ting a manning scale. While some sections of the country seem to be mostly organized by unions, we think that overall less than half of the tugboat industry is organized. We feel it is vitally important that the Coast Guard have a part in setting up a manning scale so that these vessels will be assured of being safely manned.

Of equal importance, as individuals, we also are members of the public at large, who also are entitled to the safety and protection of the proposed legislation. The waterways of the country are public highways and must be operated for the safety of the public.

An important fact of life concerning the companies which would be affected by the proposed legislation is that in many areas there are no union organizations to take up the cudgels for safety. What this legislation would do, in essence, would be to vest in the Coast Guard initial authority for surveillance and rulemaking with regard to standards of safety, similar to the presently existing arrangement in virtually all other segments of the maritime industry, both offshore and inland.

In addition, it would make available a forum to which a complaining party could make his voice effectively heard. Absent this governmental forum, there is no present control whatsoever on the safety of these vessels and the individuals operating them, other than the conscience of the individual company.

One of the opponents to this bill, Mr. Robert L. Shortle, vice president of Mississippi Valley Association, New Orleans, La., on page 2 of his presentation to the subcommittee stated, in part, as follows:

It is imperative the industry remain a low-cost form of transportation. Accordingly, individual towing companies must effect every economy and every efficiency if they are to survive.

We submit that although good their intentions may be, with the aforementioned overriding philosophy apparently prevalent in the industry, we would feel more sure if the policing of safety and establishment of the standards thereof, be placed in governmental hands.

The companies' opposition to the proposed bill has also consisted, in part, of phantoms of doom which have been created by the companies. In particular, Mr. Cleary of the New York Towboat Exchange, attempted to paint a picture of impending disaster to the industry if the proposed manning scale provision imposed by the Coast Guard were to be adopted. Mr. Cleary stated that it was this Coast Guard manning scale which has caused the inland tanker vessels to diminish in number.

Significantly absent from Mr. Cleary's reporting of the partial demise of the tanker fleet was the appearance of the Colonial Pipeline, a massive 36-inch line over 15 States consisting of 1,600 miles of mainline and 1,000 miles of spurlines which, it has been estimated, will take about 14,500,000 barrels of petroleum products to fill the entire length of line, and provide a working inventory in tanks along the route. In 1963 it was estimated that the line would displace 50 coastwise tankers.

Thus, it seems clear to us that any loss in the tanker fleet was not caused by manning but rather by the pipeline.

During the course of the hearings, several members of the committee inquired as to what difference possession or nonpossession of a

license would make if a man was falling asleep during his operation of a tow vessel. This line of inquiry came about during the discussion of the Lake Ponchartrain incidents.

We submit that a licensed operator who has devoted his lifetime in developing his skills and obtaining his license through his professional pride and a strong sense of responsibility, would not as likely permit himself to go to sleep on watch, or permit his tow to proceed without proper lookouts as required by law, both for the protection of his license and the best interests of the owner whom he represents.

There has been a lot of discussion about licenses, with 10 trips over the route, and rules of the road, and consequently this leads one to believe anyone may be able to do this. I would like to point out that obtaining an initial license for operation of these river vessels, licensing by the Coast Guard, requires 3 years in the deck department, comprised of 365 days in a year. Where a man would work 30 days on and 30 days off, if he missed no time whatsoever, at this rate it would take him 6 years before he would be eligible to take this examination. Then this person sitting for this initial license, having 3 full years creditable time, would have to have 30 round trips over the route or 60 one-way trips. These trips are not made while a person is asleep. In his letter that he brings to the Coast Guard, signed by the pilot of the vessel attesting to the fact he was present aboard the vessel during these trips, this letter should state that the person requesting the examination was present in the pilot house observing the handling of the vessel and observing the route during the entire time in transit. If a man goes to the Coast Guard without these matters being made clear in his letter, which is signed by his licensed pilot or master, the Coast Guard very likely will not accept his letter. It must clearly state he is on his feet and attendant to what is going on during these 30 round trips.

After a man has spent 1 year in the capacity of a first-class pilotthis would be the first license he would get on rivers. This year again would be composed of 365 days in this capacity, not working on over a period of years.

Mr. GARMATZ. Is Captain Foster here?

Captain FOSTER. Yes, sir.

Mr. GARMATZ. Can you hear back there? Do you want to sit up here? There may be questions with reference to the Coast Guard which you may have to answer later on, and I think you should be able to hear.

