Mr. ROONEY. Did you understand this before, Mr. Stefan? Did you understand that the costs of the operation of these airplanes to inspect these facilities is projected over a 3-year period?

Mr. STEFAN. You mean where the inspector is out flight-checking?
Mr. KLINE. The first and initial flight-checking that is required.
Mr. STEFAN. Not the routine, but the initial flight-check?
Mr. KLINE. The initial flight-checking for the Commission.

Mr. ROONEY. Why should this committee be furnished with an estimate for the fiscal year 1952 for the purchase of gasoline for your inspection planes when we do not know what the price of gasoline is going to be in 1952? Can you give me any valid reason?

Mr. KLINE. As I explained before, it was tied in for our whole

program.

Mr. ROONEY. I want to know how many items such as this are in the bill. Why it is possible that in 1952 gasoline will not be the proper fuel to use in these planes. And you're asking us to appropriate now for gasoline in 1952?

FLIGHT-HOUR

REQUIREMENTS

FOR

COMMISSIONING

NEW FACILITIES

We shall insert at this point in the record the chart: Operations of aircraft, establishment of air-navigation facilities, 1950 budget, flighthour requirements for commissioning new facilities.

(The chart referred to follows:)

Mr. LEE. Mr. Chairman, that item is tied in directly with two other items. One is "Air navigation radio facilities," and the other one is "Airport landing aids." In both of these the program lasts over the coming fiscal year, and we have requested contractual authorization for the future expenditures.

Mr. ROONEY. How can you project now the number of flight hours in the fiscal year 1952 to inspect facilities? Some of them may be blown up by that time, or any number of things could happen in the interim. You cannot project the number of gallons of gasoline you are going to use, or how many pilots you are going to need, or how many aircraft you are going to fly.

Do you agree that that is a reasonable statement, Mr. Kline?

Mr. KLINE. We do know how many hours of operation, based on past experience, it will take us to flight-check these facilities, and that is what the estimate is based on, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. ROONEY. But why should you have this money in your control now?

Mr. LEE. We consider this as much a part of commissioning a facility as obtaining installation of equipment.

Mr. ROONEY. You may, but I don't. I should say I respectfully disagree.

Mr. LEE. The initial adjustment of the facility is a matter that takes a considerable period of time and requires, we have found from experience, a certain number of flight hours per facility.

We have a formula, as will be shown on that table, for each type of facility, which is based on considerable experience. This work is necessary prior to the commissioning of any of these facilities.

Mr. ROONEY. I note that in the total item, $1,016,695, there is included an amount of $15,000 for testing by the Bureau of Standards of aviation lighting and other equipment prior to purchase by CAA. Mr. KLINE. That is transferred to the Bureau of Standards; yes, sir, and we ask them, if they are equipped, to make tests, and things of that kind.

Mr. ROONEY. How much money is transferred in this appropriation bill to the Bureau of Standards?

Mr. KLINE. This is the only item.

Mr. ROONEY. Out of the entire CAA appropriation?
Mr. KLINE. To my knowledge.

EMERGENCY-REPAIR FUND

Mr. ROONEY. Miscellaneous items also include an estimate of $95,695, which, it is stated, is to reimburse funds or replace equipment diverted from previous programs for use in the emergency repair of facilities damaged as a result of floods, hurricanes, and so forth. Will you briefly explain that?

Mr. KLINE. First we had the replacement of the Nantucket MOR towers. Those towers were blown down in the hurricane. That cost us $62,695. Facility repair in Portland flood area, $30,000. SRA tower damage, Wichita, Kans., $2,500. Repair to shelter at Des Moines, $4,500. Approach-light flood damage at Denver. Colo., $5,000; total of $95,695.

ALASKA PROGRAM

DEVELOPMENT OF ALASKAN AIRWAYS SYSTEM

Mr. ROONEY. The next of the general subdivisions under establishment of air-navigation facilities is the item entitled "Development of Alaskan Airways System, $4,478,088." Will you briefly tell us the purpose of this requested appropriation?

Mr. KLINE. We have $407,000 for the installation of 11 sets of distance-measuring equipment. That is the same type of equipment for our continental United States program. These programs are separated so this is carried in the Alaska program.

