- ' 0 x ^ 2

TO INCLUDE FLIGHT ATTENDANTS WITHIN

GOVERNMENT THE DEFINITION OF “ AIRM AN”

Storage ----- —

H E A R I N G

BEFORE A

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE 

COMM ITTEE ON

JV TE RST ATE AND FO RE IGN COMME RCE 

HOU SE OE RE PR ES EN TA TI VE S

m

□

c

ruH

c DC

a

□

□

IT

H

EIGH TY -SE VE NT H CONGR ESS

SE CO ND SE SS IO N

ON

H.R . 8160, H.R . 8327, an d H.R . 8334

< ILLS TO AM EN D SE CT IO N 10 1( 7) O F T H E FE D E R A L AV IA TION 

CT OF 1058, SO AS TO IN CLU DE FL IG H T A TT EN DANTS W IT H IN 

T H E D E FIN IT IO N O F “A IR MAN ”

MAY 1, 1002

P ri n te d fo r th e us e of th e 

Com m itt ee on In te rs ta te a nd Fo re ig n Co mm erc e

83870 0

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTIN G OF FIC E 

WAS HINGTON : 1962
COMMITTEE ON INTE RSTA TE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE

OREN HA RR IS, Arkansas, Chairman

JO HN BE LL WILL IAMS , Mississippi

PETER F. MA CK , J r., Illinois

KENNETH A. RO BE RT S, Alabam a

MO RO AN M. MO UL DE R, Missouri

HA RL EY O. STAG GERS, West Virginia

WAL TE R ROOERS, Texas

SA MU EL N. FR 1E DE L, Maryland

TORBERT H. MA CD ON AL D, Massachusetts

GE OR GE M. RH OD ES, Pennsylvania

JO HN JARM AN , Oklahoma

LEO W. O’BRI EN , New York

JO HN E. MOSS, California

JO HN D. DI NG EL L, Michigan

JO E M. KILG OR E, Texas

PA UL G. ROGERS, Florida

RO BE RT W. HEM PH IL L, South Carolina

DA N ROST ENKOW’ SKI, Illinois

JA MES C. HE AL EY , New York

HO RA CE R. KO RN EG AY , North Carolina

JO HN B. BENNETT , Michigan 

WILLIAM L. SP RI NGER , Illinois 

PAUL F. SC HE NC K, Ohio 

J. AR TH UR YO UN GE R, California 

HAROLD R. CO LL IE R, Illinois 

MIL TO N W. GL EN N, New Jersey 

SA MU EL L. DEV IN E, Ohio 

AN CIIE R NE LS EN , Minneso ta 

HA ST INGS KEIT H, Massachusetts 

WILL AR D S. CU RTI N, Pennsylvania 

AB NE R W. SIBAL, Conn ecticut 

VE RN ON W. TH OM SO N, Wisconsin 

PETER H. DO M IN IC K, Colorado

W. E. Williamson, Clerk

Kenneth J. Painter, Assistant Clerk

Professional Staff

Andrew Stevenson Sam G. Spal

Kurt Borchardt Martin W. Cunningham

Su b c o m m it tee on T r a n spo r ta tio n an d Aer o n a u tic s

JO HN BE LL WILL IAMS , Mississippi, Chairman

HA RL EY O. STAGGERS, West Virginia WI LL IAM L. SP RIN GER , Illinois

SA MU EL N. FR IE DEL, Maryla nd HAROLD R. CO LL IE R, Illinois

TO RBER T II. MA CD ON AL D, Massachusetts SAMU EL L. DEV IN E, Ohio 

JO HN JARM AN , Oklahoma
«».

'

SJUN 19 C O N T E N T S 62 \ ,

V’

Tex t of— "TSge" H.R. 8160___________ 1

H.R. 8327_____________

h r. 833 4_____________________ ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ Report of—

Civil Aeronautics Board__________ _____ _____ __________ ___ 2

Bureau of the Bud ge t.. ...................... ........... ..... ZZZZZZZZZZZZ " 2

Sta tem ent of—

Griffiths, Hon. Martha W., a Representative in Congress from the

Sta te of Michigan________________________________________ 3

Horst, James F., internatio nal vice president of Tra nsp ort Workers 

Union and director of air transp ort division, Elm hurst, N.Y.;

Roland K. Quinn, Jr., president, Air Line Stewards & Stewardesses 

Association; and Miss Barbara Roads, legislative represen tative,

Air Line Stewards & Stewardesses Association__________________ 23 Mack, Hon. Peter F. Jr., a R epre sentative in Congress from the State 

of Illinois____________________________________________ 4

Prill, George C., director, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation

Agency, Washington, D. C__________________________________ 6 50 Tipton, S. G., president, Air Tra nsp ort Association of America; accompanied by J. G. Brown, director of training, flight operations,

United Air Line s_______________________________________ 42 Communicationfe su bmitte d to the comm ittee—

Adams, Joseph P., general counsel and executive director, Association 

of Local Tra nsp ort Airlines, telegram dated April 30, 1962_______ Commerce, R. E., president, Airlines Dispatchers Association, telegram dated April 30, 1962___________________________________

McM urray, Kay, executive adm inistrator, Air Line Pilots Association, letter dated May 7, 1962.______________________________

Quinn, Rowland K., Jr., president, Air Line Stewards & Stewardesses 

Association, letter d ated May 7, 1962.____ ___________________

Rice, Wyman R., operation s manager, Northern Consolidated Airlines, Inc.:

Letter d ated August 24, 19 6 1 ..____ ___________________

Letter dated April 24, 1962___________________________ZZZZZ

Riley, George D., legislative represen tative, AFL -CIO, lette r dated 

April 27, 1962__________________________________

Rivers, Hon. Ralph J., letter dated April 27, 1962.ZZZZZZZZ 

R °1962 A J ’ V*

Ce p r e s i < I e n t’ R i d d , e Airlines, letter dated April 30,

Tipton, S. G., president, Air Tra nsp ort Association, letter dated

May 7, 1962_____________________________________

Additional data submitted to the comm ittee—

Airman issuances—1955-58, table submitted by Mr. Rowland K. Quinn, Jr____ _______ _________________________________

Civil Air Regulations Draft Release No. 62-9, submitted bv Mr. 

Pri ll_____________________________________________

Hala by, N. E., Adm inistrator, Federal Aviation Agencv, lett er to 

Mr. Blank dated April 20, 1962______________________________

Prill, George C., Director, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation 

Agency, letter dated May 14, 1962_____________________

3

53

54

41

53

52

51

52

55

49

42

11

22

h i

9

TO INCLUD E FL IGH T ATTENDANTS WITHIN THE 

DEF INITIO N OF “ AIRM AN”

TUESDAY, MAY 1, 1962

H ou se o f R e pr e se n t a t iv e s,

S ubcom m it te e on T ransp orta ti on an d A er onauti cs of

t h e C om m it te e on I n ter sta te an d F o reig n C om m er ce ,

Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in room 1334, 

New House Office Building, Hon. John Bell Williams (chairman of the 

subcommittee), presiding.

Mr. W il lia m s. The subcommittee will be in order, please.

The Subcommittee on Transportation and Aeronautics is meeting 

today for hearings on three identical bills relating to flight attend ants.

The bills would amend the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 to define 

flight attendants as “airmen.” This would be done by amending 

section 101(7) of the act to add flight attendants on an aircraft “while 

underway” to the list of those persons defined as airmen.

These bills are H.R. 8160 by our colleague on the committee, Hon. 

Peter Mack, Jr. ; H.R. 8334 by our colleague on the committee, Hon. 

Morgan Moulder; and H.R. 8327 by our colleague from Michigan, 

Hon. Martha Griffiths.

If there is no objection, the proposed legislation will be included in 

the record at this point, followed by agency reports and also by a wire 

from the Honorable Joseph P. Adams, general counsel and executive 

director of the Association of Local Transport Air Lines.

(The documents referred to follow.)

[II.R. 8160, 87th Cong., 1st sess.l

A BI LL To amend section 101(7) of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, so as to include flight att endants 

within the definition of “ air ma n” .

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United Stales of

America in Congress assembled, Th at paragraph (7) of section 101 of the Federal 

Aviation Act of 1958 (49 U.S.C. 1301(7)) is amended to read as follows:

“ (71 ‘Airman’ means any individual who engages, as the person in command 

or as pilot, mechanic, or member of the crew, in the navigation of aircraft while 

underway; and (except to the extent the Adm inistrator may otherwise provide 

with respect to individuals employed outside the United States) any individual 

who is direc tly in charge of the inspection, maintenance, overhauling, or repair 

of aircraft, aircraft engines, propellers, or appliances; and any individual who 

serves in the capacity of airc raft dispatch er or air-traffic control-tower ope rator 

or serves as a flight att en da nt on an airc raft while underway.”

(N o t e.—H.R. 8327 and H.R. 8334 are identical with H.R. 8160.)

