. WILSON. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there not going to be the same necessity from the standpoint of safety, of having uniform regulation in off-line flying?

Mr. WILSON. That is right.

The CHAIRMAN. So you do not hesitate about that?

Mr. WILSON. Not at all.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, as to the demand of what kind of an airport you are going to have, I suppose you would not find any fault with the proposition that we must have classifications of airports according to the length of the runways, and so forth?

Mr. WILSON. Yes, sir; definitely, I would find fault with that. The CHAIRMAN. You are willing to leave that to the Federal Government, I take it?

Mr. WILSON. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, now

Mr. WILSON. So far as interstate commerce is concerned, Mr. Lea, I would leave that classification with the Federal Government. The CHAIRMAN. But, having in mind the close relation of all flying in interstate commerce, is it not desirable to have a uniform understanding throughout the country about what an airport is?

Mr. WILSON. I do not think so.

The CHAIRMAN. Suppose you have 48 States, or a large number of them, defining what airport A means, and the Government says that airport A means something else?

Mr. WILSON. Why, we never say what an airport means. We build it. It is in a locality for operation of certain types of airplanes. If an airplane is too fast, or too big, or too heavy, and comes along and looks that over and does not have brains enough to stay away from it, he can crack up on it. In the beginning a great many people said that would not work, but gentlemen, it has worked perfectly.

The CHAIRMAN. Of course, if you have local fliers who are familiar with it, that is all right. Suppose a cross-country flier comes in Mr. WILSON. That is right.

The CHAIRMAN. He has a book of information and it says here is a certain place in New Jersey where you have got an airport A, or airport 5. Well, naturally he says, "What does that mean?" If under the Federal Government classification or regulation it means one thing and under the State it means another, would it not be far better to have the same classification apply all over the country so that the flier would not have to be looking up the history of each airport before he went into it?

Mr. WILSON. I think that is true, so far as interstate commerce is concerned; but I do not believe I could ever get the Federal Government to go along with some of the airports I have got up there, yet go and look there at their safety registers.

The CHAIRMAN. Of course, you might need some additional classifications, possibly.

Mr. WILSON. I think your classification, so far as the Federal Government goes, on the airways, or in interstate commerce, or in the military establishment-the military establishment of course sets up their own airport classifications-is fine; but as to Bill Smith who has a sheep ranch in Wyoming and wants to fly off the south meadow or the north meadow, I do not think it is anybody's business where he

flies off of if he flies compatible with the safety of the rest of the people.

The CHAIRMAN. That is assuming that the public does not use that airport.

Mr. WILSON. That is correct.

The CHAIRMAN. Of course, that is a different case. What I had reference to is a port used more or less by the public. It would not make any difference, probably, in that particular case about the airport, because one man uses his own airport; but as soon as he gets into the air; as soon as he goes off some place where he wants to land, it seems to me that it is very desirable that we have a classification of airports so that he will know what he is going into.

Mr. WILSON. In interstate commerce I would agree with that; but I would not want to otherwise. The point is, when you get into the air you are on your own responsibility, and that job of setting your airplane down is yours. Nobody can do your thinking for you; nobody can do more than tell you how much airport is there. You have a look at it and make your own decision. What is an adequate airport for one person is an inadequate airport for another. And I firmly believe that the American pilot, as I have seen him, over a quarter of a century, can be trusted to use his judgment, and I am against the Federal regulation of airports not in use in interstate commerce or airports off of airways.

I think every State has its own self-interest in that regard.

The CHAIRMAN. But as soon as he gets into the air he is a possible menace to the other fellows, the other planes coming in.

Mr. WILSON. That is a part of the truth. It is easy enough to say that any airplane that goes into the air is a menace to anybody else. Certainly any ship that starts across the Atlantic Ocean may be a menace to any other ship. A fishing boat 20 feet long may put out at Atlantic City, and you can say it is a potential menace to a submarine but, actually and practically, it has not worked out that way. The CHAIRMAN. They all have to follow the rules of the sea, though insofar as safety is concerned.

Mr. WILSON. This little fellow does not follow any rules of the sea. He goes out there and fishes, sits around all day. The rules of the sea-surely-but, they are not particularly applicable to him, and the lad who is flying off of a little landing field out in some area off of an airway is not, practically, a hazard to a flier in interstate commerce, or a military operation.

Mr. BECKWORTH. May I ask a question right there, Mr. Chairman? Mr. BULWINKLE. Yes, Mr. Beckworth.

Mr. BECKWORTH. Mr. Wilson, you just stated that so far the little man who takes off has not been a menace to any one. Naturally we have heard-and that has been a thing that has been talked about here in Congress for the last several weeks-about the great expansion of aviation and the fact that there is likely to be many, many, many more planes, private and commercial after the war.

Mr. WILSON. We hope so.

Mr. BECKWORTH. Do you think that possibly because of the multiplicity of planes in the future that planes taking off might be a menace to the many other planes?

Mr. WILSON. We have not reached the saturation point on the highways and they are ribbons 30 or 40 feet wide. I see no reason why

we should ever reach the saturation point in the skies, if the Federal Government has uniform, reasonable regulations for flying.

