Source of the above figures is the Civil Aeronautics Board Bureau of Safety.

Mr. DEVINE. In your statement, you suggest short parallel runways at your main airports being helpful to general aviation. Would you make any suggestion on how far separated those should be from your main runways? Are you talking about 5,000 feet?

Mr. KAYNE. That is a hard question to answer specifically, Mr. Devine, but I think I can answer it enough to satisfy you. In the first place, New York City, or the Port Authority of New York, for example, recently converted three taxiways on John F. Kennedy Airport to short runways for general aviation. Unfortunately, at least one of those, and possibly several of them, are so close to the main runway and placed in such a position so that if a fully loaded DC-8 going overseas, for example, takes off and rotates, his wingtip vortices and turbulence hits just about where you are over on the short runway. It is so close that it gives you pause for thought before you use it.

One of the others they have is so spaced that the taxi distance on John F. Kennedy makes it almost impractical to use it. We have just looked into this to see why these runways are not getting sufficient use and one of these is apparently that several of them are too close to the main runway.

Mr. DEVINE. Would a separation such as the Potomac River out here with Washington National and Bolling be adequate?

Mr. KAYNE. That would be more than adequate.

Mr. DEVINE. Have you made recommendations in that area? Mr. KAYNE. Yes, sir. As you probably know, we have been pushing to have a runway on the old Bolling-Anacostia complex used for general aviation. In fact, we could almost make parallel runways there.

O'Hare in Chicago has two parallel runways that are about 5,000 feet apart and these are used for simultaneous IFR approaches by large aircraft with just a slight staggering of the altitude. For the general aviation part we could be closer than that. We can do a little research. I would hazard a guess that somewhere in the neighborhood of 700 to 800 feet between the runways would give us sufficient distance to avoid wingtip vortices except under the most unusual conditions where the wind might be drifting slowly over toward the general aviation runway.

Mr. DEVINE. Thank you very much.

Mr. DINGELL (presiding). Mr. Kuykendall.

Mr. KUYKENDALL. Mr. Kayne, would a crop dusting airplane without a radio and no flight plan be allowed to land at Memphis, Tenn., Municipal Airport?

Mr. KAYNE. I can answer that, but I would have to qualify my

answer.

Mr. KUYKENDALL. I am waiting for an answer.

Mr. KAYNE. I am not familiar specifically with the traffic at Memphis, but I suspect that there may be some crop dusters landing there. Mr. KUYKENDALL. Yes. There was a 727 that I was a passenger in forced to go around the field by a crop duster with no radio several weeks ago.

Mr. KAYNE. There are many of our airports that are used by airlines, and I will avoid the term major airports because I don't think it really happens in the major airports, there are many airports used by airlines that also accommodate crop dusters working the local fields in that vicinity. There is a provision in the regulations to permit the control tower chief, at his discretion, to allow such aircraft without radio in and out. He usually does this under, you might say, closely controlled conditions where he knows when they are going, when they are coming. They get a green traffic light from the control tower to indicate that they can land or take off. These conditions are closely monitored. We know that some of the crop dusters, particularly if they are dusting, have an explosive combination in that dust, particularly if the bin is partly empty.

Mr. KUYKENDALL. Forget about the fact that he is a crop duster. Make like he is a cattle rancher. I am speaking of the fact that this airplane has no radio, has no flight plan, has no weather report, and just came in and landed. He got a green light, yes. I am sure he would have landed whether or not he got the green light. This is a major airport, two 10,000-foot jet runways with probably 300 transactions a day.

Mr. KAYNE. When we say no flight plan

Mr. KUYKENDALL. He could not have a flight plan because he took off from his back pasture.

Mr. KAYNE. If he took off from his back pasture and landed there without advance coordination and approval from the control tower, my answer to your question would be no, he should not be allowed there.

Mr. KUYKENDALL. I know that this is the extreme bottom of the people you represent.

They own an airplane with an engine and a propeller, one or two seats, a gallon of gas and that is it. The other extreme is the corporate jet, whose pilot may have as many hours, Mr. Chairman, as Mr. Ruby. That is the other extreme. I think we on this committee are going to have to differentiate between the crop dusters with no radios and the corporate jets.

It is my understanding that recently the authorities in France, after having built a subsidiary field with GCA and ILS have prohibited the use of Orly and Le Bourget by any aircraft that does not have at least two pilots and compatible electronics. Have you heard about this development?

