Looking at the figures again, there were reported 850 fatal accidents in non-air-carrier operations in 1948. One thousand two hundred and sixty-eight persons were killed in these 850 aircraft involved in fatal accidents.

It is the opinion of one of the country's leading experts on aviation safety that the development of one known item, which it is known can be developed, and at a price which the public can afford to pay for it, would cut today's fatality rate by about 75 percent insofar as personal planes are concerned, without respect to the type of aircraft or training of the pilot involved.

Let us reduce that to 50 percent and apply it to the figure of 1,268, and you would have a result of more than 634 lives saved in 1 year by the development of a known device which this expert, and we think he is thoroughly qualified and thoroughly reliable, has indicated can be done.

Next, we come to utility. As to utility we have no statistics that we consider sufficiently reliable to present to you. We do have some interesting data, however, which we believe very persuasive, and to merit your consideration.

This information also we obtained from Mr. Geisse.

In the fall of 1949, he wrote all of the Cessna dealers regarding their experience with cross-wind landing gear.

In response to this inquiry every dealer informed him that every customer who had purchased a cross-wind landing gear had stated that such customer would not trade the cross-wind landing gear for the purchase price, with perhaps, the exception of one individual.

It was Mr. Geisse's recollection that even as to that individual, the dealer stated that he felt that the individual would change his mind after he had a little more experience.

We have not made any written survey, but we have discussed the question with every user with whom we have come in contact, and so far not one has been dissatisfied. Every user we have asked has praised the utility highly. Some, we know, would not trade the gear for twice the purchase price paid for it. The utility, we think further, is established by the growing use of it.

Last, but by no means least, we come to the question of economy. We have covered one phase of the economy, but we are more particularly interested in the question of whether an item developed by the Government can be marketed at a price that will be accepted by the

consumer.

We could probably show you dozens of items, but so long as we have developed one specific example for you we will carry it through. The cross-wind landing gear is now being sold regularly, and the indications are that it may in 6 months or so become standard equipment on some of our private aircraft.

One manufacturer is reported to now be able to add the cross-wind landing gear as standard equipment for less than $15 additional cost for labor and materials. Its adaptability for military service is so obvious as to require no comment.

We have given you some facts which, among others, have led us to conclude that the proposed or similar legislation appears to be in the national interest, and some reasons why there is very good justification for the belief that a laissez faire policy will definitely not be in the national interest, either from the standpoint of our general economy,

our specific private aviation economy, or in the interest of national defense.

We do not predict that the aircraft will take the place of the automobile nor that the skies will be darkened with personal aircraft flying through it.

On the other hand, neither do we predict that such facts will not be true. We do not know, but what we do know, and what you also know, is that the potential usefulness of the personal or light aircraft for transportation, for small business operations, for farm operations, for forest patrol, flood protection, emergency-disaster assistance, criminal-enforcement work, and by no means least for family recreation, is only barely started. Its development can be great. How great we do not believe anyone can say.

Its greatness will depend, as we all know, substantially if not wholly, on how safe, how useful, and how economical a unit can be offered to the public.

We believe that the Congress of the United States should give some assistance in the development and testing of such a unit.

Mr. Senator, we ask leave, if we may, to submit some additional data later if we should develop some that is worth submitting.

The CHAIRMAN. All right. Without objection, we will be glad to receive additional testimony from your organization.

Mr. ARMOUR. We thank you very much.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any questions, Senator Williams? Senator WILLIAMS. I might ask one. Who developed this crosswind landing gear?

Mr. ARMOUR. What is that?

Senator WILLIAMS. I do not mean the man, did the CAA develop it? Mr. ARMOUR. It was promoted by Mr. Geisse, who is here, and it was developed by private-it was let out to private industry on contracts.

Senator WILLIAMS. Developed in 1945?

Mr. ARMOUR. Right around that year.

Senator WILLIAMS. And you say that it was known for 10 years that it could have been developed?

Mr. ARMOUR. Well, we must assume that. It was attempted-it was started about 1933 to 1935, and Mr. Geisse started it at that time, and he started on the second round, so he was given the same start both rounds, and we assume

Senator WILLIAMS. I understood you to say that the Government knew that it could be developed, and held it up 10 years.

