ESTIMATED COST OF TOWER

Chairman BRIDGES. The cost of putting this in at Waterloo would be $77,000 with an annual operating cost of about $38,000?

Mr. BETSWORTH. Somthing like that, yes, sir; that is, if they put in new equipment. The cost of personnel is about $35,000 or $40,000 a year. Mr. Weeks in one of his letters in that brief refers to $30,000. The CAA said it should have been $35,000 or $40,000. The installation if they put in new equipment will cost about $70,000. If they use used equipment it will cost $20,000 to $25,000.

Chairman BRIDGES. Mr. Nielson, will you have Mr. Lee give us the up-to-date information on that and the verification as to the amount of traffic since the survey was made?

STATEMENT OF OSCAR H. NIELSON, DEPARTMENTAL BUDGET OFFICER, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

ESTIMATED COST

Mr. NIELSON. Mr. Chairman, we will supply for the record the information.

Chairman BRIDGES. Also furnish information as to the minimum cost for which this could be reopened. I have the estimate of $77,000 for establishment costs. If that could be shaded in any way we would like to know it. We would also like to have an estimate of the minimum operating costs.

Mr. NIELSON. We will be very happy to furnish that. (The information referred to follows:)

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, CIVIL AERONAUTICS ADMINISTRATION-STATEMENT ON FACILITIES AT WATERLOO, IOWA

Based on data furnished the Civil Aeronautics Administration by airport officials at Waterloo, Iowa, the volume of air traffic in 10 months of this fiscal year has been measured at 21,630 operations. This volume is expected to amount to approximately 26,000 in fiscal year 1955. The minimum criteria used in determining where the Federal Government should establish control tower service has been fixed at a level of 24,000 total itinerant operations. It is evident, therefore, that Waterloo, Iowa, will qualify for a control tower during the coming fiscal year.

Considering all known characteristics of aviation activity at Waterloo, it would be advisable to serve this location from a combined airport traffic control tower and communications station. The volume of traffic, as indicated above, meets the minimum criteria for control tower service and the distance from adjacent communications stations is such that the operation of communication facilities would provide for greater efficiency.

As of last July, when the 1955 budget estimates were being prepared in CAA, data available did not indicate that air operations at this location would meet the established criteria. Based on the information now available, a control tower only would provide a minimum level of service and a combined stationtower would provide the preferred type of service.

The cost of new equipment for an airport traffic control tower of this category is $77,000 and the annual operating cost is $38,851. Recent deactivation of another tower makes equipment available which could be used at Waterloo, so as to reduce the establishment cost to $15,000. Through use of other equipment made available by deactivation of communications facilities, a combined tower and station could be established for $26,000. In effect, through utilizing equipment made available by deactivation of facilities in other areas, it would be possible to establish either a control tower or a combined station-tower at substantially less than the normal cost of equipment, which amounts to $77,000 for a tower, $62,000 for a communications station, or $92,000 for a combined facility.

2

195

The estimates now pending approval before Congress do not include provision for establishment or operation of any facility at Waterloo. The minimum amount required for this purpose would be $15,000 for a tower or $26,000 for a combined facility under the "Establishment of air navigation facilities" appropriation and $38,851 for tower service or $56,000 for combined facility service under the "Salaries and expenses" appropriation. A total of $53,851 is required for tower service only, or $82,000 for preferred services, which include both tower and en to route communications services.

Chairman BRIDGES. Is there anything further you would like to make a part of the record? If not that will conclude our hearing for Waterloo. The additional information can be given to our staff. We would like to have appear in the record on this what we can jointly agree upon.

(The information referred to follows:)

"IT'S BETTER TO BREAK AN OLD PROMISE THAN A NEW RULE"-A FACTUAL BRIEF RELATIVE TO THE EMPTY CONTROL TOWER AT THE AIRPORT IN WATERLOO, IOWA, THE REASONS FOR ITS VACANCY AND THE NEED FOR ITS ACTIVATION TOGETHER WITH SUPPORTING EXHIBITS