We have $95,218 for additional airways beacons, obstruction lights, to permit night operations between Gustavus and Juneau. There is a distance between Gustavus and Juneau of approximately 40 miles, where we have no radio facilities, and the type of terrain will not permit anything but visual operation.

It is our proposal to install airways beacons and the necessary lighting so that such an operation can be conducted.

ALASKAN ARMY AIR DEVELOPMENT

Mr. ROONEY. Is any of this money to be used in connection with Ladd Field at Fairbanks?

Mr. KLINE. No, sir.

Mr. ROONEY. This has nothing to do with the Army development up there at all?

Mr. KLINE. Not in any way; no, sir.

Mr. ROONEY. Then all this money, $4,478,088, is to be used in connection with the operations of the private air lines which service Alaska?

Mr. KLINE. I might correct my previous statement. You said none of this was to be used at Ladd Field for the Army operation. I misunderstood your intent there, apparently.

This does, of course, serve the military as well as the civil flying operations in Alaska. In other words, they use any aids or anything else which we install for civil operations.

Mr. ROONEY. To provide fields where there might be emergency landings?

Mr. KLINE. Yes, sir; and radio aids all through Alaska are used by the military as well as by the civil operations.

Mr. ROONEY. How does this fit into the defense pattern, if it does? Mr. KLINE. We feel of course that the operation

Mr. ROONEY. I want to know how the armed forces feel about it. Mr. KLINE. Well, I don't have anything in writing here which I can show you, but I do know that the armed forces

Mr. ROONEY. Mr. Kline, I don't want it in writing.

Mr. KLINE. I do recall a comment. I do not recall the general's name, I am sorry; he was operating out in the Aleutian chain, and he at one time had asked if we would not take over that operation, and we told him the only way we could take over the operation of the Aleutian chain was to reduce our operations on the mainland. He said, no, he did not want to consider that at all.

Mr. ROONEY. You do not go out on the chain at all, do you?

Mr. KLINE. No; we do not. They were asking us to. We said the only way we could go out and take over the operation on the chain was to reduce our effort on the mainland in Alaska, and he said, "No; we can't stand for that, because it is too vital to the Air Force operation in Alaska."

Mr. ROONEY. How many planes a day fly into Alaska from the continental United States?

Mr. KLINE. I don't have a record of that. I will furnish that for the record, schedules, and so forth.

(The information requested is as follows:)

United States to Alaska flights are as follows: Average daily scheduled 16, nonscheduled 22, and military 22. Highest daily total scheduled 20, nonscheduled 66, and military 103.

ALASKAN AIRWAYS IN DEFENSE PATTERN

Mr. ROONEY. Is there anything you want to say with regard to this being a part of the defense pattern?

Mr. KLINE. Well, we all look to Alaska now as a very important location.

Mr. ROONEY. Specifically. We read that in the papers every day. Mr. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to talk on that point, because I know personally of the use the Army and the Air Force have made in Alaska of our communications system, particularly. They rely very greatly on our communications system in connection with the entire defense pattern of the Territory up there. It has been shown in the case of alerts which they have had, that they do have to rely on the CAA facilities; particularly for communications.

We have also found in connection with the operation of military aircraft in Alaska, which, as you know, is quite extensive, they do use the civil airport facilities to a great extent. And we have found from our actual experience that the commanding general up there has relied on our traffic control almost entirely for military movements in the air-route areas of the Territory.

Mr. ROONEY. Is there enough air traffic up there to call for that at the present time?

Mr. LEE. We have counts of air traffic available at all of the principal locations. I might say that the air traffic is peaked at certain times due to the large mass movements of military aircraft.

Mr. ROONEY. Aside from the military, they run their own show, do they not?

Mr. LEE. They use our airways, sir; and our traffic control and communications to a large extent.

Mr. ROONEY. The principal method of getting from one place in Alaska to another is by airplane?

Mr. LEE. That is correct.

Mr. ROONEY. Has that traffic increased in the past 3 or 4 years? Mr. LEE. The general traffic in Alaska has increased. The use of aircraft for the transportation of labor, at specific seasons of the year, has increased also.

I think that we have to consider the amount of traffic on a different basis from that used in the continental United States. The volume was naturally not as large as we have in most areas of the United States.