Mr. BECKWORTH. Before I conclude I will not take but just a moment-do you think it is advisable for Federal regulations to be applicable with respect to all airports that occasionally accommodate military planes or planes that carry the mail?

Mr. WILSON. No. I did not exactly get that question.

Mr. BECKWORTH. All right. You have an airport out here that occasionally accommodates a military plane, or a plane carrying the mail.

Mr. WILSON. Yes, sir.

Mr. BECKWORTH. Do you think that Federal regulations should be made applicable to all of those airports?

Mr. WILSON. No.

Mr. BECKWORTH. You do not?

Mr. WILSON. No, sir. The chap who set that airport up had 40 acres to work on and had no more. He set an airport up for certain classes of operations, then I think it is the responsibility of the ship which comes in and uses it rather than the responsibility of the Federal Government or the responsibility of the owner.

Mr. BECKWORTH. Even if the War Department, we will say, decides that occasionally as an auxiliary port it is going to use a given port? Mr. WILSON. Yes.

Mr. BECK WORTH. Do you think that the Federal Government should not have complete authority with reference to the regulation of that airport?

Mr. WILSON. If that airport is going to be used in interstate commerce, surely.

Mr. BECKWORTH. I am talking about military planes, or a plane that carries the mail.

Mr. WILSON. If the Federal Government wants to say, "We want to use this airport, but the airport is 300 feet too short," and wants to purchase the airport or pay for the improvement, and it is agreeable to the owner; yes.

Mr. BECKWORTH. Now, then, after the Federal Government had done that, you would permit the Federal Government's regulations to be applicable there?

Mr. WILSON. That is right, if the owner of the airport has agreed that his airport shall be in that category.

Mr. BECKWORTH. That is all.

Mr. WOLVERTON. Mr. Chairman, before the witness leaves, I would like to make a suggestion to him, and I think it is in accord with the views of the committee. I would like you to feel free, Mr. Wilson, to prepare, if on further thought you would care to do so, a statement that would show the particular provisions of the bill to which you object or that, in your opinion, should be eliminated or should be modified in language, suggesting such change of language as you might wish.

In other words, I appreciate the desire that you have to provide the best possible aviation legislation that can be obtained, and I hope you likewise have the feeling that the committee is anxious to do the same thing, and we are, therefore, very anxious to have the benefit of your best though and that of your organization, in the drawing of this bill.

Mr. WILSON. I will be very glad to do that, Mr. Wolverton.

I thank you gentlemen for the opportunity of appearing before

you.

Mr. BULWINKLE. We thank you, Mr. Wilson.

The committee will stand adjourned until next Wednesday. There is another hearing on Tuesday.

On next Wednesday we will hear Mr. Benton. We have promised to hear him on two other occasions, but the time has been taken up with other witnesses.

Mr. BENTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. The subcommittee will stand adjourned.

(Thereupon, at 11:40 a. m., the subcommittee adjourned to meet at 10 a. m., Wednesday, March 17, 1943.)

BRIEF SUBMITTED TO THE INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE COMMITTEE OF THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF KEPRESENTATIVES

BY

GILL ROBB WILSON

PRESIDENT

NATIONAL AERONAUTIC ASSOCIATION

The object of aviation legislation is to project on the skies of the Nation the same balance of individual freedom and collective responsibility as characterizes our philosophy of government. Aviation is a subject of as infinite breadth as is the medium in which it operates. By its inherent nature, aviation lends itself to the widest range of utilities, although this is seldom recognized because of the emphasis placed on its more spectacular features. Because of the breadth of conception necessary in dealing with the subject, legislation is difficult as well as vital.

However, if we keep the main objective in view, we have a pattern to follow. If we adhere to the pattern, we shall obtain comprehensive and coordinated progress.

It appears to me to be vital that the activities authorized upon our skies be a true reflection of our political, economic, and social structure. This matter involves both trends in aviation and trends in government.

For purposes of clarity, let us set down the fundamental elements of the pattern to which we refer above. They are:

1. The division of responsibility as established between the executive, judicial, and legislative branches of Federal Government.

2. The apportionment of sovereignty as between the Federal Government and the several States of the Union.

3. The preservation to the individual citizen of the greatest degree of personal freedom compatible with the common good.

Now the question is: How shall we apply this pattern to the activities which have become possible upon our skies?

1. Restore jurisdiction over aviation to the National Congress.

2. Establish such airways and facilities as are essential to the common defense and to interstate and foreign commerce and after formulation in the interests of uniformity of cardinal rules for safe flight procedure, leave to the several States such opportunity for intrastate commerce and economic development as is inherent in their sovereignty and not incompatible with Federal authority.

3. By education and material assistance, foster and promote the miscellaneous utilities of aviation in their relation to the community life of the Nation with the same zeal as is applied to the promotion and protection of interstate and foreign commerce.

And if we follow this pattern, what creative steps can be taken by legislation? 1. As to organization:

(a) Restore the independent status of Federal aviation administration, reporting directly to the Congress.

(b) Recreate the Air Safety Board, responsible only to Congress.