1
2 FLIGHT ATTENDANTS W ITHIN THE DEFINITION OF "AIR MAN”

Civil Aeronautics Board, 

Washington, D.C., May 8, 1962.

Hon. Oren Harris.

Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce,

House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. Chairman: This is in reply to your letter of July 17, 1961, asking 

the Board to comment on H.R. 8160, a bill to amend section 10i(7) of the Federal 

Aviation Act of 1958, so as to include flight attend ants within the definition of 

“airman.”

“Airman” is now defined as “any individual who engages, as the person in 

command or as pilot, mechanic, or member of the crew, in the navigation of 

aircraft while underway; and (except to the extent the Administrator may otherwise provide with respect to individuals employed outside the United States) any 

individual who is directly in charge of the inspection, maintenance, overhauling, 

or repair of aircraft, aircraft engines, propellers, or appliances; and any individual 

who serves in the capacity of aircraft dispatcher or air-traffic control-tower 

operator.” H.R. 8160 would amend the foregoing definition of airman by adding 

the following, “or serves as a flight atte nda nt on an aircraft while underway.”

Under the Federal Aviation Act, it is unlawful for a person to serve in the capacity of “airman” without obtaining an airman certificate. To obtain such a 

certificate application must be filed with the Administrator of the Federal Aviation 

Agency and proper qualifications demonstrated pursuant to the provisions of 

section 602(b) of the Federal Aviation Act. Under the proposed legislation, 

flight attendants, being classified as “airmen,” would become subject to these 

requirements.

The certification of “airmen” was initiated as a m atter of safety control. Tha t 

factor is still of primary concern. The duties of flight attendants are not such 

as have any significant bearing upon air safety in the ordinary operation of the 

aircraft. However, in case of an emergency the duties of flight attendants assume 

important proportions safetywise, and much may depend on their presence of 

mind and ability to immediately size up the situation and take the correct course 

of action. The Board believes that past experience has shown t ha t present regulations and industry training programs make appropriate provision in regard to 

this aspect of flight attendan ts’ qualifications.

In addition, it should be noted that the certification of flight attendants would 

increase materially the workload of the Government by increasing the total number of requests for certification. In this connection, it is our understanding t hat 

there is a high degree of employment turnover with respect to flight attendants.

For the above named reasons, the Board recommends against the enactment of 

this legislation.

The Bureau of the Budget has advised tha t there is no objection to the submission of this report from the standpoint of the Administration’s program.

Sincerely yours,

Alan S. Boyd, Chairman.

Executive Office of the President,

Bureau of the Budget, 

Washington, D.C., April 30, 1962.

Hon. Oren Harris,

Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House of Representatives,

Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. Chairman: This is in reply to your letter of July 18, 1961, requesting the views of the Bureau of the Budget on H.R. 8160, a bill to amend section 

101(7) of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, so as to include flight attendan ts 

within the definition of “airman.”

The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Agency, in his report to your committee on this bill, is recommending against its enactment for the reasons set 

out therein.

The Bureau of the Budget concurs with the views contained in this report and 

recommends t hat this measure not be enacted.

Sincerely yours,

Phillip S. Hughes,

Assistant Director for Legislative Reference.
FLIGHT ATTENDANTS WITHIN THE DEFINIT ION OF “AIRMAN" 3

[Telegram]

Washington, D.C., April 30, 1962.

Hon. J ohn Bell Williams,

Subcommittee on Transportation and Aeronautics, House Interstate and Foreign

Commerce Committee, New House Office Building, Washington, D.C.:

On behalf of Mr. Joseph H. Fitzgerald, chairman of the Association of Local

Transpo rt Airlines and our 17 carriers members, please be advised th at ALTA, 

on Friday, April 27, 1962, at its spring meeting, held in Atlanta, Ga., voted unanimously to oppose H.R. 8160, H .R. 8327, and H.R . 8334 to include flight atte nd an ts 

within definition of “airmen.” This position tak en because of experience which 

indicates flight att endants are basic to service to the public and do not share 

operating responsibilities th at would wa rrant the ir being certificated and passage 

of such legislation would add greatly to adm inistrative costs and Federal subsidies 

required to maintain present public inte rest transp ortation. Regret timing of 

ALTA meeting and your hearings prev ente d preparatio n of more detailed 

statem ent.

J oseph P. Adams,

General Counsel and Executive Director, Association of Local Transport

Airlines.

Mr. Williams. We had scheduled as our first witness this morning 

our colleague on the committee, Hon. Peter F. Mack. However, Mr. 

Mack has very graciously deferred in favor of our colleague Mrs. 

Griffiths.

So the Chair will recognize you, Mrs. Griffiths.

STATEMENT OF HON. MARTHA W. GRIFFITHS, A REPRESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

Mrs. Griffiths. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want 

to tell you how much 1 appreciate this committee’s holding hearings 

on these bills.

I am very much in favor of H.R. 8327 because 1 feel tha t it is a 

safety measure.

As a constant user of the airlines, I have more than a passing personal interest in safety, and I have observed through the years tha t 

there have been very few planes which crashed where the pilot ever 

helped anybody out of the plane.

Your last chance, your last dear chance, between you and death is 

the stewardess on those airlines. 1 feel tha t she should have more 

say-so about the safety of the airlines than she now has and, therefore, I am the introducer of this bill.

I do not want to say anything further except tha t I want to call 

your attention to the fact tha t you are going to have as a witness 

here this morning Miss Barbara Roads, a stewardess of 11 years’ 

standing on a major trunk carrier. She is a longtime friend of mine.

She is not only a pretty girl, but she is a very intelligent and a very 

articulate woman.

I hope th at you will pay careful attentio n not only to her testimony 

but to the examples tha t she gives you of air safety, and when her 

testimony is completed 1 am sure tha t you will feel that it will be a 

good idea to call the full committee together today and get this bill 

out so that we may pass it yet this week by unanimous consent.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Williams. Than k you, Mrs. Griffiths.

Our next witness is our colleague on the committee, Hon. Peter F. 

Mack, Jr.

The committee has observed in the audience a group from Wakefield Forest Elementary School, in Fairfax County, who happen to
4 FLIGHT ATTENDANTS WITHIN TH E DEFINITION OF “AIRMAN”

be chaperoned by the wife of our very esteemed clerk, Mr. Williamson, 

and several other ladies.

We are very happy to have you with us this morning.

STATEMENT OF HON. PETER F. MACK, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINO IS

Mr. Williams. Mr. Mack.

Mr. Mack. Mr. Chairman, I would like to join with our colleague 

in thanking you for scheduling a hearing on this bill today. I originally 

introduced it 5 years ago, immediately following a crash landing at 

Glenview Naval Air Station, Springfield, at which time 1 was a passenger on a commercial airplane along with the wife of the Governor of 

Illinois and a group of other officials of our State.

Our pilot landed a Convair th at had one wheel down and one wheel 

locked up. The emergency procedure of the crew of this plane was 

the saddest I have ever seen in my experience in aviation and, as you 

know, I have been familiar with this field for some years.

I am an aviato r myself and have been for some 20 years, I feel tha t 

I am acquainted with some of the problems tha t wr have and, along 

with my service on this committee and as a member of the Aviation 

Subcommittee for several years, I feel qualified to speak on this subject. 

I believe there is a need for requiring certain standards for stewardesses.

As a result of this, I have introduced this bill.

Mr. Williams. Did I understand you to say tha t this was the 

saddest handling of an emergency that you had ever seen?

Mr. Mack. Yes.

Mr. Williams. Did I misunderstand you?

Mr. Mack. Yes, th at is true.

Mr. Williams. In what way?

Mr. Mack. This involved, in addition to the stewardesses, the crew 

of the airplane. The pilot of the plane screamed over the microphone 

for the people not to become hysterical and repeated on several occasions, “Don’t get excited.”

The stewardesses needed someone to take care of them rather than 

taking care of the passengers. Obviously, they had no previous training to qualify them or equip them to handle an emergency of this 

nature. Because of the conduct of the crew many of the passengers 

mostly women began crying and nothing was attem pted to calm the 

atmosphere.

They had two stewardesses aboard, and it was necessary for them 

to confer with the pilots before they granted any requests of the 

passengers. Even after conferring they refused. For 2 hours while 

they burned up the fuel no one was permitted to move.

It was a very unfortunate experience, I think, for most everyone 

involved. The only fortunate thing about it was tha t we all survived 

and got down on the ground safely. Ironically the pilot was killed 

shortly thereafter in another crash.

Following this experience I introduced a bill to require some type 

of licensing for the stewardesses on the commercial airlines. Immediately it was opposed by the airlines, who said tha t they have training 

programs of their own, and tha t they had such a fast rate of turnover 

of stewardesses th at it would bankrup t them and place an undue bur-
FLIGHT ATTENDANTS W ITHI N THE DEFINIT ION OF “AIRMAN” 5

den on them to require extensive training and examinations similar 

to tha t given control tower operators or mechanics or private pilots.