Mr. ARMOUR. Yes; the Government held up fostering any development of it because industry said they would develop it.

Senator WILLIAMS. Yet, the Government knew that it could be developed 10 years before it was developed, is that right?

Mr. ARMOUR. It was their opinion that it could be; yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Geisse is present in the room.

Senator WILLIAMS. I was wondering, in that event, the Government could have developed it 10 years sooner. How do we know if we pass this bill that they will not hold up similar developments?

Mr. ARMOUR. That the Government will not hold up similar developments?

Senator WILLIAMS. Yes. If as you state they have held up a development which they knew would only cost $150,000, and could

67500-50-9

have saved 300 or 400 million dollars, if they held it up 10 years, why pass this kind of legislation?

Mr. ARMOUR. Of course, if the Government does not follow through, and if the industry puts enough pressure on the Budget Bureau or Congress or wherever they put the pressure, to prevent the allocation of the funds, that will stop it for sure.

Senator WILLIAMS. And you think somebody put pressure on the Government agency during that 10-year period?

Mr. ARMOUR. Yes, that is my clear understanding of it, that it was stopped definitely by industry's stating that they wanted to develop that without Government interference.

Senator WILLIAMS. Well, what I was wondering about was how do we know that this will accomplish anything then? Why should we put up any money for the development if industry can step in and hold it up for 10 years, for a thing that was as obvious as you say that thing was?

Mr. ARMOUR. Because so far as we are concerned, we believe that the Government will not. You, for instance, or Congress, will not permit it, if you fix this policy, we hope and believe, that you will not permit industry or anybody else to scuttle it.

Senator WILLIAMS. You think that the Government has had a change of beart during the past 10 years?

Mr. ARMOUR. I think they change their heart every once in awhile, and I think it is probably a good idea, too.

The CHAIRMAN. We thank you very much, sir.

Mr. ARMOUR. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Leighton Collins, editor, Air Facts.

Before you proceed, Mr. Collins, while we are on this other thing, and while we are honored by the presence of Mr. Geisse, I wonder if he would care to say a word on this other point that is raised here?

STATEMENT OF J. H. GEISSE

Mr. GEISSE. I could answer some questions, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. All right. Will you come forward, please, and answer them?

We are very glad to have you here. Just sit down.

Mr. GEISSE. Senator, you asked whether the Government had changed its mind or held up the work in that 10-year period.

Senator WILLIAMS. I understood the other gentleman to say that they had known for 10 years that this could be developed for this minor sum, and had held it up 10 years, and I could not understand it.

Mr. GEISSE. Actually, Senator, the cross-wind gear dates way back to 1910. The Bleriot airplane that made the first crossing of the English Channel had cross-wind gear on it, and it was dropped.

The tricycle gear was also used back in those very early days, and it was dropped, and they brought the tricycle gear back into use in the development program in 1934, and we had started at that time to bring the castered gear back.

Then we were stopped on that whole development program, and you say it is the Government.

It depends upon what branch of the Government that you are talking about. So far as CAA is concerned, I think they have consistently asked for funds for the development of this type, year in and year out, and it has been turned down by the Budget Bureau.

Now, as soon as they have the funds available, you asked the question what would happen if you granted these funds.

When we got the $150,000 for the cross-wind landing gear development, there was no holding up of that fund. We immediately spent it. Senator WILLIAMS. And you were held up 10 years on the funds? Mr. GEISSE. Yes; we did not have the funds.

Senator WILLIAMS. In submitting your request for the funds to the Bureau of the Budget, did you submit the request for $150,000, or what was your request for?

Mr. GEISSE. Actually I did submit a request to the Bureau of the Budget for $150,000, told them that we might be able to save between 250 and 500 million dollars on airports if we got that money.

Senator WILLIAMS. That is what I was interested in.

Mr. GEISSE. And we were turned down.

Senator WILLIAMS. What year was that?

Mr. GEISSE. 1945.

Senator WILLIAMS. That was in 1945.

