world airlines (in terms of passenger-miles flown) are U.S. carriers. Over half the free-world passenger-miles are flown by U.S. carriers. Three-fourths of the free-world commercial aircraft are of U.S. manufacture. The United States exports over 212 times as many general aviation aircraft as the rest of the world.

The importance of this leadership and the need to maintain it are of serious concern to the administration. We must recognize the mounting strength and activity of other nations in this field. This is true in the case of the development of supersonic aircraft where we have ground to a halt. The Congress has spoken in that particular field, of course, but we still experience feelings of regret over the dismantlement of our own SST program.

Our overall statistics in aviation activity are impressive but they serve only to confirm what most people already recognize: the Government has supported and fostered civil aviation; civil aviation has responded with impressive growth and has achieved widespread acceptance; in return, the user, the public, and the Nation have received a variety of benefits.

The growth pattern of the past 25 years is not likely to be duplicated in the future. Aviation has come of age, and while growth can be expected to continue, it will not be the same as we experienced since World War II. Civil aviation will encounter new challenges, and the public environment it will face will be different than it has been for several decades. Further growth in civil aviation and in the benefits it provides to the Nation will require the recognition of changing attitudes and the establishment of new priorities. The years around 1970 represent an important transition period.

A few years ago it was a popular pastime to visit airports and to watch aircraft operations. Today, as a result of noise, pollution, and ground congestion, airports are considered bad neighbors and their growth is often opposed. A few years ago an air trip was regarded as an adventure. Today air travel is regarded as routine, and congestion, delays, and other inconveniences often result in disgruntled and irate passengers. A very few years ago the airlines and aerospace industry were profitable and experiencing rapid growth. Now, however, circumstances which led to the boom of 1968 are no longer with us, and profits and employment are being reduced.

The administration's economic and technical programs, however, are aimed at alleviating this problem. I would point to the expansion over the last 3 years of our own aviation R. & D. budget, as an example. Not counting SST funding, we have risen from an obligation level of $46 million in 1969 to $87 million in 1972, and while I am not at liberty to discuss budget figures for 1973, I can say that we are pleased with the overall program for 1973.

These examples serve to emphasize the present problems of civil aviation that could become more severe in the future if additional actions are not taken in both the technical and economic areas. The importance of each of these problems depends on the viewpoint of the

observer.

To the general public, deeply concerned with the environment, the major problem is aircraft noise. This is still the case, even though environmental protection considerations have been clearly reflected in recent transportation policy actions. Perhaps increases in the por

tion of our recent R. & D. budget devoted to noise abatement are the best example of this.

I might add again the NASA budget has been increasing as well in noise abatement. Other important actions in this regard have been the establishment of procedures for developing and reviewing the environmental impact statements required under the National Environmental Policy Act and the establishment of aircraft-type certification standards prescribing allowable engine noise levels.

The aircraft manufacturers have also put forward significant efforts dealing with the noise problem. For example, the latest version of Boeing's 747-200 is over 21⁄2 times larger than its earlier 707 aircraft, with about 211⁄2 times the thrust. Despite its increased size and increased thrust, the 747 is substantially quieter, with a takeoff noise level of 107.7 effective perceived noise decibels (EPNdB), as compared with 118 EPNdB for a 707 at takeoff. This amounts to a reduction in the annoyance at takeoff of one-half. In the area of pollution, an industryGovernment agreement was reached in 1970 to incorporate smoke-free combustors in most airline two- and three-engine aircraft in domestic service.

To the user, concerned with service, delays caused by terminal congestion are important. For example, the cost to passengers of airborne delays has been estimated at about $100 million in 1969. The costs to carriers from aircraft terminal area delays due to congestion have been estimated at over $150 million. Without corrective action, these costs could grow to about $400 million and about $600 million respectively in 1980. The cost of ground access congestion to the passenger could be even greater. In addition, idling aircraft lined up on the ground contribute many times the amount of pollution that they do in flight.

The administration has recognized that there are critcal deficiencies in airport facilities and the air traffic control system. This recognition resulted in our submission in 1969 of a legislative proposal upon which the Airport and Airway Development and Revenue Acts of 1970 were based. These acts contemplate the infusion during the decade of the 1970's of $5 billion in Federal funds into the improvement of airports and the modernization of the air navigation and traffic control system. The Revenue Act extended the concept of a trust fund financed by user charges to the financing of Federal aviation expenditures, a step designed to lighten the burden on the general taxpayer and to ensure a more efficient allocation of our transportation

resources.