GEOGRAPHY

Waterloo, Iowa is a town of 65,000 people serving as an air outlet for the 600,000 residents of northeast Iowa. It is 272 miles straight west of Chicago and 214 miles south of Minneapolis. It is the intersection of Braniff route No. 48 from Kansas City to the Twin Cities and Braniff route No. 106 from Chicago to Sioux City. There are 11 scheduled airline flights per day at the airport by DC-3's and Convairs together with many landings of itinerant aircraft and local aircraft. In 1953 people came from 170 cities and towns in Iowa to purchase tickets and board the airline flights at the Waterloo Municipal Airport. Only Des Moines and Sioux City handle more scheduled airline traffic than does Waterloo. The airport comprises some 1,700 acres with paved runways and a new terminal building and cost the taxpayers approximately $3 million. On top of the terminal building is a control tower which is empty. This brief deals with the reasons for its vacancy and the need for its activation.

6

THE WITNESS

The witness is Walter E. Betsworth, Waterloo airport manager for the past years, an airport manager of many years experience, a past president of and now executive secretary of the American Association of Airport Executives.

FUNCTIONS OF A CONTROL TOWER/INSAC

The functions of an Interstate Airways Communication Station and an airport control tower are familiar to the members of the committee. INSACS are presently operated at 405 locations to provide flight information to and from the pilot in flight for the safety of all who fly. Control towers provide for the safe and expeditious handling of aircraft traffic on and around the airport. bination INSAC/Tower performs all of the services of both with a little more than half of the equipment and personnel that is required to operate a separate INSAC and control tower.

THE PROBLEM

A com

The Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938 directs the Administrator to establish civil airways and to provide necessary facilities for the regulation and protection of air traffic. Yet notwithstanding this directive from the Congress and in spite of the fact that 405 other locations have INSACS and over 150 have control towers, Waterloo Airport has absolutely no CAA facilities to provide for the protection and safety of the more than 176,000 people who were occupants of aircraft landing and taking off at the Waterloo Airport in 1953, not including the occupants of local planes.

Braniff Airways operates their own radio facilities for communication with their own aircraft. Civil and military itinerant aircraft, however, cannot communicate with the Braniff radio operators. Therefore, at present every itinerant pilot landing at the Waterloo Airport on a cloudy day simply flies in by the seat of his pants and gambles that none of the scheduled airliners or any other planes are in his immediate vicinity.

REQUIREMENTS FOR ACTIVATION

The control tower is built and paid for. To activate it, radio equipment from discontinued towers could be installed at a cost of from $10,000 to $15,000. The Government has such equipment available. The annual cost of manning the control tower/communication station would be approximately $30,000 mostly for personnel. As pointed out by Capt. L. Homer Mouden, chairman of the regional air safety committee for the Airline Pilots Association in his attached letter marked "Exhibit I:"

"A look at the aeronautical charts will show that a large void exists without a communication station in this part of the country. The area is bounded by Mason City, Iowa, Rochester, Minn., LaCrosse and Lone Rock, Wis., Rockford and Moline, Ill., Iowa City, Cedar Rapids and Des Moines, Iowa. A communica tion station commonly known as INSAC at Waterloo, Iowa would permit adequate radio conversation for aircraft operating at minimum en route altitude between any 1 of the 2 points listed above as circumscribing this area. This also lies just inside of the present ADIZ and for security purposes, aircraft entering the ADIZ have need of an INSAC or some means of obtaining clearance prior to entering the defense zone.'

*

"Your community has every reason to expect airline and general air traffic to increase. The pilots of ALPA are doubly concerned over the possiblitiy of an accident resulting from noncontrolled traffic. We are of the opinion that a communication station (INSAC), or better, a combined tower and communication station, (TOWRAC), would eliminate existing conditions."

"It is seldom that so many problems can be solved by the establishment of one facility, as in this particular case. The failure to do so rests as a tremendous responsibility on all of us toward the American public."

Such a facility would increase the public use of the $3 million airport and increase the safety of everyone flying in this general area.

USE OF THE AIRPORT

More than 176,000 people were occupants of 20,766 air carrier and intinerant aircraft landings and takeoffs in 1953, not including occupants of some 63,000 local aircraft movements. The use of the airport is steadily on the increase by scheduled civil and military traffic. The Iowa National Guard is just completing a $150,000 armory and vehicle service center on the Waterloo Airport and will be making increasing use of the airport as indicated by letter attached from Maj. Gen. Fred C. Tandy marked "Exhibit II."