But I feel that at least we ought to do this: We ought to give this 

proposition some consideration and view it from the safety standpoint 

to see what can be done to provide our commercial airline passengers 

with well-qualified personnel, who would exert every effort to provide 

the maximum of safety for the passengers.

I believe th at this legislation is in the public interest, tha t it would 

provide additional protection to the passengers of our commercial 

airlines, and I am very much in favor of it.

I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for giving us an opportunity 

to appear this morning and testify in behalf of this very worthwhile 

bill.

Mr. Williams. Thank you very much.

Mr. Jarman?

Mr. J arman. No questions.

Mr. Williams. Thank you, Mr. Mack.

(The complete statement of Mr. Mack follows:)

Statement of Hon. Peter F. Mack, Jr., a Member of Congress From

Illinois, in Support of H.R. 8160

Mr. Mack. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your cooperation in making a 

place on the busy schedule of the subcommittee for hearings on my bill H.R. 

8160, to amend the Federal Aviation Act to include flight attendants in the 

definition of “airm an.” The bill would give recognition to a group of airline 

crew members who are very necessary to the safe and efficient operation of a 

modern airliner.

We all appreciate the efforts of flight attendants to make our airline trips 

more pleasant and comfortable. Sometimes we may overlook the fact that these 

men and women have a very importan t job safetywise in the operation of a big 

airliner, especially the new jet’s.

Enactment of this legislation will be an expression of congressional interest in 

better training and improved working conditions for flight attendants. Better 

training will help prevent accidents as well as improve the efficiency of flight 

atten dants in those rare cases of emergency such as a forced landing or a ditching 

at sea.

Safety regulations of the Federal Aviation Agency require the airlines to 

provide minimum training for all crew members but set no minimum standards 

for cabin attendants.

From talking with pilots and other crew members, I am convinced that the 

training being given flight attendants is not adequate. Flight attend ants who have 

taken these training courses can give the subcommittee more details but frankly, 

I think we should see that more attention should be given to training in emergency 

procedures. In a real emergency, the crew members in the cockpit have their 

hands full and must of necessity depend on the cabin attendants to look after the 

passengers.

I think Congress should give recognition to the flight attendants who have the 

responsibility for the safety and welfare of passengers in flight. We can do this 

by enacting H.R. 8160.

Then we should insist on adequate training for the cabin attendants.

We should insist on minimum rest periods and maximum flight time limitations 

for cabin attendants. These limitations are applied to flight crew members in 

the interest of safety. The same consideration should be given cabin attendants, 

who should be alert and ready at all times for any emergency. We should demand 

this for the safety of passengers as well as for the welfare of the flight attendants.

Crew members who will follow me can give you a much better picture of the 

need for this legislation but I thank you for this opportunity to give you the 

benefit of my personal investigation of this problem.

Mr. Williams. Mr. George C. Prill, Director, Flight Standards 

Service, Federal Aviation Agency.

8X870 O— 62------ 2
6 FLIGHT ATTENDANTS WI TH IN THE DEFINITION OF ‘ AIRMAN"

STATEMENT OF GEORGE C. PRILL, DIRECTOR, FLIGHT STANDARDS

SERVICE, FEDERAL AVIATION AGENCY, WASHINGTON, D.C.

Mr. Prill. Mr. Chairman, and members of the subcommittee, I 

would like to thank you for the opportunity to appear before you 

and present, on behalf of the Administrator, our views with respect 

to H.R. 8160, H.R. 8327, and H.R. 8334.

These bills would amend the Federal Aviation Act by including 

flight attendants within the definition of “airm an.” The term as 

now defined in section 101 of the act includes only those personnel 

whose jobs are directly connected with the operation or navigation 

of aircraft. This, of course, is the heart of our safety program— 

assuring through proper maintenance and operation tha t aircraft 

arrive safely a t their destinations. While the importance of the role 

of the flight attendant in ministering to and assuring the comfort of 

passengers should not be underestimated, their normal duties do not 

directly affect the operation of the aircraft.

This view of the Agency should not be construed as a lack of concern for the status to be accorded the men and women who serve as 

flight attendants. They have a residual responsibility for passenger 

safety, and, in several perilous situations, their contribution has been 

heroic. Many passengers owe their lives to the courage and calm 

skill with which flight attendants have carried out their duties in 

times of crisis. Essentially, however, this is an emergency responsibility which arises when the basic safety objective has not been 

attained.

The real consequence of this amendment would be to require certification of flight attendants by the Federal Aviation Agency. As 

you know, the purpose of any licensing program is to permit governmental control of an activity in protection of the public interest. 

Consistent with the basic philosophy of our Government—comments 

of our critics notwithstanding—we do not believe in regulation for 

regulation’s sake, nor control for the sake of control.

We certificate airmen because the control and thre at of sanction 

implicit in such licensing affords the public the assurance tha t safe 

practices in the operation and navigation of aircraft will be maintained. And where operation and maintenance of aircraft are concerned, another ingredient is necessary—the airman’s assumption of 

personal responsibility.

Possession of a current and valid certificate is essential to the airman’s employment. As a condition to exercising the privileges of his 

certificate, he is personally responsible for knowing and complying 

with all regulations governing the manner in which lie carries out his 

duties. Only where this minute control over every facet of a given 

job is necessary do we consider certification warranted. Since the 

majority of a flight at ten dant’s duties relate to passenger service, we 

do not believe a valid basis exists for governmental control through 

certification.

The proponents of the amendment urge, however, t hat certification 

of flight attendants is necessary to assure proper training, to assure 

tha t only properly trained personnel are utilized in air carrier operations, and to establish flight time limitations on the use of flight 

attendants. It is the Agency’s view that the first two of these objectives are being, and the last could be, met with the authority presently 

vested in the Agency.
FLIGHT ATTENDANTS WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF "AIR MAN” 7

In the Inst 3 years, the Agency has placed great emphasis upon 

improving the content of air carrier training programs. At the same 

time, these programs are being subjected to much more intensive inspection. On December 5, 1959, the Agency issued a regulation to 

be effective January 1, 1961, requiring tha t air carrier training programs be approved by the Agency. In the interim, we issued training 

standards criteria to be used by our inspectors in evaluating these 

training programs. In the ensuing period, innumerable meetings 

have been held with both labor and management representatives of 

the industry to refine and improve the criteria. On March 2 of this 

year, we issued a notice of proposed rulemaking which will substantially revise and strengthen the regulations governing air carrier 

training programs.

This notice is still in the discussion stages of the rulemaking process.

The rule now proposed sets minimum standards, requires the carrier 

to revise its programs to insure appropriate training, requires Agency 

approval of revisions, and places responsibility upon the carrier for 

administration of the program. It also will require, for each airplane 

type in use, appropriate course material, training forms, and instructions and procedures to determine the proficiencv of each crewmember.

As to the use of properly trained personnel in air carrier operations, our regulations now require that the initial training phases 

be satisfactorily completed prior to service. The proposed rule will 

contain this requirement. This matter is of paramount concern to 

the Administrator, particularly with respect to the adequacy of crewmember training in emergency procedures. As recently as April 20, 

the Administrator wrote the presidents of all scheduled airlines requesting an immediate review of their training in emergency procedures expecially to assure tha t flight attendants receive adequate 

training in the actual operation of emergency equipment. Concurrently, he has directed our inspectors to undertake an intensive review 

of this particular facet of the carriers’ training programs.

The subject of flight time limitations for all crewmembers is now 

undergoing extensive reevaluation. In the past, it has been the view 

of the Agency tha t fatigue was a critical safety factor only in the 

case of flight crewmembers—pilot, copilot, flight engineer, and 

navigator—because it is these individuals upon whom safe operation 

and navigation of the aircraft so vitally depends. The great emphasis 

which we are placing upon practical training in emergency procedures 

attests to the significance which is now attached to the responsibilities 

of the flight attendants under emergency conditions. Certainly, in 

our reevaluation of flight time limitations the necessity for limiting 

the hours in service and rest requirements of flight attendants to 

assure response in emergencies will be carefully considered.

As indicated, we do not believe certification of flight attendants 

will speed or facilitate the achievement of the air safety program. 

Any intangible benefits which might flow from certification are insufficient to balance the extension of regulatory control and the administrative costs incident thereto. There are approximately 10,640 

flight attendants in air carrier service. On the basis of inquiries 

made of the ATA, ALPA, and TWU, we understand the average length 

of service is about 1 year. This fact alone would require the issuance 

of as many as 10,000 certificates annually. In addition, it would be 

necessary to prepare, give, and grade an equal number of examinations.
8 FLIG HT ATTENDANTS W ITHIN TH E DEFINITION OF “AIRMAN"

These would be examinations, given and graded, by the Agency 

and not by the carrier.