To the operators concerned with finances, the losses due to congestion are only part of the problem. They are also confronted with other operating losses, especially those related to the short-haul market. This market is a major contributor to airline industry losses which were over $150 million in 1970. Because of the potential for growth in the short-haul market, improved short-haul economics may be very important to the future of civil aviation. Not only is the potential shorthaul market large, but the possibilities for short-haul service of civil aviation to make a contribution to our society are also great. Civil aviation can beneficially affect regional development, population distribution, and land use, and can contribute to other social and economic

goals. Considering the country's future growth, safe and efficient shorthaul public transportation should become increasingly important.

The manufacturing side of the industry is also having severe financial problems. The research, development, and initiation of production for modern transport aircraft require a peak commitment on the order of $1 billion, several times the net worth of the producing company. Production runs of several hundred aircraft are required to reach the break-even point. If the market for these aircraft falters, as is presently the case, serious financial problems are created for the aerospace industry.

The problem could become even more serious. Foreign competition could make severe inroads into the U.S. leadership position. France, England, Japan, the U.S.S.R., West Germany, and Italy are all seeking increased shares of the expanding aircraft market and are developing, through their nationalized manufacturing industries, a variety of aircraft, such as the Concorde supersonic transport and the airbus, with which to challenge U.S. leadership. Among the factors which are contributing to the improved position of competitor nations is their formation of consortia for the manufacture of aircraft, as in the case of the British and French arrangement for the development of the Concorde. Another development which demonstrates how foreign competition is coming of age is the emergence on the foreign scene of "families" of aircraft which have been such an important feature of the industry here in the United States. Our foreign competitors are coming up with the technology, the funding, and the "sense of the market" needed to enable them to make a most formidable showing in this field.

My statement to this point reflects the foundation which was succinctly identified by the CARD study and around which the CARD study and resulting recommendations were formulated. Dr. Cannon will discuss in more detail the CARD study, its recommendations, and the status of the implementation plan. This plan will set forth the specific R. & D. actions to be taken by NASA and the DOT with respect to meeting future needs of civil aviation as identified in the CARD study.

Before I close, however, I would like to point out that we have already taken action to assure that programs in the FAA and the Office of the Secretary are aimed at providing solutions to problems identified in the CARD study. The actions address primarily the areas of congestion, both on the airside and landside, and noise. We are also looking into various aspects of low-density, short-haul air service. I have taken a deep personal interest in the CARD study and I fully intend to continue my personal involvement in the development of the action to implement the CARD recommendations.

That concludes my prepared statement, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HECHLER. Thank you, Secretary Beggs, for pinpointing and highlighting the problems and challenges in this entire field. We are very fortunate to have at the witness table the three agencies most closely concerned in both the planning and operation in the area we are focusing on: Aeronautical research and development; we are fortunate to have three great leaders in this field.

I will turn to the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Dr. James C. Fletcher. I hesitate to use the word, but isn't this your maiden appearance before this subcommittee?

Dr. FLETCHER. Thank you for the word "maiden."
(Biographical sketch of Dr. James C. Fletcher follows:)

BIOGRAPHICAL Data, JAMES CHIPMAN FLETCHER, NASA ADMINISTRATOR

Dr. James C. Fletcher was sworn in as Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration in a White House ceremony in the President's office on April 27, 1971.

President Nixon announced Dr. Fletcher's nomination as NASA Administrator on Feb. 27, 1971 and the appointment was confirmed by the U.S. Senate on March 11, 1971.

Dr. Fletcher became President of the University of Utah in 1964 after two decades of leadership in industry, government and military activities.

He was born June 5, 1919 in Millburn, New Jersey, attended high school in New York City and received a B.A. degree in physics with a minor in mathematics from Columbia University in 1940.

After graduation, Dr. Fletcher served as a research physicist with the U.S. Navy Bureau of Ordnance, studying the problems of degaussing ships as protection against magnetic mines.

In 1941 he became a special research associate at the Cruft Laboratory of Harvard University. He went to Princeton University in 1942 as a teaching fellow and later was an instructor and research physicist.

At the end of World War II, he began work on a doctorate in physics at the California Institute of Technology under a teaching assistantship and an Eastman Kodak Fellowship. After receiving his Ph.D. degree in 1948, Dr. Fletcher joined Hughes Aircraft Co. as director of the Theory and Analysis Laboratory in the Electronics Division. Six years later this division-instrumental in developing the Falcon air-to-air missile and the F-102 all-weather interceptorhad grown from 120 to 25,600 employees.