IMMEDIACY OF THE NEED FOR A TOWER

This matter was

Iowa skies are frequently cloudy. Overcast is common. brought to a head on December 20, 1953. On this date, Braniff flight 165 was making an instrument approach through the overcast into the Waterloo Airport with a plane load of passengers using Braniff's own private radio facilities. The Braniff ship was landing from the north into the south. At almost the identical time, a Navy plane crossed the airport at approximately the same altitude in the overcast from the east going to the west. We had no way of knowing that the Navy plane was anywhere in the vicinity and have no radio facilities by which the Navy pilot could contact us or we could contact him, and the same thing, of course, is true of any and all other intinerant aircraft.

THE PROMISE

The control tower was built at the Waterloo Airport because of the obvious need for its facilities and at the suggestion of the Civil Aeronautics Administration. It was agreed that the request for an appropriation for the operation of the tower would be made and in fact such a request was made for both the fiscal years 1953 and 1954.

Exhibit III is a letter of C. F. Horne, acting director of the Federal Airways, dated January 23, 1951, stating that the Civil Aeronautics Administration planned to establish a combined communication station/control tower in Waterloo in the fiscal year 1953.

Exhibit IV is a letter from Mr. Fred Lee, Deputy Administrator, CAA relative to appropriations for the tower.

Exhibit V is a letter dated December 15, 1952, from Charles F. Horne, Administrator of Civil Aeronautics Administration to Senator Hickenlooper stating, "We are very glad to inform you that appropriate steps are being taken to include a tower/communication station at Waterloo in our fiscal year 1954 budget request."

Exhibit VI is a letter from Mr. F. B. Lee, Administrator of the Civil Aeronautics Administration referring again to the need for such a tower and stating that appropriate steps were taken by the Civil Aeronautics Administration to request a substitute in the fiscal year 1954 budget submission which would provide for an aeronautical communication station/control tower at Waterloo. Exhibit VII is a copy of a letter from Charles F. Horne, Rear Admiral, United States Navy (retired) former CAA Administrator, reaffirming the need for tower-control facilities at Waterloo.

THE RULE

This

Until January 1954 Waterloo qualified under Civil Aeronautics Administration rules for an activated control tower/communication station. As a matter of fact, it was one of the cities where it was needed the most. With 1 possible exception Waterloo is the only city in the United States with 11 scheduled airline flights per day that does not have either a control tower or communication station. In January 1954 a new standard governing the installation of control towers/communication stations was adopted by the Civil Aeronautics Administration. standard requires 24,000 points to justify such installation and 18,000 points to retain a station previously activated. Waterloo had a little over 20,000 points. The principal difference between the two standards is that the new standard gives the same number of points to the landing of a Cub plane by a golfbound commuting executive as it gives to a passenger-loaded Convair or DC-6. Since commuting executives are not too common in Iowa, Waterloo did not qualify under the new standard. For some reason or other, the emphasis is now on the number of planes using the airport other than local traffic rather than on the number of passengers. The effect, of course, is to give control towers to metropolitan airports used predominately for commuting rather than commercial airports in in smaller cities. Oddly enough, if the tower were in operation in Waterloo now, it would qualify for continued operation. We hope that this is not a distinction between the "quick and the dead."

Exhibit VIII is a letter from Mr. Sinclair Weeks, Secretary of Commerce, to H. R. Gross dated March 10, 1954, with a memorandum attached prepared by F. B. Lee of the Civil Aeronautics Administration. The significant paragraph in this letter is the last one which states, "We have failed because of the time lag between the inception of a project and its realization to keep promises made to the people of Waterloo. This is regrettable. To go back and keep these promises would, we feel, result in a new and serious charge of discrimination and inconsistency." Since the promise was made before the rule, one might both keep the faith and be consistent by adopting the rule subject to outstanding obligations; particularly where the need of the tower continued and where a tower had been built in reliance on the promise.

Exhibit IX is a letter dated March 20, 1954, to the Honorable John W. Bricker, United States Senate, signed by Mr. Sinclair Weeks, Secretary of Commerce, in which a very similar statement is made.

Exhibit X is a letter dated April 13, 1954, from Mr. C. F. Timmerman, regional manager, Air Transport Association, pointing out the need for air-traffic control at Waterloo for the safety of the public.