It would also be necessary to budget for a substantial amount of 

clerical time for such activities as answering inquiries or canceling or 

replacing certificates, to say nothing of the cost of maintaining a 

large-scale records system.

For these reasons, we do not believe flight attendants should be 

included within the definition of “airman.” Therefore, we oppose 

enactment of these bills.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If there are any questions I would be 

very pleased to answer them.

Mr. Williams. Mr. Friedel?

Mr. Friedel. No questions.

Mr. Williams. Mr. Jarman?

Mr. J arman. Mr. Prill, I assume th at some complaints do at times 

come to the FA A as to a training program or the manner in which an 

airline is handling its training of personnel.

Is tha t true?

Mr. Prill. Yes, sir.

Mr. J arman. What then does the FAA do as far as checking out 

such complaints?

Mr. Prill. Well, in each case we have the office responsible for the 

certificate of tha t air carrier check into the complaint, whether it is a 

complaint from the crewmembers themselves, or from passengers, 

certificate of tha t air carrier heck into the complaint, whether it is a 

complaint from the crewmembers, themselves, or from passengers. 

They determine the validity of the complaint, to see if the carrier is 

properly training the crewmembers, and determine if new procedures 

are required.

And we are quite flexible in this at the present time by the use of 

directives which we can issue, and do issue, under the auth ority 

granted to us in the act.

Mr. J arman. How many inspectors does the Agency have to check 

on the airlines?

Mr. Prill. At the present time we have about 450 inspectors working on air carriers. Now, tha t is maintenance and operations and 

electronics.

Mr. J arman. Than k you. That is all.

Mr. Williams. Mr. Prill, are you familiar with the incident related by our colleague, Congressman Mack, a few minutes ago?

Mr. Prill. No, I am not, Mr. Chairman. I will be very pleased 

to check on it though.

Mr. Williams. You do not know whether a report was made to 

the FAA on tha t incident or not?

Mr. Prill. I do not, sir.

Mr. WTlliams. Now, as I understand it from your statement, the 

Federal Aviation Agency already has the power, by rulemaking, to 

regulate training for stewardesses and for flight attendants.

You say:

The proponen ts of the ame ndm ent urge, however, th at certification of flight 

attendants is necessary to assure proper training, to assure th at only properly 

trained personnel are utilized in air carrier operation s, and to establish flight time 

limitations on the use of flight attendants .

You state in the next sentence:

It is the Agency’s view th at the first two of these objectives are being, and the 

last could be, met w ith the auth ority presently vested in the Agency.
FLIGHT ATTENDANTS WITHIN THE DEF INITION OF “AIRMA N” 9

Assuming tha t t hat is true, tha t the Agency does have the power to 

invoke the third regulation which would be a flight time limitation 

for flight atten dants, would the objectives of this hill have been met, 

notwithstanding whether they are certified or not?

Mr. Prill. That is our feeling, Mr. Chairman, tha t the certification process would merely be adding a very considerable administrative burden with no change in the end product.

Mr. Williams. Any further questions?

Mr. Friedel. Just one question.

In your statement, on page 5, you say “We understand the average 

length of service is about 1 year.”

“We understand.” Now, what do you mean by “we understand”?

Where do you get those figures th at it is an average of 1 year?

Mr. Prill. This is from our contacts with the airlines and with the 

labor associations which represent the stewards and hostesses.

Mr. Friedel. And tha t is the average time, 1 year?

Mr. Prill. This is our understanding. From my own personal 

experience, I think tha t is about right. Most of the cabin at tendants 

are very attractive young ladies and-----

Mr. Friedel. Yes, I know, bu t I thought it was more than a year. 

How long does it take them to be trained? Six months or three months?

Mr. Prill. No; it is less than that. All of the major airlines run 

schools th at give them complete training before they enter into airline 

service. I am not sure how long the school runs. Several weeks a t 

least.

Mr. Friedel. That is all.

Mr. J arman. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Friedel. Yes; I yield.

Mr. J arman. Mr. Prill, has the Agency then made any kind of 

rough estimate as to the additional administrative costs tha t would 

be involved?

Mr. Prill. We have not tried to estimate the costs exactly. It 

would depend upon how we would integrate this into our system.

It would certainly be considerable. I would be very pleased, if the 

committee would wish, to work out an estimate on this.

Mr. Jarman. I think it would be helpful to the committee.

Mr. Prill. I will be very pleased to do that, Mr. Jarman. I will 

submit tha t for the record, if I may.

(The information requested is as follows:)

Federal Aviation Agency, 

Washington, D.C., May 14, 1962. Hon. John Bell Williams,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Transportation and Aeronautics of the House

Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House of Representatives,

Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. Williams: At the committee hearings on May 1, 1962, on H.R. 

8160, which concerns a proposal to amend section 101(7) of the Federal Aviation 

Act of 1958 to include flight attendants within the definition of airman, you recpiested the Federal Aviation Agency to provide additional data with regard to 

the cost of certificating cabin attenda nts and to other safety matters related to 

the training of these crewmembers.

In my testimony I stated tha t there are approximately 10,640 flight attendan ts 

in air carrier service and tha t on the basis of inquiries made of the Air Transport 

Association (ATA), the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA), and the Transport 

Workers Union (TWU), we understood tha t the average length of service is about 

1 year. This w’ould require the issuance of as many as 10,000 certificates annually. 

These figures regarding numbers and turnover rates of cabin atte nda nts wrere 

verbally secured from the organizations noted above. We were advised th at they
1 0 FLIGHT ATTENDANTS W ITHI N THE DEFINIT ION OF “AIRMAN”

repr esented the latest available as of December 1961. In this respect, it is noted 

th at the TWU also testified th at approximately 10,000 such crewmembers are 

involved. The TWU, however, differed on the length of service and indicated 

th at this more nearly approximate d 2 years, thu s requiring an annual issuance of 

5,000 certificates.

It now appears that the ATA figures presented at the hearing, which were 

secured from the personnel dep artments of th e scheduled airlines, are more correct 

and that there are approximately 12,000 scheduled air carrier cabin att endants 

involved. The ATA indicated th at the annual turn ove r rate for these personnel 

was 40 percent for trunk carriers and 35 perce nt for local service carriers. Thus, 

they indicated abo ut 5,000 new stewardesses are hired every year and the average 

length of service is less tha n 2 years.

We have also been advised by the Ind epe ndent Airlines Association represen ting several supp leme ntal air carriers th at there are approximately 1,000 cabin 

att endants in the employ of these air carriers and th at the ir average length of 

service is 1 year.

From the above it is concluded, if certification of cabin attend an ts becomes 

man datory thro ugh amendmen t of the act, th at in addition to the 12,000 certificates which would be initially required, 6,000 new airman certificates would also 

have to be issued each year. This would require th at a new civil air regulation 

be developed to establish the experience and qualification provisions necessary 

for certificating this new type of airm an. It would also require preparatio n of 

new airm an examinations for these applicants, plus distrib ution and filing in 120 

aviation safety district offices and the administering of the examination to the 

applican ts. It would also involve an FAA inspector interviewing the applican t, 

the office secretaries administering and correcting the written tes t, and the 

necessary recordkeeping at our cen tral airmen exam ination and airm en record 

files in Oklahoma City. Subseque ntly, it would require an inspector to conduct 

the practical examination which would include an oral question -and-answer 

period and an examination on emergency evac uation procedures, smoke eva cua ­

tion, firefighting, and first-aid equipment, conducted in a tra nsport airp lane or a 

simulator.

It is estimated th at the above process would cost the Agency approximately 

$280,000 to certificate the original 12,000 flight att endants and approximately 

$140,000 per year for the 6,000 app lica nts to tak e care of the turnov er rate . 

The certificatio n process would include a minim um of 5 hours per applicant by 

the distric t office inspectors and secretaries in interviewin g and conducting 

examinations. Also, in our Oklahoma City office the process would include 

grading written examinations, issuance of perman ent certificates, recording and 

filing time; a process which costs $2.82 per certificate. As stated in our testimony, 

it would also be necessary to budget for a sub stantial amount of clerical time for 

such activities as answering inquiries and canceling or replacing certificates to 

say nothing of the cost of m aintaining a large-scale records system.

With regard to your request for information concerning any fata litie s due to 

the lack of training of flight att endants , we have not found any such instances 

in our files or those of th e Civil Aeronautics Board.

We have also reviewed the recent United Air Lines, Denver, Colo, accident 

and the Imperial Airlines accident at Richmond, Va., as you requ ested, and 

have determined in each instance th at the cabin att en da nts had been prop erly 

trained and th at none of the fatilities which occurred in these accid ents were 

attribu ted to any lack of train ing on the ir part.

