AVIATION SAFETY TUESDAY, AUGUST 29, 1967 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND AERONAUTICS, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., pursuant to notice, in room 2123, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Samuel N. Friedel (chairman) of the subcommittee) presiding. Mr. FREIDEL. The subcommittee will be in order. This is a continuation of the hearing on aviation safety. Our first witness this morning will be our colleague from California, the Honorable Don Clausen. Please proceed Mr. Clausen. STATEMENT OF HON. DON H. CLAUSEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Mr. CLAUSEN. Mr. Chairman, I want to take this opportunity to express my appreciation to you and the members of your subcommittee for holding these hearings on aviation safety and the problems relating to general and commercial aviation. In order to be of maximum service to the committee, I should like to present a few thoughts that I have regarding the increasing airport crisis as it relates to aircraft accidents in this country. As we discuss safety for aircraft, I will label my presentation here today as "An Aircraft Accident Prevention Plan." I am taking the liberty of aiming my remarks and focusing attention on one of America's most pressing and, as yet, unpublicized problems the growing crisis of airports, or lack of airports, in this Nation. Many will say that there are more important and more pressing problems facing America but I submit that unless something is done soon about this problem, air tragedies will increase in our country. Recently, we were all shocked to learn of a midair collision which took the lives of Navy Secretary McNaughton and his family plus 79 others. To those of us familiar with this accident pattern, the regrettable fact is, that this accident and the many others like it, could have been prevented. We cannot long continue to disregard aviation and airport problems or relegate positive action to reaction each time an air tragedy occurs. With every aspect of aviation growing at a fantastic rate, it is clear that what is needed most and needed now is an entirely new approach to our aviation problems. These problems, which I shall outline in more detail, are compounded by the fact that more people are flyingmore planes take to the sky-and planes are being designed to carry far more passengers with each passing day. Simply stated, our present systems and accommodations for handling this increased activity are just not adequate to do the job and we are failing to keep pace with the demands of our aviation industry. I would say, in this regard, that congestion is the key word in describing our air safety problems. Congestion inside our airports, in the hangars, on the strips, in the air, over communications. Congestion is the "enemy" of aviation which must be dealt with. As a former Navy fighter pilot, a professional pilot, manager of an airport, and now the president of the Congressional Flying Club, I have devoted many hours of study and research to the problems of American aviation. I have been both pleased and encouraged by the interest shown by other Members of Congress who have spoken to me and indicated their concern over the lack of attention and priority given to the needs of aviation. But the problems of air safety and airspace planning cannot be resolved, in my judgment, unless and until we first develop a truly effective national airport system plan and a method for financing the plan. With the huge costs involved, coordination between all levels of government in our Federal system must be maximized and unnecessary duplication of effort and facilities must be minimized. With land values steadily escalating and available airport sites steadily diminishing, particularly in and around metropolitan urban areas, the problem of guaranteeing access for general and business aviation-type aircraft is the most crucial and a solution must be found immediately. For many years, I have advocated locating airstrips contiguous to highways. Lands for these strips should be acquired at the same time lands are acquired to build highways or to expand them. All that is required to accomplish this, is coordinated planning and financing. At this point, I should like to list what I believe to be the most immediate requirements for improving aviation safety and efficiency in high-density areas such as Washington, D.C. 1. Establish integrated airport systems with proper administrative and policymaking authority such as a commission or port authority now has with a joint exercise of powers agreement. 2. Provide general aviation reliever airports in metropolitan areas, with maximum emphasis on building airstrips contiguous to circumferential highways. 3. Establish airspace zoning, with specified climb and descent quadrants and/or corridors-reserving separate quadrants for air carrier and certain quadrants for general aviation and military air traffic based on numbers of operations. 4. Accelerate efforts to provide terminal area radar, instrumentlanding systems, high intensity approach light systems, terminal VOR, and communication and tower facilities. 5. Expand basic radar systems by adding secondary radar equipment designed to accommodate computers in high density areas to assist the air traffic controller establish safe separation and sustain a smooth flow of aircraft in the controlled areas. 6. Complete airline collision avoidance systems at the earliest possible date and intensify efforts to develop low-cost collision avoidance devices and low-cost radar beacons for general aviation use. 7. Designate "practice areas" including flight strips for general aviation VFR student activities. 8. Require minimum communications and navigational equipment consistent with requirements in high density areas. 