Mr. KAYNE. No, sir. I heard you speak of it this morning.

Let me put it this way: I know that Orly and Le Bourget have restricted traffic.

Mr. KUYKENDALL. They did have the other equipment ready, the other strip ready and equipment ready, when they made the decision. That is our understanding.

Mr. KAYNE. My understanding of that, and maybe my information is not as current as yours, is that the other airport that they made available for general aviation was located quite some distance from the city. I have forgotten what it exactly is, but it is something on the order of 30 miles. It was not really a well equipped airport, as far as general aviation is concerned.

As I say, I think your information may be more current than mine. (The following information was received by the committee:)

GENERAL AVIATION USE OF AIRPORTS IN THE PARIS, FRANCE, AREA, SUBMITTED BY THE AIRCRAFT OWNERS & PILOTS ASSOCIATION

The following information concerning general aviation use of airports in the Paris, France, area is supplied in connection with a point raised by Representative Kuykendall at the August 28 hearing on aviation safety.

Orly Field is the main airline terminal for Paris and it is generally acknowl edged that general aviation operations are discouraged at Orly. However, there are no restrictions indicated in the International Flight Information Manual published by the U.S. Department of Transportation. The Aeronautical Infor mation Services document (Doc 7383-AIS/503/18) published by ICAO also lists no specific restrictions concerning private aircraft and merely indicates that prior permission is required. Apparently, a small number of general aviation movements are permitted since some have been reported by our members in Europe.

Le Bourget airport may be compared with La Guardia Field in New York, since it accommodates both general aviation and domestic airline operations. No restrictions on Le Bourget are indicated in either the U.S. or ICAO documents. However, Le Bourget does charge an "Assistance tax" of 65 Fr. (about $13.00) for services rendered. This does tend to discourage general aviation traffic.

Traffic figures furnished for Paris unfortunately lump all traffic for both Orly and Le Bourget for a grand total of 191,023 plane movements in 1966. This means that these two airports together handle a volume of traffic that is comparable to that handled by our airport at Nashville, Tennessee, which ranks #80 in the standing of traffic volume at U.S. airports.

There are two general aviation airports in the vicinity of Paris. One of these is at Guyancourt, which is a sod strip and which suffers from prolonged shutdowns during winter months because of the unsafe condition of the sod.

The major general aviation airport is Toussus-le-Noble airport. This field is approximately eleven nautical miles airline distance from the center of Paris. It is the base for approximately 230 aircraft and has, in round figures, 200,000 plane movements a year. Current aviation charts and manuals do not indicate either radar or ILS at this airport. These publications indicate that the airport does have a control tower and VHF direction finding service. It did not have a night beacon until September 22, 1966, at which time it was officially opened for night and IFR operations.

The Paris Airport Authority indicates that 17% of the combined plane movements for Orly and Le Bourget are general aviation. It is also interesting to note that Toussus-le-Noble handles more operations than Orly and Le Bourget combined. By U.S. standards of traffic-handling, neither Orly or Le Bourget are operating anywhere near maximum capacity. In fact, they can be considered as being very lightly used in comparison with the traffic at a large number of major airports in the U.S.

The above commentary was prepared from a number of official U.S. and ICAO documents, together with letters from AOPA members in Paris, articles from French magazines and statistical information provided by both the French and U.S. governments.

Mr. KUYKENDALL. I don't have information as to the proximity of the auxiliary airport.

It seems to me that we are going to be faced in the long range with a great many of the suggestions that you made in your report having merit, but it seems that most of them are putting a patch on a patch, that we are going to have a matter, let's say at National Airport, or at

JFK, that, if you do not control the entrance of general aviation, and you limit the airport to the number of transactions per hour, then the airliner will be edged out completely. In other words, it does not reciprocate control.

I notice in using your figures about the number of interested people involved in using the taxpayers' supported facility you use only the owners as compared to the owner, so to speak.

But using your own figures here, the number of passenger miles, and this is the people involved, the citizens involved, of the airline, according to your own figures, would be almost six times as great for the airlines as it would be for private aviation. I don't think it is good to come here and have either of you against each other.

I join in what Mr. Devine said. I don't like to be comparing collisions. That is just like some Vietnam peace people coming to us and saying, "Your atrocities are worse than theirs." I don't like either one of them. I don't like the idea of comparing the collisions as a means of comparing the validity of the two causes. I think both have good validity. This is a point I wanted to make here:

That either party, because of the size of their business has certainly a valid use, one not more than the other just because there are more private owners than there are commercial owners. There are many times more public passengers than there are private passengers.