As in dicated in my testim ony a t the hearings, I do not believe th at certificatio n 

of flight att endants will speed or facilita te the achie vement of the air safety 

program. Any intangible benefits which might flow from certification are insufficient to balance the extension of regulatory control and the a dministrative costs 

incident thereto . Our present approved training programs for all air carrier 

crewmembers, which include all phases of a cabin attend an t’s safe ty responsibilities, are considered satisfactory and more tha n outweigh the proposed airman 

certification requirement.

For your information, I am enclosing a copy of our notice of proposed rulemaking 

concerning the approval of a ir carrier training programs, and a copy of the Administ rator’s let ter to the president of each air carrier concerning emergency evacuation training.

I appreciate the opportunity to subm it the above information to your committee. 

Should you require any additional material in this regard, we will be pleased to 

furnish it to you.

Sincerely,

George C. Prill, 

Director, Flight Standards Service.
FLIGHT ATTENDANTS W IT H IN THE DE FINI TION OF "A IR MAN” 11

FEDERAL AVIATION AGENCY 

FLIGHT STANDARDS SERVICE 

W ash in g to n 25, D. C.

M arch 2 , 19 62

CI VIL AIR REGULATIONS DRAFT RELEASE NO. 6 2 - 9

SUBJECT: A p p ro v al o f A ir C a r r i e r T ra in in g P ro gra m s

Th e F l i g h t S ta n d a rd s S e r v ic e o f th e F e d e r a l A v ia tio n A ge nc y h a s 

u n d e r c o n s i d e r a t i o n am en dm en ts to P a r t s 4 0 , 4 1 , and 42 o f th e C i v i l A ir 

R e g u la ti o n s c o n c e rn in g a p p r o v a l o f a i r c a r r i e r t r a i n i n g p ro g ra m s . The 

re a s o n s t h e r e f o r a r e s e t f o r t h i n th e e x p la n a to r y s ta te m e n t o f th e 

a tta c h e d p r o p o s a l w h ic h i s b e in g p u b lis h e d i n th e F e d e r a l R e g is te r a s 

a n o t i c e o f p ro p o se d r u l e m akin g.

Th e F l i g h t S ta n d a rd s S e r v ic e d e s i r e s t h a t a l l p e r s o n s who w i l l 

b e a f f e c t e d by th e r e q u ire m e n ts o f t h i s p r o p o s a l be f u l l y in fo rm ed a s 

t o i t s e f f e c t upon th em and i s t h e r e f o r e c i r c u l a t i n g c o p ie s i n o r d e r to 

a f f o r d i n t e r e s t e d p e r s o n s am ple o p p o r tu n ity to su b m it co mmen ts a s th e y 

may d e s i r e .

B eca use o f th e la r g e nu m be r o f co m m en ts w h ic h we a n t i c i p a t e r e c e iv in g 

i n r e s p o n s e to t h i s d r a f t r e l e a s e , we w i l l be u n a b le t o ack n o w le d g e 

r e c e i p t o f e a c h r e p l y . H ow ev er , yo u may be a s s u r e d t h a t a l l comm ent 

w i l l be g iv e n c a r e f u l c o n s i d e r a t i o n .

I t sh o u ld b e n o te d t h a t co m m en ts sh o u ld be s u b m itte d i n d u p l i c a t e 

to th e D ocket S e c tio n o f th e F e d e r a l A v ia tio n A ge nc y, an d i n o r d e r to 

i n s u r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n sh o u ld be r e c e iv e d on o r b e f o r e May 1 0 , 1 9 6 2 .

D i r e c t o r ,

F l i g h t S ta n d a r d s S e rv ic e
1 2 FL IG HT ATTEN DAN TS W IT H IN TH E DE FINI TION OF “AIRM AN ”

FEDERAL AVIATION AGENCY

FLIGHT STAN DAR DS SERVICE

[14 CFR Parts 40, 41, 42]

[Regulatory Docket No. 1093; Draft Release No. 62-9]

NOTICE OF PRO POSED RULE MAKING

Approval of Air Carrier Training Programs

Pursuant to the aut hority delegated to me by the 

Adm inistrator (14 CF R 405.27), notice Is hereby given 

tha t there is under consideration a proposal to amend 

Pa rts 40, 41, and 42 of the Civil Air Regulations as 

herein afte r set forth.

Interested persons may participate in the making 

of the proposed rules by submitting such written 

data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Communications should be submitted In duplicate to the 

Docket Section of the Federal Aviation Agency, Room 

C-226, 1711 New York Avenue, N.W., Washington 25, 

D.C. All communications received on or before May 

10, 1962, will be considered by the Adm inistrator 

before taking action upon the proposed rules. The 

proposals contained In this notice may be changed in 

the light of comments received. All comments submitte d will be available in the Docket Section for 

exam ination by Interested persons when the prescribed date for return of comments has expired.

By amendments 40-21, 41-28, and 42-23, effective 

January 1, 1961 (24 F.R. 9765, 9768, 9773), Pa rts 40, 

41, and 42 were amended to require approval of the 

training program established by an ai r carrier. However, these amendm ents did not specify the procedures 

and minimum stan dards tha t were to be used for 

such approval. Also, the regulations do not clearly 

specify tha t an air car rier must adm inister the tra ining program as approved, tha t he must revise it as 

necessary to insure appropriate training , or that he 

must keep his trainin g material and procedures current witli respect to each airplane type he uses.

The amendments to the regulations proposed herein 

would require that trainin g programs be established 

and main tained not only in accordance with the 

requirements of pertine nt sections of the Civil Air 

Regulations, but also in accordance with minimum 

standard s prescribed by the Director, Flight Standard s Service. In addition, the air car rier would be 

required to revise his program as necessary to insure 

appropriate training, to obtain approval of any revision, and to adm inister the program for the trainin g 

of each crewmember and dispatcher. The proposal 

would also require an air carrier to provide nnd keep 

current, for each airplane type he uses, appropriate 

course material, written, and oral examinations, tra ining forms, and Instructions and procedures for use 

In conducting crewmember nnd dispatcher proficiency 

checks.

For better arrangem ent of the regulations, it is 

proposed to set forth the requirement that ai r car rier 

trainin g programs be approved in the same section 

that now requires an air carri er to establish such 

programs. The separa te section requiring approval 

would be deleted.

The amendm ents requiring approval of air car rier 

training programs were issued December 1, 1959. 

That same month the Bureau of Flight Stan dard s 

prescribed and circu lated by memorandum the policies 

and standa rds that were to be used for the approval 

of trainin g programs, so that the air carriers could 

have ample time to prepare or revise the ir programs 

and get approval. After sev era l' conferences with 

industry representatives, during which these stan dard s were thoroughly reviewed, certain changes were 

made and issued in a revised memorandum dated 

September 7, I960. This memorandum has been 

identified as the “Trainin g Standa rds Criteria .”

Since the memorandum establishing stan dards for 

the approval of training programs was an expediency 

to assist the air car riers in meeting the Jan uary 1, 

1961, effective date of the amendments, interested persons were advised that proposed Civil Aeronautics 

Manual mate rial on the subject would be circulated 

for comment at the ear lies t practicable time. The 

indu stry was also advised that in developing this 

proposer! CAM material. Flig ht Standards would consider the comments and recommendations they had' 

made durin g discussions of the “Trainin g Standard s 

Criteria.” Insofar as possible, the CAM appendix 

proposed herein reflects these comments and recommendations.

Durin g the original discussions of the criteria to 

be used in the approval of trainin g programs and In 

subsequent informal meetings on this subject with 

various segments of indus try, both support of and 

opposition to specifying a minimum number of hours 

of instructio n in the standa rds was evidenced. While 

the crewmembers and dispatchers strongly concur 

with the trainin g standa rds presently In effect, the 

air carriers are opposed to specifying a minimum
FLIGHT ATTENDANTS WITHIN TH E DEFINITION OF "AIRMAN” 13

required number of hours of ground and flight tra ining. This opposition Is based primarily on the 

premise tha t the flexibility needed to develop new 

training techniques and methods would be reduced, 

and tha t an unw arra nted emphasis on hours would 

tend to limit the overall Improvement of training 

programs. Therefore, In view of the expressed differences of opinion with respect to specifying a minimum required number of training hours in the tra in ­

ing program stan dards. It Is requested that par ticula r 

consideration be given this ma tter in preparing comments on this proposal.

The underlying inte rest of the Agency In ai r car rier 

tra ining programs is with the end pro duct; l.e., compete nt crewmembers and dispatchers. However, In 

order to assure with a reasonable degree of certain ty 

that such sati sfac tory end products will result. It Is 

necessary to evaluate the training progr ams In advance. While a sampling of the end products may 

Indicate the need for a reevaluation of the programs, 

the application of adequate sta ndard s In the formulatio n of the tra ining programs will increase the 

probability of adequ ately trained crewmembers and 

dispatchers.

