Viewing page 108 of 125

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

November, 1931          U. S. AIR SERVICES          37

would make it possible to secure considerably more land than is actually required for airport operation, with subsequent sale or lease of the excess tracts under such limiting clauses as would forever forbid construction of aerial navigation hazards in the vicinity of the port. A second method of control, less costly where feasbily, is the location of an airport in a place where the immediately surrounding areas are not yet unoccupied by anything objectionable, and then throwing a zone restriction upon the entire neighborhood. The legal theory of municipal zoning has been thoroughly threshed out, and the process is frequently used in other connections. Airport administrations should take early advantage of it wherever possible, to prevent hazardous developments in their surroundings. 

UNDER the head of adequate ground equipment for the sage operation of an airport, the United States Department of Commerce specifications on runways and lighting to the A1A rating should be the minimum requirement of the modern airport. I realize that this would mean further improvement of some ports that are rather pretentious at the present time, and it would mean the ultimate closing up of some hundreds of vacant lot landing fields over the country. But when cities and citizens insist, in the name of safety, that these specifications be met as a minimum, aviation will be a great deal better off than it is today. Beyond this, there is he problem of controling the visiting public, which I am sure you will recognize as a difficulty of no small proportion. Some European airpots, I understand, and a few that I know of in this country, go so far, as quite cutting off the public from witnessing the flying activities on the field. This is a mistake. The public should be given every opportunity and convenience consistent with safety for seeing what is going on. But at the same time the public must be kept away from revolving propellers and taxiing ships. Here again, ample area for airport layouts is the prime requisite. 
    All this naturally brings me to say something of uniform traffic regulations, enforced by competent authority, as a safety provision. Great strides toward achieving this goal have been made even within the last year under Department of Commerce leadership. We may be confident that we are well on the way toward a modification of regulations which will be acceptable everywhere. The question of adequate authority for their enforcement is one that must be answered by each airport for itself. The municipal airport has the advantage of being in a position to incorporate air traffic regulations into the city ordinances, and to enforce their observance by police power. I strongly urge such provisions upon every municipality which has its own airport, and further urge that nation-wide uniformity will be the very essence of safety in this respect.

I HAVE mentioned thus far four factors in airort safety: namely, location, appropriateness of surroundings, adequacy of equipment, and proper traffic control. The selection or operation of each of these depends ultimately upon personnel. It should be recognized at once that airport administration has become a distinct profession in itself, and that the safe planning, construction, maintenance, and operation of an airport cannot be entrusted ti anyone who happens to be either a good pilot or a good politician. From the standpoint of safety alone, I believe that the sooner this situation is consciously comprehended by airport administrators themselves, by the aviation industry, bu the public generally, the better off we will be.
    The selection of field attendants, of clerical assistants, and of executive staff should be made from persons who are peculiarly fitted by training and disposition to this type of work. too many airports are manned by persons who have just happened to be successful in other lines of work, and this practice is no more conducive to safety than would the management of railroads by capable barbers or the navigation of steamers by competent farmers. Let us decide what the qualifications or airport administrations are, let us establish them as the standards of a profession, and let us adhere to them with a professional attitude. 
    As regards all the safety factors I have discussed, the municipal airport should realize that it is in a highly favored position. Municipalities are able to guarantee permanence with much more assurances than can the private promoter. They are able to secure adequate check and operation of equipment involving engineering, crowd control, and fire prevention. They can, as said before, put police authority behind traffic regulations. Finally, by use of civil service examinations, they can establish a definite standard for personnel. With these powers available, the municipal airports of the country are particularly chargeable with the obligation of safety. 

IN CONCLUSION, permit me to suggest the thought that the airport, to develop along safe and sane lines, needs a hearty public sympathy and support in its plans. We do not expect the public to understand all of the technical problems of either engineering or legislation which may be involved. But we must have a public which is at once air-minded and sensible. The airport must become, consciously, an educational institution where the public can be taught to comprehend that the place is a center for commercial transportation, for industry, pilot training, scientific experimentation, and legitimate recreation. We must win people to the concept of an airport as a public service establishment operated by engineers, business men and scientific specialists, rather than reinforcing the notion that an airport is a circus manned by daredevils. In other words, airport safety means in the long run that airports must both possess and deserve public recognition and support as places where safety is a paramount factor in every consideration and plan. 
     (Delivered before the 20th Annual Safety Congress and Exposition, Chicago.)


UNITED Air Lines announce through National Air transport Inc., that a contract for the design and construction of a new hangar and office building at Love Field, Dallas, has been awarded, representing an investment of $100,000. The structure will be 121 feet wide and 143 feet long, of steel framework with brick walls. Eighty tons of structural steel will be required. Two door openings, each 118 feet wide and 20 feet high, will be provided, with the around-the-corner type of sliding doors. The office quarters along one side will be 21 feet wide and 121 feet long. The contract includes the installation of heating, lighting, plumbing and sprinkler systems.