During the past year, a Sonic Boom Coordinating Committee was established under the leadership of the President's Assistant for Science and Technology. This group defined a test program that is being conducted under the management of the U.S. Air Force.

The principal effort this past year has been a series of sonic boom tests at Edwards Air Force Base, Calif., involving aircraft ranging in size from the F-104 to the XB-70. The purpose of these tests has been to learn more about the effects of sonic boom of varying size airplanes on structures and people.

Despite all the efforts we have made to date, we still do not have a clear and positive answer under what conditions supersonic flight might be permitted over populated land areas. We are continuing our tests with the eventual objective of determining criteria for sonic boom acceptability.

The design we have selected has favorable aerodynamic shaping that minimizes its boom intensity for an airplane of its size and performance. It exceeds the original design objectives for sonic boom intensity by only a small amount.

Nonetheless, lacking criteria, we cannot be sure whether this design. will be permitted to fly supersonically over populated land areas. In cases where it will be necessary to fly subsonically to avoid producing sonic booms over land, the variable sweep wing design, with its good subsonic cruise efficiency, offers great advantages.

The other large effort in our related research has been an examination of the economics of the supersonic transport. The basic results of our research and studies are shown on this chart.

For overwater routes only our estimates show the market to be about 500 aircraft by 1990. If overland operations are permissible the market may be as great as 1,200 aircraft. We have based our supersonic transport program decisions on the conservative assumption that this design is to be operated primarily over water.

You will recall that we based our financial plan and the recovery of our Government investment on this assumption. That is, we recover the Government investment with interest on the projected market of 500 aircraft.

The investment recovery agreement also provides for payment of royalties on derivative versions which may include a subsequent version designed specifically for overland operations.

Assuming a sales price of $40 million, this means total sales of about $20 to $48 billion of which we expect about one-half to be sales to foreign buyers.

There are an estimated 50,000 direct jobs associated with the manufacture of the supersonic transport for 10 to 20 years and, using the economists' usual measure of total employment impact, there would be roughly four to five times that number of jobs generated by the supersonic transport manufacturing program.

My statement would not be complete without a mention of the Anglo-French Concorde. It is our understanding that the airplane is on schedule to achieve first flight in early 1968. The assembly of the airplane is well along. It is expected that the Concorde could begin delivery to the airlines in 1971.

Thus the Concorde is about 3 to 31⁄2 years ahead of the U.S. supersonic transport program.

Regarding the Soviet supersonic transport, designated the TU-144, there is little published information. What is available shows the airplane to closely resemble the Concorde. The overall assessment is that the Soviets may fly the TU-144 before the Concorde flies.

In summary, the supersonic transport program is on schedule. We have successfully completed the detailed design effort and have evolved a financial plan for the prototype development that requires the manufacturers to risk a substantial amount of their resources and includes risk participation by the U.S. airlines in the development program.

The contracts we have negotiated provide for recovery of the Government's money through royalty provisions. Our economic analyses show that the supersonic transport will be economically profitable and our technical analysis has affirmed that we are ready to proceed. With the continued support of the Congress, we have all the ingredients for a successful program.

Thank you.

General MCKEE. That concludes our presentation, Mr. Chairman. (The prepared statement of General McKee follows:)

STATEMENT OF General WILLIAM F. MCKEE, ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL AVIATION

AGENCY

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Agency. I and the staff I have with me appreciate the opportunity to come before you today.

II. FAA JURISDICTION

The Federal Aviation Agency, soon to become the Federal Aviation Admisistration in the newly-created Department of Transportation, has the basic responsibility for aviation safety. Our specific activities include the management of the navigable airspace for safety of aircraft and the efficient utilization of the airspace; the operation of a system of air navigation facilities; the control of air traffic for both civil and military traffic; and the certification of aircraft and airmen in accordance with our safety performance standards. We administer the airports grant-in-aid program, operate the Washington National and Dulles International airports, and have the responsibility for carrying out the program for the development of a civil supersonic transport.

III. FAA ORGANIZATION

Our organization consists of the Washington Headquarters and seven Regional Headquarters in New York, Atlanta, Kansas City, Fort Worth, Los Angeles, Anchorage, Honolulu, and Brussels for our European Region. We also operate an aviation facilities experimental center at Atlantic City. At Oklahoma City we have a major support facility that provides for centralized technical training a repository for aeronautical records, medical research, aircraft overhaul and warehousing. The five Regions in the contiguous United States are broken down into a total of 18 "areas," each with an "area office." We operate on the concept of decentralized authority so that the public can get an immediate response from our area and regional officials and so that those officials can carry out their responsibilities in an effective and timely way. The extension of the decentralization concept to the area offices from the regional offices has recently been completed, and we are convinced that it will permit us to do our job more satisfactorily both from the point of view of the public and from our own.

A new and important organizational development is the creation of the Department of Transportation and the inclusion of the FAA in it. We look forward to working as a member of the transportation team in the new department that will direct the development of our transportation system in a manner which will promote the potential of each transportation mode in meeting national needs.