Mr. UNDERHILL. I am very pleased Captain Foster is here. If I misrepresented anything to you in these licenses, here is a man that knows his business that can speak up and set the record straight.

After spending 1 year as a first-class pilot-a few years in this capacity, after that, this first-class pilot's license he has entitles him to stand a watch on a vessel. He is not to be master of the vessel unless it is under 150 tons. After he has spent a year as a first-class pilot, he then can take an examination for a master's license. This would permit him, if he has had experience on vessels over 150 tons, to be master of a vessel in excess of 150 tons.

In addition, under a safe manning schedule promulgated and enforced by the Coast Guard, it is likely that a condition wherein fatigue

becomes a factor in safe navigation would not exist in the first place, because we would be sure we were able to post lookouts as required by law, and a lookout is considered to be a person other than he who is in charge of the navigation. He cannot be the same person, the pilot and the lookout.

Several other arguments have been advanced by opponents of the bill which we believe, when examined more fully, are without merit. The Coast Guard has presented ample documentary evidence showing loss of life and property in those areas of uninspected vessels far in excess of loss of life and property damage involving inspected vessels. There is no need to await a disaster of major proportion involving an uninspected vessel before safety legislation is passed.

Mr. Koonman described what the U.S. Coast Guard would ask a Mississippi captain. This is a copy [indicating] of Mr. Koonman's testimony. He says, "We have 14 diesel towing vessels under 100 gross tons." He said they could not pass the examination required by the Coast Guard for deck officers and engineers because their trade does not require knowledge of such questions as these, and he lists a series of engineering questions and deck questions. I don't know anything about engineering too much, but the deck questions are very obviously taken for a master of oceans and unlimited tonnage. He states that they operate on the Mississippi River and Great Lakes, and so forth, and he said that his men could not answer these questions. There is no reason why they should. He is obviously misinformed as to what would be required of a man on the Mississippi River on a vessel under 100 tons when he tries to tell this committee that sample questions of latitude by Polaris running fixes and star identification, and so forth, are not needed. But they have nothing to do with a man on the Mississippi River on a tugboat over 100 tons. Obviously, he misunderstands the intent of licensing of this or some other reason that I don't understand. He goes on to say that these questions are not needed by his people "consisting of magnetism deviation and compass compensation."

The Lake Pontchartrain incidents described here earlier had a master of a towing vessel that struck a bridge 17 degrees off his course. During a hearing he testified that he didn't know there was a 17-degree error in the compass, and further, had he known it, he would not have known how to apply it anyway. Mr. Koonman backs this up and says magnetism deviation and compass compensation are among the things his men would not know and there is no need for them to know, and he continues on, and so forth.

We submit that the proposed H.R. 156 should be adopted now to prevent future disasters, not at some unfortunate later time as a reaction to a disaster of catastrophic proportions, which disaster may be waiting right around the next bend in the river.

Radar is not a substitute for pilots. We have been told that we don't need licensing of these pilots, we have radar now; you look here and this is fine.

However, a true pilot is more needed than ever. altogether a perfect instrument.

Radar is not

Let me show some examples here of what happens with radar under certain conditions. A wooden boat quite often can be seen by eye

much sooner than radar will ever pick it up. If we are to proceed in a fog, the conclusion that the radar is going to tell us what is ahead of us, and there are people in this fog in a wooden boat-what happens here?

Mr. CLARK. Mr. Chairman, may I interrupt here?

Mr. GARMATZ. Surely.

Mr. CLARK. I hate to disagree with you, but I happen to have an airplane pilot license, and I think I know something about radar, and I don't quite believe your statement on radar.

Mr. UNDERHILL. Let me

Mr. CLARK. On any boat you have more than just a wooden obstacle in the water.

Mr. UNDERHILL. My license rates me as a radar observer. I have been asked by the Coast Guard as to my knowledge, and I think perhaps we may be entitled to a difference of opinion.

However, in radar there is a phenomenon called trapping due to various weather conditions, and during these times poor results can be obtained. The roll and pitch, which, while it may not be experienced on a river, we are talking about legislation that affects towing vessels under 300 tons that ply the coast and the oceans, that go through the bays and the sounds where roll and pitch quite frequently is a thing of consideration. Especially in a small vessel like a towing vessel roll and pitch may cause a radar beam to miss a target at times.