In 1954, Dr. Fletcher joined the Ramo-Wooldridge Corp. as an Associate Director and soon became Director of Electronics in the Guided Missile Research Division. Later the Guided Missile Division became Space Technology Laboratories a subsidiary of Ramo-Wooldridge, with technical responsibility for all United States intercontinental ballistic missiles (Atlas, Titan and Minuteman), as well as the Thor intermediate range ballistic missile. The laboratories also initiated Pioneer 4, the nation's first space probe.

In July 1958, Dr. Fletcher organized and was first president of the Space Electronics Corp. with his associate, Frank W. Lehan.

Space Electronics Corp. developed and produced the Able Star stage of the Thor-Able space carrier and had grown to 300 employees by 1960 when controlling interest was sold to Aerojet General Corp.

A year later, Space Electronics Corp. was merged with the spacecraft division of Aerojet to form the Space General Corp. Dr. Fletcher was responsible for the formation of this new corporation and was its first president. He later became Chairman of the Board of Space General and Systems Vice President of Aerojet General Corp. He served in this dual capacity until July 1, 1964 when he resigned to become the eighth president of the University of Utah.

In his career as a research scientist, Dr. Fletcher developed patents in areas as diverse as sonar devices and missile guidance systems. He continues his interest in science through national committee work, having served on more than 50 national committees and as chairman of 10.

In March 1967, Dr. Fletcher, after serving as a consultant since its inception in 1958, was appointed by President Johnson to membership on the President's Science Advisory Committee.

He was a member of the President's Committee on the National Medal of Science; and of several Presidential Task Forces, the most recent being the Task Force on Higher Education.

He is a Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, an Associate Fellow of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics and a member of the Board of Trustees of the Theodore von Karman Memorial Foundation. He received the first Distinguished Alumni Award to be given by California Institute of Technology. Dr. Fletcher served higher education as a member of the Executive Committee of the National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges.

Dr. Fletcher is the fourth man to head the nation's civilian space agency which came into being Oct. 1, 1958. The first Administrator was Dr. T. Keith Glennan, president of Case Institute of Technology, Cleveland. He was succeeded in 1961 by Mr. James E. Webb, a former Director of the Bureau of the Budget and Under Secretary of State, who served until 1968. Dr. Fletcher's immediate predecessor was Dr. Thomas O. Paine, who resigned Sept. 15, 1970, to return to the General Electric Co. after heading NASA since 1968.

Dr. Fletcher is married to the former Fay Lee of Brigham City, Utah, and they are the parents of four children, three girls and a boy : Virginia Lee, Mary Susan, James Stephen and Barbara Jo.

NASA AVIATION PROGRAM

STATEMENT OF DR. JAMES C. FLETCHER, ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

Dr. FLETCHER. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee and other distinguished Members of Congress, NASA appreciates very much the opportunity to appear here today to participate in these important hearings on aeronautical research and development.

As you mention, this is my first appearance before this subcommittee, which in my view has contributed very significantly in developing and leading support for the Nation's and NASA's aeronautics programs.

As mentioned earlier, the hearings by the subcommittee held in the fall of 1968, and those in December of 1969, served to focus congressional and public attention on the importance of a farsighted and systematic approach to planning this Nation's total aeronautical research and development efforts. The subsequent report of this subcommittee in March of 1970, pinpointed areas where additional study was needed and thus proved to be extremely useful in guiding the efforts of the Joint DOT-NASA study on Civil Aviation Research and Development-the so-called CARD study-which was completed last spring. Accompanying me today are Mr. Roy P. Jackson, the Associate Administrator in charge of the Office of Aeronautics and Space Technology, and senior members of his staff, who will discuss that study and the steps which have been taken or formulated as a result of its recommendations.

Before I turn to a summary discussion of the recommendations of the CARD study and the status of NASA actions in implementing those recommendations, I would like to express my support for the steady increase in funding within NASA for aeronautics over the last several years. Funding for aeronautics in the research and development appropriation has grown from $42 million in fiscal year 1966 to $110 million in fiscal year 1972, a doubling in terms of constant dollars. When you add the funding for salaries and other in-house costs related to supporting the aeronautics programs, the total acronautics funding has grown from 1.6 percent of the total NASA budget in fiscal year 1966 to 7.1 percent in fiscal year 1972. The number of NASA personnel whose efforts are being applied to aeronautics research. and technology has grown from 2,600 in 1966 to 5,300 this year. The increase to this level has occurred during a period of major staff reductions in NASA of over 6,000 during the last 6 years from 34,000 to 27,500 total positions.