IV. THE AVIATION ENVIRONMENT

As an introduction to some of the problems which the Agency currently faces, I would like to say a word about developments since the Federal Aviation Agency was created eight years ago. Revenue passenger miles flown by U.S. scheduled air carriers increased from 33 billion in Fiscal Year 1959 to 76 billion in 1966, and we anticipate that in 1970 they will increase to 119 billion, or about 31⁄2 times the number for 1959. Air cargo ton miles increased from 800 million in 1959 to over 21⁄2 billion in 1966, and should continue to increase at a very rapid rate over the next few years. The number of civil aircraft increased from a total of 70,000 in 1959 to 98,000 in 1966, and we are forecasting that the total in 1970 will be 131,000, almost twice the number we had in 1959. Aircraft operations handled by FAA air traffic control towers totaled 27 million in 1959. This figure rose to 41 million in 1966 and we expect that in 1970 it will reach 69 million, or almost 21⁄2 times the number for 1959.

Fortunately, we have experienced an improvement in aviation safety as this explosive growth has been taking place. As far as air carrier operations are concerned, the annual number of accidents has remained about the same in the last few years, but in terms of the number of accidents per unit of hours flown, there has been an encouraging improvement in the record. The accident rate for U.S. air carriers operations per 100,000 hours flows was 1.97 in calendar year 1959. This figure was reduced to 1.55 for 1966. We continue to have an increase in the number of general aviation accidents from year to year, but we have experienced a gradual reduction in the rate of accidents. The accident rate per 100,000 hours flown by general aviation aircraft was 35.5 in 1959. The rate for 1966 was 31.2.

In addition to growth in aviation activity, we are also experiencing notable advances in aviation technology. In airline industry, the last few years have seen the steady replacement of piston aircraft by larger and faster jets. The general aviation fleet has also become more sophisticated, particularly the equipment used by business organizations. The next members of the air carrier fleet will be the jumbo jets, aircraft capable of transporting 350 to 500 passengers. Developmental efforts on new vertical and short take-off and land aircraft show promise for improving local and short-haul air transportation. Supersonic aircraft will be in service concurrently.

As for growth of the Agency itself, we have leveled off in the last five or six years following the large build-up of the late 1950s. Not counting appropriations for the SST, appropriations during the last five years for the Agency (new obligational authority) have remained in the area of 700 to 750 million. After reaching a peak of 46,600 in 1963, our total number of employees has been reduced to the present level of 42,800.

Thus in a period characterized by rapidly expanding technology and phenomenal growth, the FAA with the cooperation of the aviation industry is doing more with fewer resources through the use of modern techniques.

V. MAJOR PROBLEMS AND DEVELOPMENTS

The rapid expansion of aviation and aviation technology has presented new problems. As of now, and looking into the immediate future, the most important of the problem areas are: the constant requirement for improved safety, the abatement of aircraft noise, the management of the navigable airspace, the development of an adequate system of easily accessible and congestion-free airports to meet future needs, and the development of a civil supersonic transport.

Safety

I mentioned before the improvement that has occurred over recent years in the air safety record. This improvement has taken place in a period when more and faster aircraft are moving in an increasingly complex air traffic control environment.

Since 1959 the scheduled air carriers have increased their flight equipment cost by $2 billion. Another $2 billion has been spent on construction of public airports during that period. And FAA expenditures for air route traffic control centers, radars, navigational aids, and the like have totalled $950 million. In these years these industry and governmental outlays, and the efforts of the people in the aviation community, have created a significantly safer, more reliable, more efficient aviation system.

As indicated by the air safety statistics which I mentioned previously, there has been in recent years a gradually improving general aviation accident rate.

We would like to see that rate even more improved. We recognize that this presents a considerable challenge considering the rapid increase in general aviation activity and the increased complexity of the equipment used in this field of aviation. Among other things, we are presently considering several regulatory actions which may serve to improve the safety record of general aviation. Among these are upgraded requirements for general aviation pilot certification and new standards for air taxi operators. We are also working on a program for upgrading the quality of weather data available to general aviation pilots.

Another field in which we believe we can bring about improvements enhancing the safety of air travel is that of emergency evacuation and crashworthiness. There have been significant improvements in this category recently. However, accident studies have indicated that further practical improvements may be possible in the design of aircraft interiors and emergency escape systems which will increase the passenger's chances of survival upon impact of the aircraft. One of the many problems arising due to the advance of aviation technology is the development of airworthiness standards for vertical/short take-off and land (VSTOL) and short take-off and land (STOL) aircraft and supersonic transports.

Aircraft Noise

One of the most serious current problems in aviation is aircraft noise. The problem is particularly serious in the vicinity of our big city airports, such as JFK in New York, O'Hare in Chicago, and the Los Angeles International Airport. Last March, the President directed his Science Adviser to work with the Administrators of FAA and NASA, and the Secretaries of Commerce and of Housing and Urban Development to frame an action program to attack the aircraft noise problem. Under our present program, we are concentrating our efforts on three major areas: reduction of noise at the source, development of flight operational techniques which will promote noise abatement, and compatible land use development.