To provide flexibility for the training of those 

crewmembers or dispatchers who may not require a 

complete trainin g course, the sta ndard s proposed 

herein would allow the use of modified courses In 

appropriate cases. Fo r example, a crewmember hired 

from another air carri er might be permitted to qualify with less training, If he had alread y been through 

the training progr am of a carri er conducting a comparable operation with the same type of equipment 

on which he Is qualifying. Also, we recognize that 

the minimum programmed hours for ground school 

training on certain subjects may vary among different air carriers because of differences In training 

techniques, procedures, and facilities. For example, 

an air carri er using mock-ups, films, or othe r tra in ­

ing aids might reasonably program less classroom 

lecture time than ano the r carrier not using such 

equipment. The standa rds proposed herein would 

provide for variations In the ground school curricu ­

lum when trainin g aids are used. If the air car rier 

presents app ropriate Justification.

In consideration of the foregoing, It Is proposed to 

amend Pa rts 40, 41, and 42 of the Civil Air Regulations as follow s:

1. By amending § 40.280(a) and (b) of Pa rt 40 to 

read as follows:

40.280 Training requirements.

(a) Each ai r carri er shall establish and maintain a training program sufficient to insure that each 

crewmember and disp atch er Is adequately trained to 

perform the duties to which he is assigned. The 

training program shall be established and maintained 

In accordance with the requirements prescribed In 

paragraph s (b) through (e) of this section and 

55 40.281 through 40.289, a nd the minimum standa rds 

prescribed by the Director, Flight Standa rds Service; 

and shall be revised as necessary to Insure appropriate training. The tra ining program and any revision

thereto shall meet with the approval of the Administra to r or his autho rized representative, and shall be 

administered by the air car rier for the tra ining of 

each crewmember and dispatcher. Prior to serving 

In ai r transporta tion, each crewmember and dispatcher shall satisfac torily complete the Initial phase 

of the program.

(b) Each ai r carrier shall provide adeq uate 

ground and flight trainin g facilities, and properly 

qualified Instruc tors ; and shall provide and keep 

current, with respect to each airplane type used In 

air carri er operations, appropriate course material, 

written and oral examinations, training forms, and 

instructions and procedures for use In conducting 

crewmember and dispatcher proficiency checks required by this par t. Each air car rier shall also provide a sufficient number of check airmen to conduct 

the flight checks required by this part. Such check 

airmen shall hold the same airm an certificates and 

ratings as are required for the airm an being checked.

2. By deleting 5 40.290.

3. By addin g an appendix to Pa rt 40 to read as 

follows:

Appendix

STAN DAR DS FOR THE PREPARATION AND

APPROVAL OF AIR CARRIER

TRAININ G PROGRAMS

General

1. Purpose. These standa rds prescribe the procedures for approval of ai r car rier crewmember and 

dispatcher trainin g programs and the minimum curriculum requirements for such programs.

2. Application for approval.

(a ) The ai r carri er shall submit an application 

for initial approval of Its trainin g progr am to the 

FAA Principal Operations Inspector. The application 

shall be accompanied by three copies of the ai r carrie r’s training program curriculum. The air car rier 

shall also submit for exam ination such training 

forms, records, and othe r materia l pertain ing to the 

trainin g program as may be requested by the Principal Operations Inspector.

(b) If the curriculum complies with the requirements prescribed In this Appendix, and the othe r pertine nt material submitted for exam ination Is adequate, the ai r car rier will be notified tha t its training 

program has been approved and an approved copy 

of the curriculum will be retu rned to the ai r carrier.

3. Revisions of approved training program. Requests for approval of revisions to a previously 

approved trainin g program shall be subm itted to the 

FAA Principal Operations Inspector. If the request 

pertains to revision of a training program curriculum 

approved in accordance with the requirements prescribed In this Appendix, 3 copies of the revision for 

which approval Is requested shall be submitted In a 

form that will permit it to be readily substituted, If 

approved, for that portion being replaced in the 

approved training program curriculum on file with 

the FAA.

8 3 8 7 0 0 — 412--------3
14 FLIGHT ATTENDANTS WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF "AIRMAN”

4. Curriculum; general term and content. The 

trainin g program curriculum shall Include a table 

of contents setting forth In appropriately numbered 

sections the following:

(a) The policy and procedures to be employed by 

the air car rier In complying with the trainin g requirem ents for all crewmembers and disp atch ers;

(b) The Initial, upgrading, tran sitional, recurrent, and emergency courses of trainin g administered 

to dispatchers and to each type of crewmember including the ground school, synthetic traine r, aircr aft 

familiarization, and flight training subjects and 

maneuvers, as appropriate (sep arate sections should 

be used for the dispatchers and for each type of 

crewmember) ;

(c) Appropriate detailed descriptions or pictorial 

displays of all normal and emergency flight maneuvers and procedures to be administered In the flight 

phase of the training prog ram ;

(d) The minimum hours of trainin g and instruction programm ed for each phase of the ground, synthetic, and flight training required for appro val; and

(e) Provisions for giving practic al test s or 

closed-book writte n examinations, as appropriate. In 

all required subjects.

Detailed Curriculum Requirements 

11. Ground school training. The curriculum shall 

provide for ground school instructio ns and training 

for crewmembers and dispatchers in accordance with 

the requirements prescribed by Pa rt 40 of the Civil 

Air Regulations. It shall also include the subjects 

listed in paragraph s (a) through (j) of this section, 

designated by app ropriate symbols, for the. type of 

operation conducted by the air carrier. In establishing the ground school training curriculum for Individual ai r car riers, subject matter which is not necessary for the training requirements of the air car rier’s 

partic ula r type of operation is not required for 

approval. In all cases, the curriculum shall Include 

ground school trainin g and instruction for crewmembers and dispatchers in those subjects considered 

necessary to insure that they will perform their 

dutie s with a high level of proficiency in the particular type of operation conducted by the air carrier. 

The following subjects are applicable to the pilot in 

command, second In command and third pilot; and to 

dispatchers, flight engineers, navigators, and flight 

atte ndant s as ind ica ted :

Note.—The following symbols are used to designate

those segments of each subject in which a particular

crewmember and a dispatcher must be given training

and Instruction :

PC—Pilot In command.

2C—Second In command,

3P—Third pilot,

FE—Flight engineer,

DS— Dispatcher,

NA—Navigator, and

FA—Flight attendant.

(a) Crew dutie s and responsibilities.

(1) Orie ntation—DS, FA, NA, F E ;

(2) Organizational structure—DS, FA, NA, 

FE ;

(3) Company policies—D8, FA, NA, FE ;

(4) Verification of qualifications—DS, NA, 

FE ;

(5) Use of intox icants—DS, FA, NA, FE ;

(6) Duties and responsibilities—DS, FA, 

NA, FE ;

(7) Issuance of manuals and equipment— 

DS, FA, NA, F E ;

(8) Conduct of flight—DS, NA, FE ;

(9) Flight simulator or procedu ral traine r— 

FE ;

(10) Preflight dutie s—NA, FE ;

(11) Inflight duties—FA, NA, FE ;

(12) Postflight duties—FA, NA, FE;

(13) Authority, command and second in command—DS, FA, NA, F E ;

(14) Emergency aut hority and responsibility—DS, FE ;

(15) Passenger handling—FA, FE ;

(16) Alternate, provisional, and unscheduled 

landings—DS, FE ;

(17) Illness, crew an d/or passengers—FA, 

NA, FE.

(b) Civil Air Regulations and Civil Aeronautics

Manual relative to each part, where applicable.

(1) CAR/CAM 4a—Airplane Airworthiness 

(non-T Category)—DS, FE ;

(2) CAR/CAM 4b—Airplane Airworthiness 

(T Category)—DS, FE ;

(3) SR—422 1 Turbine-Powered Transport

SR—422A > Category Airplanes of CurSR—422B J rent Design—DS, F E ;

(4) CAR/CAM 29—Physical Standa rds for 

Airmen ; Medical Certificates—DS, NA, 

FE ;

(5) CAR/CAM 40—Scheduled Intersta te Air 

Carrier Certification and Operation 

Rules—DS, NA, F E ;

(6) CAR/CAM 41—Certification and Operation Rules for Scheduled Air Carrier 

Operations Outside the Continental 

Limits of the United States—DS, NA, 

FE ;

(7) CAR/CAM 42—Irregula r Air Car rier 

and Off-Route Rules—DS, NA, FE ;

(8) CAR/CAM 43—G e n e ra l O p e ra ti o n 

Rules—DS, FE ;

(9) CAR/CAM 45—Commercial Operator 

Certification and Operation Rules—D S ;

(10) CAR/CAM 49—Transp orta tion of Explosives and Other Dangerous Articles—DS, FE ;

(11) CAR/CAM 60—Air Traffic Rules—DS, 

NA;

(12) Part 320 of the Civil Aeronautics 

Board’s Safety Investigation Regulations—Notification and Reporting of 

Air cra ft Accidents and Overdue Aircra ft—DS.
FLIGHT ATTENDANTS W ITHIN THE DEFINIT ION OF ‘AIRMAN" 15

(c) Navigation.