Exhibit XI is a resolution adopted by the City Council of Waterloo, Iowa, on April 1, 1954, urging the Congress and the Department of Commerce to allocate funds for air-traffic control at the Waterloo Municipal Airport.

Exhibit XII is a copy of Waterloo Airport traffic reports.

Exhibit XIII is a survey showing the number of people flying in and out of Waterloo.

Exhibit XIV provides copies of three Waterloo Daily Courier newspaper editorials.

CONCLUSIONS

There is no question that the need for a control tower/communication station exists at Waterloo, Iowa. The safety of 176,000 people cannot be disregarded. There is no question that the installation was promised. Consistency is a rare jewel but keeping the faith is a virtue not to be despised. The Civil Aeronautics Administration could scarcely be criticized for inconsistency if it enforced its

As a

present standards, subject to its outstanding commitment to Waterloo. matter of fact, the new standard provides for such an attitude when it states on page 1 the following:

"The new airport traffic control criteria shall be used as a guide for determining present and future programs. The criteria are not to be considered as inflexible, and unusual conditions may justify exceptions to the criteria. Such exceptions, however, should be rare and will be made only after thorough study and justification."

1. Waterloo built the tower at the suggestion of the Civil Aeronautics Administration in 1952 with the understanding that it would be equipped and operated. 2. Waterloo satisfied all operating criteria for a control tower/communication station when the tower was built and until the criteria was changed in January 1954.

3. Waterloo would be entitled to continued control tower/communication station operation under the present criteria if the tower had been put in operation as per Civil Aeronautics Administration promise.

4. The safety of the flying public demands an operating control tower/communication station at Waterloo now.

5. Therefore, it is respectfully requested that the Congress earmark sufficient funds for the activation of a control tower/communication station at Waterloo, Iowa, in the 1955 budget.

Respectfully submitted..

CITY OF WATERLOO, IOWA,

L. A. TOUCHAE, Mayor.

WATERLOO AIRPORT COMMISSION,
JAMES M. GRAHAM, Vice Chairman.

EXHIBIT I

AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION,

Chicago, Ill., April 2, 1954.

Subject: Need for traffic control and communications facility at Waterloo, Iowa. Mr. WALTER E. BETSWORTH,

Manager, Waterloo Municipal Airport,

Waterloo, Iowa.

DEAR MR. BETSWORTH: The Air Line Pilots Association has long been concerned over the extreme need for airway traffic control at the Waterloo Municipal Airport. Pilots have reported incidents involving near misses and collision course traffic at consistently regular intervals. Braniff Airways is the only air carrier serving this airport; yet there are a total of 12 flights per day into the Waterloo Municipal Airport by this one air carrier.

The critical situation resulting from the heavy traffic by air carriers, itinerant aircraft of an executive type, and light aircraft has been discussed with representatives of the Civil Aeronautics Administration several times. They are completely in agreement with us as to the urgent need for such traffic control, but have demonstrated to our satisfaction that at the present time, it is physically impossible to provide such traffic control and communication station to effect such control, due to the lack of money in the budget.

A look at the aeronautical charts will show that a large void exists without a communication station in this part of the country. The area is bounded by Mason City, Iowa, Rochester, Minn., LaCrosse and Lone Rock, Wis., Rockford and Moline, Ill., Iowa City, Cedar Rapids, and Des Moines, Iowa. A communication station commonly known as INSAC at Waterloo, Iowa, would permit adequate radio conversation for aircraft operating at minimum en route altitude between any one of the two points listed above as circumscribing this area. This also lies just inside of the present ADIZ and for security purposes, aircraft entering the ADIZ have need of an INSAC or some means of obtaining clearance prior to entering the defense zone.

The problem is not one for the air carrier, who has his own communications, but rather for the itinerant business-type aircraft, whose sole means of contact is by the federally operated communication stations. The very near misses experienced during instrument approaches at a busy airport out of the control area are numerous. I would like to point out typical examples:

A Braniff flight from Kansas City arrived over Waterloo on top of an overcast at approximately the same time as another Braniff flight from Sioux City, Iowa. In accordance with company procedures, the two flights effected their own clearance off airways, and the first flight worked an instrument approach from on top of

T