Mr. BROOKS. Having established this independent set of visual aerial charts for the 48 contiguous States, what do you estimate is the annual cost of maintaining this independent chart system?

Mr. LITTLEPAGE. We would have to go on our own experience. I would think it would be at least in the neighborhood of $200,000. Mr. BROOKS. Just to maintain them?

Mr. LITTLEPAGE. Yes, sir.

Mr. BROOKS. This doesn't include the printing and the duplication, and so forth, and the paper?

Mr. LITTLEPAGE. No. This would be the separate maintenance. Not paper or press, the copies, but maintaining the base information in the aeronautical overprint, the cartographic work.

Mr. BROOKS. Could not the Coast and Geodetic Survey furnish the Air Force with a visual air chart of the United States utilizing this different means of indicating elevation; that is, the color scheme that they use?

Mr. LITTLEPAGE. Yes, sir. We felt that we could. We haven't any quarrel, of course, with the military having requirements to satisfy military needs. That is their business, and if they can justify those it is up to them. However, we do believe, and we stated, that these military needs could have been produced by using one basic chart, one basic compilation, and the information which makes that chart different from the chart that we produce under the standards of ICAO would be by the substitution of printing plates to show the terrain tints and the overprinting with a relief printing plate. We felt that we could, by using the same base, provide both of the requirements from one basic compilation.

DUPLICATION CITED IN 1958

Mr. BROOKS. I would like to submit at this time a letter dated May 23, 1958, to Robert H. Randall, Head of the Cartography Unit, Resources and Civil Works Division, Bureau of the Budget, and signed by Adm. H. Arnold Karo. The letter reads:

DEAR MR. RANDALL: In keeping with your request to representatives of this Bureau at a meeting held in your office May 16, 1958, I am submitting the following additional information in connection with the "new look" U.S. Air Force 1:1,000,000-scale aeronautical chart.

I wish to make it clear that our objections are not based on new design concepts for aeronautical charts. A chart is a living document which must be continually studied and improved from the standpoint of serving the needs of the user and the advancing techniques of navigation.

There are, however, certain limitations which the Government has provided, and, I think, wisely, for the coordination of the mapping and charting activities of its several agencies engaged in this effort.

The intent of the several Executive orders setting up these regulatory and coordinating bodies as well as the policies set forth by these bodies seem to me to make it abundantly clear that every effort shall be made to avoid duplication and to coordinate special requirements into existing chart series coverage in the interest of economy and safety.

You have asked the question, "What is the cost of producing the 'new look' WAC according to USAF specifications as compared to overprinting the conventional ICAO standard WAC with relief?"

As I see it, if the USAF is permitted to proceed with their announced production schedule the result must be, at least for the immediate future, a duplicate production of this series covering the United States. The estimates we have furnished the USAF for the production of five selected U.S. charts to their specifications is $9,000 per chart, exclusive of paper and distribution cost, which they have indicated is in line with their own estimates. The estimated cost, therefore,

of providing coverage for the United States would be $9,000 times 43 charts, or a total of $387,000. If Alaska is included in their plan, another 19 charts must be added at a cost of an additional $171,000. I would have to assume that their requirement would include all of our WAC coverage of the United States and Alaska in view of their announced plans to extend this "family of charts" specincation to all of the principal chart series; namely, the jet navigation charts, scale 1:2,000,000; world aeronautical charts, scale 1:1,000,000; pilotage charts, scale 1:500,000; and aeronautical approach charts, scale 1:250,000.

A fair estimate of the additional cost of producing the USAF specification as a military requirement in lieu of a joint military-civil chart would be, I believe, in the area of $558,000 for the initial compilation and printing (less paper and distribution) plus the maintenance of a duplicate series of charts.

I must point out that the extension of this specification to the other series mentioned, if carried out to include the present area coverage series, would affect 86 U.S. sectional charts, scale 1:500,000, and 4 U.S. jet navigation charts, scale 1:200,000,000.

Another interesting question in connection with the new USAF specification is whether these charts would serve the requirements of general civil aviation in foreign areas. This is a question I am not in a position to answer, but there is already some evidence of real concern among civil users of foreign WAC's regarding the USAF tendency to design their present charts for military use without regard for civil needs. This is particularly true of South America and Mexico where private flying activity is high, but it may apply to coverage of the commerical air routes throughout the world. Should this problem be aggravated to the point where USAF coverage of foreign areas is not acceptable to civil needs, this Bureau has a responsibility to furnish charts to fill these needs.

