Viewing page 16 of 17

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

AFFILIATED WITH THE                                                              Mike Gitt
     A.F. of L.                                                     "SCHEDULE WITH SAFETY"

                                 AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION
                                         INTERNATIONAL
                                 3145 WEST SIXTY-THIRD STREET
                                          CHICAGO 29

   TELEPHONE
GROVEHILL 6-2200
                                       October 10, 1949                      [[Image]] 537

Mr. D.W. Rentzel, Administrator
Civil Aeronautics Administration
Commerce Building
Washington 25, D.C.

Dear Mr. Rentzel:

     I have your letter of August 29, which is further in reply to my letter of May 4.  I note that you are still insistent about objective regulations.

     Answering specifically your paragraph 1, in which you state: "Flexibility is desirable to promote health for crew members by making provisions in the Civil Air Regulations to avoid unnecessary delays in extenuating circumstances..."  There is nothing in all the world to prevent making exceptions to the present Civil Air Regulations in certain specific instances that are extremely remote, and I am certain you know it.  Your approach is obviously the long way around and without merit.

     Now coming to paragraph 2, regarding your position on "objective regulations".  Here, you are talking on both sides of the question at the same time.  You begin by saying, "There is nothing obscure about objective regulations.  When I use this term, I mean concise, definite, and clear language in regulations."  This is not even close to the point, M. Rentzel.  I can say to anyone, "I'm going to create a regulation that will turn the regulations over to a third party, which is in this case the air lines."  I can say that I am going to do this in concise, definite and clear language.  It doesn't detract one iota from the wrecking-crew effect of the overall basic, wrong-way idea -- objective regulations.  Again, I am completely certain you know it.

     You talk about regulations keeping pace with the industry.  Why don't you come out with proposed regulations that would keep pace with the industry?  Less flying time.  A top limitation on mileage, which, in the light of the ever-increasing speed of the equipment, is a very necessary safety measure.  But I am quite sure we'll never see anything like that come out of your office.

     All the nice phrases you have in your remarks about air safety are, in my sincere opinion, just that -- nice phrases.  I prefer to stand on the record.  Air safety is something that