Do you think that there should be any airports today where noncommercial type aircraft-let's go back to the same definition we used before, two pilots with compatible electronics-do you think there should be any airports in America today that should not be allowed to be used by airplanes without this type of equipment and pilots?

Mr. KAYNE. I don't know exactly what you are talking about in the way of compatible electronics.

Mr. KUYKENDALL. ILS, GCA, and two pilots.

Mr. KAYNE. The regulations require two-way radio communication with any airport with control towers operated by the Federal Government. That included Memphis.

Mr. KUYKENDALL. What would be the penalty if he came in and landed without it?

Mr. KAYNE. I don't know what schedule of penalties are under the Federal Aviation Act. They would be subject to either fine or revocation or suspension of certificate, or both.

Mr. KUYKENDALL. You say two-way radio is required on any FAAsupervised landing facility?

Mr. KAYNE. Any airport that has a Federal control tower. It could be FAA or a military field with control tower, this equipment is required at either. ILS, of course, is an instrument landing system and this is something that you would not need in good weather. If you are going to make an instrument approach or flying IFR and make an instrument approach I would say we would have it, whether general aviation or air carrier.

Mr. KUYKENDALL. Do you think a student pilot with full radio equipment should be allowed to land at National Airport?

Mr. KAYNE. I would not rule out the student pilot with full radio equipment landing at National Airport for several reasons. In the first place, before he lands there he has to get a clearance. He is under control. The tower is watching him and working him all the way.

This, incidentally, must be part of the training of the student as he comes along. These students eventually become private pilots, commercial pilots, and then airline pilots. That is the way we get airline pilots. If you are asking this in the context of a brandnew student who is just soloing and so on, normally we would not encourage it at places like Washington National.

Mr. KUYKENDALL. Can he land there now?

Mr. KAYNE. Washington National to my recollection has some restriction against student operations. This is not true of all airports. Some airports do have it and some do not. We also have found that there are some students who are trained right on major airports because the schools are located there and they go out and they have instructors with them. This is done under carefully controlled conditions.

Mr. KUYKENDALL. But they cannot control that young solo pilot on his first time out.

Mr. KAYNE. I would not recommend the young solo pilot in the conditions you are talking about, his first time out.

Mr. KUYKENDALL. Would you prohibit him from doing that at National Airport?

Mr. KAYNE. From my own personal opinion, I would say yes. But also I have to tell you that National Airport right now is not operating up to its capacity. It is conducting 4,000 operations a year less than it did in 1960. At the same time, we had Bolling and Anacostia operating with more traffic in the air, so that the total operations at National and in the vicinity are down. National is not congested as far as airplanes on runways are concerned; it is terribly congested so far as airline passengers are concerned in the terminal building. The airline ramps are congested but the general aviation side of it and the runways themselves are not congested. The air traffic part of it is not congested.

Mr. KUYKENDALL. You are the first person who has even implied this may be true. Most of the other witnesses have gone in the other direction but I won't get into argument about that.

Mr. KAYNE. This is rather well documented. I think I am very well qualified to speak on this because I was the first chief controller of the tower at Washington Airport. I have followed that airport for many

years.

(The following information was received by the committee:)

STATEMENT ON USE OF MAJOR AIRPORTS, SUBMITTED BY VICTOR J. KAYNE, VICE PRESIDENT, AIRCRAFT OWNERS & PILOTS ASSOCIATION

Mr. Kuykendall discussed the use of major airports by various types of traffic and mentioned an incident at Memphis wherein a crop duster apparently landed with no clearance from the control tower.

The current FAA regulations require a radio clearance from the control tower prior to landing or taking off from any airport with a Federal control tower. There also is a provision for the controller to allow non-radio traffic to land or take off subject to prior approval from the tower. If this was not obtained in the Memphis incident, then the pilot was in violation of the regulations. When we are dealing with a pilot who will violate existing regulations, it obviously would do no good to write additional regulations, since the pilot would also violate those rules.

Our public airports accommodate all types of traffic, under reasonable rules imposed by the FAA, without discrimination as to whether the traffic is airline, military, commercial, private, or any other category. An effort to distinguish between some of these with the objective of restricting certain operations would