Well, I thought you said it was developed in 1945?
Mr. GEISSE. That is when we got the money for it.

Senator WILLIAMS. Well, were you turned down in 1945 or did you get the money?

Mr. GEISSE. We got the money, but not with Budget Bureau approval.

Senator WILLIAMS. Well, prior to 1945, your request to the Bureau of the Budget, we will say from 1934 on, when you

Mr. GEISSE. I am not too sure of the facts, but I know in many cases, for several years, they did include in the budget submitted to the Bureau an item for the carrying on of the development of the airplanes and accessories, and it was turned down.

Senator WILLIAMS. How much was that item requested?

Mr. GEISSE. Well, one year, I know they requested $1,000,000 for it; and Mr. Wright, who was formerly Director, was definitely in favor of that kind of a program; Bill Burden, who was Assistant Secretary of Commerce, was in favor of it; the present Administrator was in favor of it.

Senator WILLIAMS. Do you have an estimate as to your request for any other years, other than that one year?

Mr. GEISSE. No; I am not too familiar with that.

Senator WILLIAMS. But it was not until 1945 then that you told the Bureau of the Budget that you could construct this for $150,000. Mr. GEISSE. That was a special item.

Senator WILLIAMS. A special item?

This was a

Mr. GEISSE. Not the special development program. specific item that I presented to the Budget Bureau, told them what we might be able to save if it was successful, and was turned down. Senator WILLIAMS. Do you agree with the testimony of Mr. Armour that for 10 years prior to 1945 you know that you could do that for $150,000?

Mr. GEISSE. If the program had been permitted to operate back in 1935 we would have had a cross-wind, and in the meantime there was $1,000,000,000 spent on airports, of which 30 percent could have been saved.

Senator WILLIAMS. And it was in 1945 when you particularly called it to the attention of the Bureau of the Budget?

Mr. GEISSE. In 1945.

Senator WILLIAMS. Why did you wait that 10 years?

Mr. GEISSE. Well, it had been turned down-they had turned down every proposal that we had made to them for an over-all fund for this purpose.

Senator WILLIAMS. Yes; but, perhaps, they were looking at your over-all fund which ran into the millions and did not know about the cross-wind landing gear that you are speaking of as being so obvious.

Mr. GEISSE. Well, that might be true, Senator; but I would hardly think that the function of the Budget Bureau would be to consider each individual little item that we proposed to carry out.

I would think that it would be more the policy of whether we should or should not carry on the development of aircraft, and their policy apparently was definitely against it.

Senator WILLIAMS. I was just a little bit concerned with his testimony that you had something, he claimed, was so obvious, and the Government knew about it all the time, and was turning it down, and I was wondering just who was putting the pressure on, as he said; he said there was somebody putting pressure on somebody to hold it back.

Mr. GEISSE. I think Mr. Armour's objective in bringing that up was to show you that the Government can carry on development that would be useful, and that it will not be carried on if the Government does not.

Senator WILLIAMS. Do you think pressure of somebody-somebody was exerting pressure on the Bureau of the Budget?

Mr. GEISSE. The industry has in the past opposed development by the Government. I think now that maybe they might favor it. Senator WILLIAMS. Do you think industry was exerting any undue pressure on any Government agency?

Mr. GEISSE. Undue pressure?

Senator WILLIAMS. Yes.

Mr. GEISSE. No, I would not think so, Senator. But so far as their carrying on the development, I think I would like to make this point: During the war, a Mr. Williamson and myself made a survey of the industry for postwar activities.

One question that I asked at that time was whether the industry thought we should carry on the development program. The answer generally was "No," that they had sufficient funds, so that they did not need any Federal assistance, which was quite correct at that time. Those companies were pretty well fixed financially due to their war work.

Actually what happened was that they put all of that money into production facilities and material, practically no development work; and now they do not have the money for development work.

When I came back from that trip I recommended against the Government's going into development work now that I would recommend that it should do because the money is not available in the industry.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Geisse, you said that the industry does not favor the Government's carrying on development work. Industry has never objected to the Government's building airports and landing strips, has it?

Mr. GEISSE. No; no, nor providing all of the airway facilities.