(1) The globe; size, shape, movement, and 

time—DS, NA;

(2) Projections; maps, char ts, and limitations—DS, NA;

(8) Navigational computer and Its use— 

DS, NA;

(4) Basic principles of dead reckoning n avigation—DS, NA;

(5) Celestial navigation—NA;

(6) Radio nav igation; loran and rad ar— 

NA;

(7) Single heading navigation—NA;

(8) Pres sure pattern flight planning—DS, 

NA;

(91 Emergency aids to na vig ation; VHF-DF 

and HF-DF—DS, N A;

(10) Navigational public atio ns; Flight Information Manual, Airman's Guide, NOTAMS, etc.—DS, NA;

(11) Flig ht plans and procedures—DS, NA;

(12) En route require ments and procedures— 

DS, NA;

(13) Continental and oceanic control—DS, 

NA;

(14) High density traffic control ADIZ, restricted and prohibited are as—DS, NA ;

(15) Fuel requirements and cruise control— 

DS, NA, F E ;

(16) Airports; provisional and alt ern ate airport requirements—DS;

(17) Approach procedures and plates, ASRPAR-ILS-GCA-LF/MF-VOR-ADF—DS ;

(18) Approach and landing minimums—DS.

(d) Meteorology.

(1) Physics and prop erties of the atmosphere—DS, FE;

(2) Air mass analysis—DS, F E;

(3) Adiabatic processes—DS, F E;

(4) Temperature, dewpoint, and humidity— 

DS, FE ;

(5) Fro ntal wea ther systems—DS, FE ;

(6) Pressure systems—DS, FE ;

(7) Precipitation; rain, freezing rain , snow, 

sleet, hail, and ice—DS, F E ;

(8) Clouds and fog—DS, F E ;

(9) Winds Including je t stream—DS, FE ;

(10) Turbulance and adverse we ath er; thunderstorms, tornadoes, and hurricanes— 

DS, FE ;

(11) Upper a ir soundings—DS, FE ;

(12) USWS reports and forecasts—DS, NA, 

FE ;

(13) Interpretatio n of weather da ta—DS, 

NA, FE ;

(14) Flight principles of pressure patterns — 

DS, NA;

(15) Pilot inflight weather reports—DS, FE ;

(16) High altitud e weather—DS, FE.

(e) Communicationt.

(1) Communications procedures—D8, FE ;

(2) Emergency procedures—DS, F E;

(3) Visual signals—FE ;

(4) Ramp and hand signals—FE ;

(5) FAA emergency code of distress—FE, 

NA;

(6) NOTAMS—D8, FE, NA;

(7) Clearance symbols and terminology— 

DS, FE, NA ;

(8) ATC clearance copying—NA;

(9) Continental Morse Code copying practice—NA.

(f) Airway tragic control.

(1) Types of clearance and flight plans— 

DS;

(2) ADIZ DVFR clearances and reports— 

DS;

(3) Types of approaches and holding procedures ;

(4) Je t flight planning—DS, NA, F E ;

(6) Protection afforded;

(6) Acceptable tolerances—NA;

(7) Pilo t and company responsibility—NA;

(8) Government responsibility—DS ;

(9) Flight plan cancellations—DS ;

(10) Search and rescue protection—DS, FE, 

NA;

(11) Manuals and publications—DS, NA, FE,

(I) Definitions and symbols—DS, NA,

(II) Flight Information Manual—DS, 

NA, FE,

(III) Airman's Guide—DS, NA, FE,

(iv) ANC Manual—DS, NA.

(g) Emergencies

(1) Authority and responsibilities—DS, FA, 

NA, FE ;

(2) Determination and declaration for the 

following types—DS, FA, NA, FE :

(I) Potential,

(II) Actual,

(til) Crash,

(iv ) Inflight,

(v) Landing,

(vl ) Ground.

(3) Term ination of emergency—FE, NA ;

(4) Codes and signals—FA, FE, NA;

(5) Available aids and assistance—DS, FA, 

NA, FE ;

(6) Drills and procedures fo r:

(I) Ditchings—FA, NA, FE,

(II) Aircraft evacuation—FA, NA, 

FE,

(III) Fire fighting—FA, NA, FE,

(Iv) Smoke evacuation—FA, NA, FE,

(v) Fuel dumping—FE,

(vl) Propeller feathering—FE,

(vii) Overspeed propeller—FE,

(vlil). Hydraulic failures—FE,

(lx ) Gear extension failure—FE,

(x ) Gear collapse—FA, NA, FE,
16 FLIGHT ATTENDANTS W ITHIN THE DEFIN ITION OF “AIRMAN ’

(xl) Utilization at emergency exits— 

FA, NA, FE,

(xl l) Communications (allu re — FE, 

NA,

(xlll) Inflight death—FA, FE, NA,

(xlv ) Bomb hoax—FE, D8, NA, FA,

(xv ) Unreported flight—DS, FE,

(xvl) Decompression—DS, FA, NA,

FE,

(xvli) Descents—FA, NA, FE.

(h) Operations.

(1) Dispatching procedures—DS, F E, NA;

(2) Weight and balance—FE ;

(3) Flight planning—DS, NA, F E;

(4) Jet flight planning—DS, NA, FE ;

(5) Ground handling and public protection—F E ;

(6) Flight schedules—FE, DS, NA;

(7) Cruise control—NA, FE ;

(8) Operating specifications—DS, FE, NA; 

(8) Flight trainin g simulator and aircr aft

proficiency checks—FE;

(10) Maintenance and logbooks including 

equipment "go-no-go” lists—DS, FE ;

(11) Ferry flights—DS, F E;

(12) High altitud e indoctrination—NA, FE, 

FA.

(1) Equipment.

(1) General description—DS, FA, NA, FE ;

(2) Performance and limitations—DS, F E;

(3) Powe rplants and propellers—DS, FE ;

(4) System s:

(I) Fuel—FE,

(II) Oil—FE,

(ill) Hydraulic—FE,

(iv) Pneumatic—FE,

(v) Water Injection—FE,

(vl) Heating—FE,

(vit ) Cooling—FE,

(vlll) Pressurization—FE,

(ix) Autopilot—FE,

(x) Radio und rad ar—NA, FE,

(xl) Electrical—NA, FE,

(xll) Vacuum—FE,

(xlll) Ignition—FE,

(xlv) Induction—FE,

(xv) Ice elimination—FE,

(xv i) Instrum ents and navigational— 

NA, FE,

(xv ll) Control—FE.

(5) Oxygen equipment—FA, NA, FE ;

((1) Emergency equipment—FA, NA, FE ;

(7) Emergency systems and procedures—

NA, FE.

(J) Familiarization assignments.

(1) Air route traffic control center—DS, 

NA:

(2) Airport traffic control tow er;

(3) Flig ht dispatch center—NA, FE, DS;

(4) Pilot schedule office—FE, NA ;

(5) Station operations—DS, FA, NA, F E;

(6) Meteorological office—DS, NA, F E;

(7) Aircra ft on ground—DS, FA, NA, F E;

(8) Maintenance facility—F E;

(9) Student flight training—FE ;

(10) Synthetic flight trainer—F E;

(11) En route line flights—FA, DS, NA, FE. 

12. Flight training. The curriculum shall provide

for flight training which will Insure adequate Initial, 

trans itional, upgrading, recu rrent, and emergency 

training for all crewmembers on the aircraft typ e(s ) 

to which they are assigned In air carrier operations. 

The recu rrent trainin g shall be adequate to Insure the 

continued maintenance by all air car rier crewmembers of a high level of proficiency. The curriculum 

shall provide for the flight trainin g required by Part 

40 of the Civil Air Regulations and include the flight 

tralnin g/simu lato r subjects for initial, trans itional, 

upgrading, and recu rrent training listed In paragraphs (a) through (y) of this section.

Not*.—Subjects listed In this section represent a

combined list wblch may be used for simulator and

flight phases of training. Subjects In which pilots serv

Ing as second In command must be trained are Identified

with an asterisk (• ). The subjects listed for the development of air carrier simulator/synthetlc trainer

courses should not be confused with the standards for

the approval of simulator courses prescribed under

I 40.3 02 (b)(3 ).

(a) Briefing session.*

(b) Prefiight inspection of the aircraft.*

(c) Engine starting.*

(d) Taxiing.

(e) Prior to takeoff checks.*

(f) Takeoffs:

(1) Normal takeoffs;*

(2) Crosswind takeoffs;

(3) Night takeoffs;*

(4) Takeoffs with simulated engine failure.*

(g) Climb and climbing turns.*

(h) Maneuver— minimum speed.*

(l) Approach to stalls.*

(J) Rapid descent and pullup.