Phantoms are another thing in radar which are echoes obtained from side objects. Close-by superstructures, for example, may give false bearings.

The minimum range in good weather conditions may be only 400 yards, but sea return and bad weather may blanket almost everything out up to 3 miles. A false shoreline on a plan position indicator scope can be caused when many small boats may be anchored and fishing. They would appear on the PPI scope as a part of the shoreline, making the true shoreline seem much further offshore. Surf on a sandbar can quite often appear, creating a false shoreline. Numerous rocks merge into one big echo. A buoy, for example, with a boat or vessel may appear as simply one echo.

When radar is present, this is all the more time when an experienced pilot is needed. We have been told because there is radar we do not need licensed pilots or even real pilots, perhaps. I submit that only a thoroughly experienced and competent pilot is truly eligible to analyze what he sees. Radar is only an aid to navigation. It aids him to analyze what is seen. The decision is made in his mind. The radar does not make it for him.

Earlier it has been suggested by opponents of the bill that vessels are currently being built to American Bureau of Shipping standards and, consequently, there is no necessity for the inspection features of the proposed legislation. We submit that this in no way answers the safety problem of periodic inspection of vessels to insure that they are being properly maintained, nor does it answer the problem of standards which may be periodically changed by the American Bureau of Shipping which could affect previously approved vessels.

The point is that the American Bureau of Shipping can only recommend. The U.S. Coast Guard, with the passage of this legis

lation, could require it. The American Bureau of Shipping is a society. It makes recommendations. It has no authority to require. A towing vessel can be built with or without conformity to these standards. There is nothing to require it. The U.S. Coast Guard, if this legislation is passed, would have the authority to require these things and to have it maintained in future years.

Previously at these hearings a question was raised as to the availability of training facilities for presently unlicensed tow men who, with the adoption of the proposed legislation, would be required to obtain a Coast Guard license. The following is but a partial list of locations throughout the country where private institutions, for a reasonable fee, offer instruction for Coast Guard licenses. As far as these institutions are concerned, we are not here pushing their business and are not saying they are good or bad or that they could not be improved. We are merely saying these places exist where people can get assistance for upgrading their present license or for obtaining a new license. This is only a partial list.

Seamen's Church Institute Navigation School, New York, N.Y.; Bowens Navigation, New York, N.Y.; Dobi's Navigation School, San Francisco, Calif.; Wooter's Navigation School, Philadelphia, Pa.; Van's Navigation School, Port Arthur, Tex.; Page Navigation School, New Orleans, La.; Crawford's, San Pedro, Calif.; Kildahl's, Seattle, Wash.

Similar schools are also to be found, among other places, in Baltimore, Md., San Diego, Calif., and in the State of Florida.

We may add that our own union, the International Organization of Masters, Mates & Pilots, has not been unresponsive to training programs. In cooperation with the U.S. Department of Labor, Local 88 of the International Organization of Masters, Mates & Pilots, with headquarters in New York City, has established a training program for martime deck officers, consisting of shoreside training coupled with on-the-job training while at sea.

Annexed hereto as exhibit A is a copy of a news release from the U.S. Department of Labor, dated February 14, 1965, outlining in some detail this program.

(The news release follows:)

[Press release, U.S. Department of Labor, Feb. 14, 1965]

EXHIBIT A

U.S. LABOR DEPARTMENT'S BUREAU OF APPRENTICESHIP AND TRAINING SIGNS ON-THE-JOB TRAINING CONTRACT FOR MERCHANT MARINE OFFICERS Neil Kort, Regional Director of the U.S. Department of Labor's Bureau of Apprenticeship and Training announced that a contract has been signed with Local 88 of the International Organization of Masters, Mates & Pilots (AFL-CIO) for an on-the-job training program to run for 52 weeks. This is the first Government-financed union training program for maritime deck officers. The program will be administered and staffed by local 88 in the union's building at 105 Washington Street, New York City.

This pioneer program for the maritime industry was initiated by Capt. Lloyd W. Sheldon while president of local 88, and Mr. Alfred D. Ciano, Regional Transportation representative of the Bureau of Apprenticeship and Training. The final contract was negotiated by Captain Sheldon, now international president of the union, and Mr. Richard J. Polachek, president pro tempore of local 88. Financial assistance amounting to $44.887 will be allocated to local SS under provisions of the Manpower Development and Training Act to pay for training