9. Enhance pilot education programs through broader use of flight simulators to be acquired by flight schools, high schools, colleges, and universities to establish a trend toward professionalism in pilot training. 10. Improve and expand clear zones and buffer areas in order to permit the installation of all-weather landing systems and minimize noise problems. In the long run, one of the most critical phases of coping with airspace congestion, is the development of effective and reliable collision avoidance systems to supplement and operate independently from the air traffic control system. Such a system has been 12 years in development and experts say we are still 3 to 5 years away from realizing this critically needed equipment. Much of this time is reportedly needed by FAA to prepare a U.S. common standard for collision avoidance equipment. Because of the vital part such a system would have on reducing midair collisions, I would urge placing this equipment development on a high priority. In addition, much can and must be done to improve weather and terrain reporting for pilots and this can be done at very low cost. Twenty percent of our general aviation accidents occur only 5 miles from an airport and many are attributed to weather and terrain conditions. What is required in this regard, are more weather reporting stations and expanded hours of observation and reporting particularly in areas where weather and terrain pose hazardous threats to aviation. One of our distinguished congressional pilots, Senator Peter Dominick, of Colorado, advocates requiring general aviation aircraft to be equipped with crash locator beacons. Such equipment provides automatically generated beacons for downed aircraft which will greatly facilitate locating them, thereby resulting in the saving of a great many lives which each year are lost when downed planes cannot be readily located. Senator Dominick is urging the FAA to exercise the legal authority already granted by the Federal Aviation Act to require general aviation aircraft to be equipped with crash locator beacons, and I think the proposal should be considered by this committee. At the present time there are over 102,000 personal and corporate aircraft, compared with only 2,379 in the airlines fleet. This is a ratio of 50 to 1. Last year, there were 5,425 aircraft accidents reported in the United States resulting in 538 fatalities. Many of these accidents and deaths could have been prevented. If we are to stem the mounting tide of aircraft accidents, I urge the adoption of an aircraft accident prevention plan along the lines I have presented here today. Mr. Chairman, I thank you and the distinguished members of this subcommittee for permitting me this opportunity to outline my views on this subject. Mr. FRIEDEL. Thank you for your presentation Mr. Clausen. We appreciate your views on this vital matter. At this time I would request consent to place in the record the remarks of our colleague, the Honorable James Fulton, as they appear in yesterday's Congressional Record. Without objection, it is so ordered. (The document referred to follows:) [From the Congressional Record, Aug. 28, 1967] AIR TRANSPORTATION SAFETY-EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. JAMES G. FULTON OF PENNSYLVANIA Mr. FULTON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to call the attention of the Congress and the American people to the excellent outline on air safety sent to me by an outstanding Pittsburgh businessman, Mr. R. W. Mallick. A vice president of the Joseph Horne Co., Associated Dry Goods, Mr. Mallick has flown private aircraft for many years. This long flight experience and his constant civic interest in air safety make his thoughtful suggestions and recommendations valuable to those of us in Congress and in the Federal agencies concerned over air transportation safety. I am glad to place in the Congressional Record Mr. R. W. Mallick's recent letter and the editorial from the Pittsburgh Post Gazette of August 19, 1967: Hon. JAMES G. FULTON, Washington, D.C. JOSEPH HORNE Co., Pittsburgh, Aug. 22, 1967. DEAR MR. FULTON: I am sending to you a copy of an editorial that appeared in the Pittsburgh Post Gazette on Saturday, August 19, 1967, captioned “Air Safety Procedures Neglected". I thought you might be interested in reading it as it points a finger at both the F.A.A. and Congress. As I mentioned in previous letters, I had mentally debated the thought of pursuing the matter any further. However, each day I see more evidence of the gravity of the situation, so I am compelled to belabor the matter further. Mr. James Ridgeway's comment echoes what I have said repeatedly, i.e., that the F.A.A. is not doing all it can with the facilities and authority it has at its disposal. What is most discouraging is that there is no evidence of an effort on the part of F.A.A. to acknowledge the suggestions to it. Certainly, if there is no merit to them and the persons or organizations making the suggestions were convinced of it, the issue could be closed. Nevertheless, there are volumes of correspondence on the subject, from responsible sources, and it continues to remain unanswered. It is fully appreciated that the problem is not a simple one, and that there are no readymade, overall solutions. But it will never be solved with the present "head in the sand" attitude. It is far better to do something and risk a failure than do nothing in hopes that the problem will cure itself. Apparently, the confusion and complexity is so great that a "wait and see" attitude exists. To anyone who wishes to delve into the history, he will find that the following suggestions have been submitted. Some involve much time and expenditures to implement, others only a change of attitude and a will to do. I will enumerate several that could start the ball rolling. 