Of immediate concern to us is enactment of the Administration's bill authorizing the prescription of aircraft noise standards and regulations in the same manner now authorized with respect to minimum standards and rules required in the interest of aircraft safety. This bill was introduced at our request by the Chairman, as H.R. 3400. We regard enactment of the bill as a most important step in our efforts to alleviate the noise problem. Perhaps of greatest significance is the authority it provides for the application of noise standards in the certification of aircraft. We believe this authority is essential to the achievement of any real progress in the reduction of aircraft noise at its source. Because of its importance, we would appreciate your giving consideration to this measure at the earliest possible time.

Automation

In order to meet the requirements imposed by more and faster aircraft moving in a more complex control environment we are developing a highly automated air traffic control system. This program involves the establishment of a semi-automated system for the en route and terminal portions of the air traffic control system. We anticipate that the en route program will be implemented on a nationwide basis in 1972. That portion of the air traffic control system which serves aircraft operating in the vicinity of the airport will be implemented gradually. We expect to have an operational system at New York by December 1967. Additional installations will be completed in certain other terminal areas in 1970.

Airport Development

Through the Federal-aid Airports Program, a grant-in-aid program begun in 1947 and administered by FAA and predecessor agencies, over 2,000 airports throughout the nation have received federal matching funds for airport development. The FAAP program was most recently extended last year to run through FY 1970 at an authorized level of $75 million per year.

While FAAP has made a very significant contribution to airport development, problems of airport capacity, congestion and access are developing rapidly, and solutions to these problems are beyond the scope of FAA.

Of significance to the solution of these problems is the recent designation by the President of Secretary Boyd and CAB Chairman Murphy to head an Airport Task Force to recommend a program for the planning and development of a national system of airports adequate for the present and future needs of air

transportation in the United States. It is anticipated that these recommen tions will be made promptly.

In addition, we are looking forward to utilizing the mechanism of the Depa ment of Transportation for the development of a transportation system. W the airport can be viewed and developed as a part of the overall system, pr lems like airport access will be better foreseen and hence will hopefully not allowed to develop to the "problem" stage.

The Supersonic Transport Development Program

The SST program is the last major subject category we have listed for disc sion with you, and I would like to leave that for General Maxwell, the direc] of our SST program.

But before I end my statement I would like to discuss with you a couple special matters that we would like to bring your attention to. One relates. the local airports at Washington and the other relates to charging fees for so of the services performed by FAA.

National Capital Airports

Washington National Airport and Dulles International Airport are now op ated by the Bureau of National Capital Airports of FAA. For several years have sponsored legislation to create a Government corporation to manage i airports. Establishment of such a corporation would place the operation these airports on a sound business basis and facilitate improvements in efficiency of airport operations. We expect to have the legislative proposal rea for resubmission to Congress very shortly and, once again, we would appreci: your early consideration of it.

From the operational standpoint, the basic problems we have in the mana ment of the two airports are congestion at National Airport and an underuse Dulles. At present, we are controlling congestion at National by placing hourly limitation on airline flights and restricting jet operations to small a medium-sized jets. We are also looking into making some limited physi improvements to the airport which should help ease the situation.

Dulles, while underused today, is continuing to increase in activity, and believe we will become more and more appreciative of this facility as time pass When the airlines become equipped with larger aircraft such as the jumbo je and the SST, Dulles will have the capacity to accommodate them.

Fees for Special Services

In line with the policy of the Administration with respect to recovery by G ernment agencies of costs for services provided to special groups, the Agen anticipates the publication in the near future of a proposed regulation establis ing a schedule of fees for the various certificates issued by FAA. Under t plan we have under consideration, the expense of issuing various certificates w be borne by the applicant, the person who is directly benefitted by the servi performed by the Agency. This fee system would be in addition to any ta measures which the Administration may resubmit to this Congress for recoveri the costs of operating and maintaining the air traffic control and air navigatio system.

(The FAA organizational chart and personnel biographies follow BIOGRAPHICAL SUMMARY OF GEN. WILLIAM F. MCKEE, USAF (RETIRED), ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL AVIATION AGENCY

Appointed: July 1965.
Pay category: Statutory.
Date of birth: 10-17-06.

September 1964 to July 1965-Assistant Administrator for Management De velopment, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington, D.C July 1962 to August 1964-Vice Chief of Staff, USAF.

1953 to June 1962-Vice Commander, Air Materiel Command, and Commande Logistics Command, USAF.

September 1947 to 1953-Assistant Vice Chief of Staff, USAF.

June 1926 to September 1947-Graduated from West Point in 1929 and pro gressed to Commanding General of USAF Europe before working under Genera H. H. "Hap" Arnold in setting up the United States Air Force as a separat service.