If the USAF requirements can be reconciled with the ICAO standard civil edition by the addition of a relief overprint to conventional layer tints and certain other less significant information, the cost would be estimated $500 per chart. This would reflect an initial additional cost of $21,500 for the 43 U.S. WAC's and $9,500 for the Alaska WAC's. This estimate is based on the man-hours and material required to prepare a relief overprint for WAC 404 for experimental purposes.

On this basis, a cost comparison would be $558,000 for the production on the USAF specification as compared to $31,000 for the overprint on presently published WAC charts of the United States and Alaska.

As you can see, the answer to your question is a difficult one and one which has many ramifications. I believe that the estimate provided above is a fair appraisal for your specific question.

I am compelled, however, to point out again the possibilities of duplication which this specific deviation may entail and to express my concern, in the light of recent developments in the interest of air safety, regarding radical departures from accepted standards to which the United States has agreed.

This indicates that Admiral Karo feels the cost of producing this duplicate set will be expensive.

This is an interesting letter. It seems to be horribly accurate on this day, even though written in May 1958.

Mr. LITTLEPAGE. I might add that the Federal Aviation Agency now has a task force assigned to the project of trying to arrive at joint specifications for these very types of charts. So that ultimately they hope

Mr. BROOKS. Who has this committee?

Mr. LITTLEPAGE. The Federal Aviation Agency. They hope that there will be a single chart that will satisfy both requirements.

Mr. BROOKS. Is there any duplication in the production of instrument flight charts?

Mr. LITTLEPAGE. Yes, sir; there has always been a duplication between the Air Force instrument flight charts and those produced by the Coast and Geodetic Survey.

In January 1961 the Federal Aviation Agency issued a set of standard specifications for a national product which would satisfy both the military and civil needs with one chart. For a period of time the Air Force used the Coast and Geodetic Survey

compilation material for these charts, and on January 19, 1962, the Air Force entered into an agreement for separate production, compilation, maintenance, printing and distribution of the entire series of radio facility charts and the instrument approach procedure charts.

Mr. BROOKS. These are the charts which you are talking about; is that right? Look at those, sir.

Mr. LITTLEPAGE. These are a part. These are the low altitude en route charts. There are intermediate altitude and high altitude charts.

Mr. BROOKS. These are an example of the similarity of these charts.

Mr. LITTLEPAGE. Yes, sir.

Mr. WALLHAUSER. Are they identical?

Mr. LITTLEPAGE. We hope they are identical, sir. They have separate, completely separate compilation and maintenance. So there could be differences.

Mr. BROOKS. Admiral?

PRIVATE FIRM GOT NEGATIVES

Admiral KARO. If I might state, in answer to Congressman Wallhauser's question, when they started with this contract, with a separate contractor, the Air Force obtained a set of reproduction negatives from us which they turned over to the contractor for his start as maintenance. Since then any deviation has been in the different types of maintenance.

Mr. BROOKS. It gives him a rather nice start for a fat contract to pick up the negatives and just reprint them and sell them.

Admiral KARO. Of course they have to take care of the changes as they go along.

Mr. BROOKS. They could be a day or two late and use yours, couldn't they?

Admiral KARO. This is for the start. From now on they have been maintaining them themselves. In essence the Government is paying for two compilations.

Mr. BROOKS. How much, sir, is the duplication of these charts costing the Government?

Mr. LITTLEPAGE. Our best estimate we have a copy of the contract agreement, which is for $5 million for a period of 2 years-our best estimate of the cost involved in the duplication of the compilation and maintenance of information on there would be in the neighborhood of $350,000 to $400,000 per year.

Mr. BROOKS. Is there a danger to aviation in duplicating of this charting activity? Is this the cause of some of these possible accidents that airliners have?

Mr. LITTLEPAGE. Air safety is the responsibility of the Federal Aviation Agency. The Department of Commerce, of course, has had a long history of concern in aviation when the old CAA was under the Department of Commerce. Of course, being a chart producer, we have consistently felt that there is a danger in having different cartographic materials available to pilots. We believe that there should be one basic compilation of this material so that the pilot in the aircraft and the controller in the control tower would be speaking and responding to the same document.

Mr. BROOKS. The pilot in the aircraft and the controller in the tower sometimes use different charts now?

Mr. LITTLEPAGE. The controller in the tower, of course, uses the Coast and Geodetic Survey production chart.

Mr. BROOKS. He uses the Coast and Geodetic Survey chart in the tower?

Mr. LITTLEPAGE. That is correct.

Mr. BROOKS. Where he is on the radio talking to this pilot, and the pilot uses, possibly, this chart?