1. Immediately provide for voluntary controlled visual flight procedures at all low altitudes for cross country flights as previously suggested. Last week I flew from Pittsburgh to Coudersport on a VFR flight plan. Visibility limits were legal for VFR but marginal. I departed Pittsburgh on a special VFR clearance. When I cleared the control zone, I radioed Cleveland Center to advise of my flight route and altitude which was 5,500 feet MSL. The controller asked if I had transponder or DME. When advised negative, he told me he could not give me radar service at that altitude. Yet, 5,500 feet is higher than permissible I.F.R. altitudes. I continued to monitor the radio frequency and know that the controller was not busy. 2. Discourage rather than encourage more instrument ratings for pilots until such time as the air traffic control can handle more instrument flight plans. The system cannot handle the volume of such potential traffic now. 3. Accelerate a program of new secondary airports in busy areas to handle private, executive, and feeder line and similar aircraft to reduce the load on metropolitan airports. This would not only improve air safety, but would tend to relieve ground transportation congestion, For example, the Pittsburgh area needs a new airport in the northeastern district of Allegheny County or western Westmoreland County to relieve the loads on Greater Pittsburgh and Allegheny County airports. An adequate airport of such type can be built today for the price equivalent of one mile of four-lane expressway for each runway required. Most such secondary airports would be more than adequate with two runways. 4. Establish a program whereby non-essential pleasure flying and student training, usually done in the vicinity of airports, be conducted away from the traffic areas of major airports. The secondary airport program suggested above could do much to bring this about. 5. Relocate all military air operations from busy metropolitan areas. There are plenty of military airports that are now inactive to provide bases for military operations. 6. Recently FAA announced intentions of controlling VFR flights above 18,000 feet. This is fine, except the problem is between the ground and 10,000 feet. A check of the records will reveal that the collisions or near misses have all been at low altitudes. To fly above 10,000 feet requires oxygen equipped or pressurized aircraft which represents a very small percentage of registered aircraft. Let's get to the "scene of the crime." 7. Of great importance is the need to quit looking at the problem as one being associated with the commercial airlines. The commercial airlines represent only about 2% of the registered aircraft in the country. Also, it is the most sophisticated aircraft, operated by highly qualified pilots, under strict procedures. Yet, they become involved in midair collisions because of the system under which they must operate. The other 98% of the aircraft and pilots have the same right to air safety as do the airlines. We do not make special rules or enact special vehicle codes or build special highways for buses, and we should not attempt to give preferential treatment to airlines. We must improve air safety for all aircraft, and only then will the solution to the problem be forthcoming. My apology for another long epistle, but I hope it will serve to stimulate someone to get the F.A.A. to do something other than take a defensive position. Actually, the F.A.A. is a fine organization of capable people, faced with an overwhelming problem. They need help not hell. They will learn that many people will help when they come out of their shell and quit behaving as though the problems and solutions were their exclusive prerogatives. It is my understanding that Congressional hearings are planned to explore this all-important matter. If so I respectfully suggest that the above seven points be covered in the hearings. Perhaps in that way their merits can be determined. My appreciation of your patience and cooperation. Sincerely yours, R. W. MALLICK, Vice President, Properties. [From the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Aug. 19, 1967] AIR SAFETY PROCEDURES NEGLECTED The public is justified in questioning federal procedures to insure air safety when there have been five major plane accidents so far this year and a number of smaller ones. The latest was the crash of two single-engined craft as they stimultaneously approached the same runway in New Hampshire recently. There are 547 airports in this country served by airlines: 285 have no control towers and 434 lack radar which would provide a means of keeping planes a safe distance. There wasn't any radar at Asheville, N.C., where 82 persons were killed recently. According to James Ridgeway in the August 5 New Republic, the Federal Aviation Administration, part of the Department of Transportation, is at the root of the problem. The FAA is understaffed and isn't given the money to implement technological advances. Its chief, an ex-Air Force general, William F. McKee, scarcely makes the best of what the FAA has, Ridgeway says. He cites, for instance, the number of safety requirements that don't apply to air taxis (chartered planes for hire); no requirements for co-pilots, radar, emer. gency evacuation, or weighing of baggage. McKee has said the government must not place too heavy an economic burden on small operations lest they fail. When the FAA's budget request was cut this year from $75 million to $65 million, the argument in Congress was that since the money was being poorly spent and the amount inadequate to meet the airport crisis, it might as well be trimmed. |