Viewing page 28 of 507

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

20     HELICOPTER AIR SERVICE PROGRAM

Mr. Boyd. We believe that the scheduled operations of these four carriers continue to be of great value, and I will be very much surprised if the helicopter operators when they testify don't point to some tangible evidence of this. 

I should say I was just advised by Mr. Roth that the Department of Defense has intervened in the show-cause proceeding. I don't know whether they have intervened directly or have given their proxy to the Department of Commerce, but they are represented. 

(The following information was received from the Civil Aeronautics Board:)

EXHIBIT 3

MILITARY SUPPORT FOR SCHEDULED HELICOPTER SERVICES IN BOARD PROCEDDINGS 

The most recent and extensive evidence of military support for scheduled helicopter services in formal proceedings before the Board is contained in docket 14008, the Chicago Helicopter Airways Renewal case.

The carrier presented a series of exhibits entitled "Specific Examples of the Wide Range of Important Contributions to Helicopter Developments by CHA Resulting in Very Substantial Dollar Savings to the Department of Defense."
Mr. Bannick of the Department of Defense testified in the proceedings as to the advantages to the military of scheduled helicopter services by the commercial operators. He also testified as to the reasonableness of the $70 to $80 million cost saving figure advanced by Mr. Nesbitt of Sikorsky Aircraft. The particularly pertinent pages of the transcript of this testimony (pp. 514-523) which was presented before the Board's hearing examiner on April 24, 1963, are attached. 
Mr. Faulk. Mr. Examiner, I would like to call Mr. Elmer J. Bannick. Whereupon, Elmer J. Bannick was called as a witness and, after being first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION
By Mr. FAULK:
Q. Would you state your name for the record, please?
A. My name is Elmer J. Bannick.
Q. What is your position within the Department of Defense?
A. I am the Chief of the Rotary Wing Observation and Utility Aircraft Division, Directorate of Engineering, U.S Army Transportation Materiel Command, which is located in St. Louis.
Q. Have you prepared a statement for this proceeding?
A. I have.
Q. Is it true and correct to the best of your belief and knowledge?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. Was this statement prepared in response to a request by the Bureau of Economic Regulation of the Civil Aeronautics Board?
A. Yes, sir. 
MR. FAULK. I tender the witness.
CROSS- EXAMINATION
By MR. MCKINNON
Q. Mr. Bannick, on page two of your prepared testimony, or on pages one and two of your prepared testimony, you indicate that one of the items of value to the Department of Defense is the developmental and experimental information you obtained from the operation of civilian aircraft helicopters?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Are you personally aware, or are you aware, of any direct contribution made by Chicago Helicopter Airways to this information?
A. We have made some contact directly with Chicago Helicopter. The majority, however, is on an indirect basis. In other words, the information is given to the contractor, and the military derives the benefits therefrom, the contractor then coming out with a modification for product improvement which he proposes that we incorporate.
Q. In other words, this statement that you made here is predicated on the assumption that the experience of the scheduled operators, going through the