Mr. LITTLEPAGE. Possibly. The Air Force, of course, would be using this chart.

Mr. BROOKS. Would always be using this. And you think in case of any slight deviation in it, when you had 20 airplanes stacked up in bad weather coming into a big airport, it could possibly make a little difference to your tenure on this earth?

Mr. LITTLEPAGE. We hope there wouldn't be any difference, sir. There are differences appearing on the charts. The charts are just as critical an element in the Federal airways system as are the facilities in the system itself. It is impossible to use the system without the chart. It must reflect accurately the

Mr. BROOKS. When they tell you to hold a certain point, if you are not at that point, their ability to spot you there doesn't make any difference?

Mr. LITTLEPAGE. That is correct.

Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Wallhauser?

Mr. WALLHAUSER. Do you check their maintenance charts accurately against your own?

Mr. LITTLEPAGE. We have made a spot check occasionally, but it is impossible for us to do that. We don't have the personnel, sir. It is quite a job. These charts are issued completely revised every 4 weeks, with a very tight schedule of production. Very tight.

Mr. WALLHAUSER. Could the problem be simplified if the Air Force would place an observer or consultant in your office to observe results of your work?

Mr. LITTLEPAGE. I don't think so, sir.

Mr. BROOKS. Do you have some feeling that they might already have somebody there?

Mr. LITTLEPAGE. We all get our information, of course, from the same source. The Federal Aviation Agency, as far as these charts are concerned, has a National Flight Data Center, and they make this information available from there. It is largely a matter of interpreting a lot of this information. Everything is not black and white. There are gray areas in here. The important thing is that the charts are consistent, that they show the same thing.

Mr. BROOKS. We intend, Admiral and Mr. Klotz, to cover this same area on map duplication when we have hearings relative to the FAA's operations. Can you tell us briefly at this time whether in the opinion of the Coast and Geodetic Survey the FAA is taking every possible action within its responsibility to bring an end to these duplications?

Admiral KARO. I think they are doing the very best they can. There are of course some, let me say, people who have some doubts as to the full extent of their authority. We believe that the FAA Act of 1958 gave the Administrator the authority to come out with regulatory rules for operating the Federal airways, and to provide the

means by which these airways can be operated, so that the Federal Aviation Administration is moving ahead. They have these joint task groups, cartographic requirements groups, which are coming out with joint or one detailed specification for these series of charts. The route charts as you have in front of you is an example of the detailed specifications which they have come out with.

As Mr. Littlepage mentioned earlier, they have the task groups. now working on the visual charts. It is something that is so complex that it cannot be accomplished overnight. The FAA is certainly moving ahead with the determination to make our airways system as safe as possible, and we are doing what we can in furthering their safety objective by producing the charts to their detailed specifications because that is the ultimate in safety, we believe.

Mr. BROOKS. Is it your feeling that the FAA has the power also to eliminate duplication in map production, as well as to draw up a set of specifications?

Admiral KARO. That I don't know as I am qualified to answer, sir, because that gets into legal responsibilities.

Mr. BROOKS. That would go to the JAG Office.

Admiral KARO. I would rather have the General Counsel's Office and Congress itself determine the power they gave to the FAA Administrator.

Mr. BROOKS. Do you have anything to add, Mr. Littlepage?

COMMON MAP NEED IMPERATIVE

Mr. LITTLEPAGE. Only to add slightly to what the admiral said about the Federal Aviation Agency. From our standpoint we feel that they are doing a fine job. They are taking very vigorous leadership in this area of trying to reconcile these differences in cartographic products and establish national cartographic products, national products. This is a common system, this is a joint military-civil system. It is imperative, we believe, that we have a common product cartographically for use in the system. The cartographic requirements group has been very active. This is a major step in the right direction, we believe. We think it is a very hopeful sign, very hopeful.

Mr. WALLHAUSER. When was the Commission established?

Mr. LITTLEPAGE. The Cartographic Requirements Group as it is now constituted, in 1960.

Mr. WALLHAUSER. Since then what progress would you say they have made?

Mr. LITTLEPAGE. Since 1960, they have issued approved specifications for the low-altitude series of radio facilities charts, the one in front of you, and the intermediate series, and they have the highaltitude series which is pretty uniform, as far as we are concerned we are publishing under them at the present time. They have issued them to us. I understand there are a few minor details to be reconciled. This is a major accomplishment, we believe.

Mr. BROOKS. Of course, the standardization of the specifications doesn't mean that they don't duplicate them?

Mr. LITTLEPAGE. No, sir.