(k) Engine-out procedures and familiarization.*

(l) Roll rates—spoilers on, off, and up.*

(m) Dutch roll.*

(n) Spoilers.*

(o) Stabilizer trim:*

(1) Procedures to be used for runway stab ilizer;

(2) Procedures to be used for Jammed stab ilizer ;

(3) Procedures to be used for landing and 

“go-around" with horizontal stabilizer 

out of trim.

(p) Tuck and much warning*

1 q) Recovery from unusual attitudes.

(r ) Emergency descent.

(s) Traffic control procedures.*

(t) Instrum ent approach, missed approach, and

orientation procedures for ILS, VOR, ADF, LFR,

OCA, PAR, ASR.*

(u) Landings:

(1) Normal landings;*

(2) Night landings;*

(3) Crosswind landings;*
FLIGHT ATTENDANTS WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF “AIRMAN” 17

(4) Zero flap landings;

(5) Maneuvering to landings with simulated 

failure of 80 percent of power units 

concentrated on one side of the ai rc ra ft ;

(6) Maneuvering to a landing under circling 

minimum conditions.

(v) Operation o f flight engineer panel. Sufficient 

training shall be given to qualify a crewmember, other 

than the flight engineer, to perform satisfac torily In 

this capacity, should the flight engineer become Incapacitated.

(w) Sytte mt ute:*

(1) Antl-lcing system;

(2) Pressurization and air conditioning;

(3) Fuel system s;

(4) Cockpit and a irc raf t lighting system;

(5) Navigational and communication systems ;

(6) Flight Instrum entation.

(x) Inflight emergency procedure! :*

(1) Engine fire;

(2) Hea ter and cargo compartment—flresmoke rem ova l;

(3) Empennage Are;

(4) Wing fire;

(5) Cabin flre-smoke remov al;

(6) Electrical fires and failu res;

(7) Flight instrument power failur e;

(8) Pneumatic failure;

(9) Hydraulic system failures;

(10) Flig ht control boost-off proced ures;

(11) Emergency decompression;

(12) Fuel dumping.

(y) Ground emergenciet:*

(1) Emergency evacuation;

(2) Ditching drill;

(3) Brake fire;

(4) Use of emergency b rake ;

(5) Engine and fuselage fires.

13. Minimum hourt of training.

(a) The curriculum shall program for each crewmember and dispatcher the minimum number of hours 

of trainin g in the various phases of training, as specified In the following Cha rts 1 and 2;

Nots.—The sym bols used in Charts 1 and 2 have the

fol lowi ng meanin g :

PC— Pilot In command;

2C— Second in command (cop ilo t) and third pilot

in a required thr ee-pilot crew;

3P — Third pi lot not required by regulation ;

FE — Fligh t engineer;

NA— Nav iga tor;

FA— Fl ig ht attend an t;

DS— Dispa tcher;

I/T — In itial tra ining;

H— Upgrading tra ining;

R— Recurr ent tra ining;

X— One round trip (tot al time n ot les s than ft ho ur s).

(b) The minimum hours of training required by 

paragraph (a) of this section shall be programmed 

for the following defined train ing ph ase s:

(1) Ratio training. Basic training or Indoctrination Is th at phase of training required to qualify all 

newly employed crewmember and dispatcher personnel 

for service in air transportation.

(2) Initial training (I /T ). Ini tial trainin g is 

tha t phase of trainin g required to qualify crewmembers and dispatchers for service In connection with an 

airplane type for which they are not currently qualified.

(3) Upgrading training (U). Upgrading training Is tha t phase of training required to qualify second In command (copilot) personnel to serve In a 

pllot-ln-command capacity on an airplane type on 

which they are currently qualified to serve as second 

In command. If a second In command Is to be upgraded to serve in a pllot-ln-command capacity on an 

air craft type on which he Is not currently qualified 

to serve as second In command, he must be trained In 

accordance with the requirements for Initial training. 

Upgrading trainin g Is also the trainin g required to 

qualify personnel to serve In a second-in-command 

capacity on an airplane type on which they are currently qualified to serve In the capacity of a third 

pilot (3P) not required by the Civil Air Regulations.

4. Recurrent training (R). Recurrent training 

is that phase of training required with in each 12- 

month period to Insure the continued competence of 

crewmembers and dispatchers. Recurrent flight training for the pilot In command shall be programmed as 

two trainin g periods, each period consisting of not 

less than half of the recu rrent flight training required 

by paragraph (a) of th is section.

(c) The Initial equipment line check requirements of para grap h (a ) of this section represent the 

following:

(1) For a pilot In command, the minimum time 

this crewmember must be observed by a qualified 

check airman while perform ing the dutie s of pilot 

in command;

(2) For a pilot qualifying to serve as second 

in command, the minimum time the trainee must spend 

In observing an actu al operation prio r to assignment 

as a second In command In air c arr ier operation s; and

(3) For a flight engineer, the minimum time 

this crewmember must be observed by a qualified 

flight engineer while perform ing the dutie s of flight 

engineer In air ca rrier operation.

14. Pro ritiont for adjuttment of minim um hourt of

training. The minimum programmed hours of tra ining required by section 13 for all curriculums are 

predicated on complete training for each crewmember and dispatcher on one type of airplane. To account for individual trainin g combinations, circum ­

stances, and procedures, an air carrier, In Its curricu ­

lum, may provide for adjustments In these minimum 

programmed hours of training, in accordance with the 

provisions of paragraph s (a) through (e) of this 

section.

(a) Ground tchool training.

(1) When trainin g crewmembers or dispatchers 

on more than one type of airplane, the subject ma tter 

tha t is repetitious for each type may be given once, 

and need not be repeated for each airplane. For example, where dispatchers are given Initial trainin g 

on several airplane types, the subjects applicable to 

all types need be given only once.
Chart 1 MINIMUM PROGRAMMED HOURS OF TRAIN ING

Ba sic (Indro ctrinatlon of New Hire s)

I

Ground School

II

Flight

Training

III

Procedural

Train er

Approved

Simulator

IV

Sy nthe tic

Ins tru ment

Trainer

V

Initi al Equipment

Line Chech

PC

FE

40

2C40

3P

40

NA

40

FA

40

DS

40

PC 2C

FE

3P PC 2C 3P PC 2C PC 2C 3P FE NA

DS

FA

DC-3, I/T 40 40 — — 8 16 8 4 — — — — 4 4 10 10 — —

— X

0-4 6

U — 16

— — — — — 4 — — — — — 4 — 10

— — — —

R 12 12 — — 3 8 2.5 1.0 — — — — 4 4 — — — — — — M202/404, I/T 64 64 — — 8 30 8 5 — 10 10

— 4 4 15 15

—

—

— X

CV -240/4 40

U — 32

— — — — — 5 — — 10 — — 4 — 10

—

—

— —

R 16 16 — — 4 8 3 1.5

— Io 10 — 4 4 — — —

— — DC-4, I/T 64 64 __ 24 8 40 8 5 — 10 10 — 4 4 15 15 — 7.5 12 X

L-049, 749

U — 32 — — — — — 5 — — 10 — — 4 — 15 — — — — L-104 9 R 16 16 — 12 4 10 3 1.5

— 10 10 — 4 4 —

— — —

— — B-37 7 I/T 80 80 — 24 10 40 10 6 — 15 15 — 4 4 20 20

— 10 12 X

L-1649

U — 40 — — — — — 6 — — 15 — — 4 — 20 — — — — DC- 6/7 R 20 20 — 12 5 10 3 1.5 — 10 10 — 4 4 — — —

— — F- 27 I/T 80 80 — — 8 40 10 6 — — — — 4 4 20 20

—

—

— X

CV-540

U

— 40 — — •

— — — 6 — — — — — 4 — 20 — —

— —

R 20 20

— — 4 10 3 1.5 — — — — 4 4 —

— — — — — Viscount I/T 80 80 __ __ 10 40 10 6 — 10 10 — 4 4 25 25

—

—

— X

U

— 40

— — — — — 6 — — 10 — — 4 — 25 — — — —

R 20 20 — — 5 20 3 1.5 — — — — 4 4 — — —

—

— L-188 CD-44 I/T 120 120 — — 10 40 10 7 — 15 15

— 4 4 25 25 — 12.5 — X

Argosy

U

— 60 — — — — — 7 — — 15 — — 4 — 25 — — — — Cara velle R 20 20 — — 5 20 3 1.5

— 10 10 — 4 4 — — — — — — B-70 7 I/T 120 120 120 32 16 40 20 10

• 20 20

• 4 4 25 25

— 12.5 12 X

DC-8

U — 60 — — — — — 10 10*» — 15 15** — 4 — 15 15

—

— — CV-880 R 25 25 25 16 12 20 6 3

« 10 10

• 4 4 — — — — — — •Amount of Training Will be Predicated on Actual Duties Assigned.

••L esser Time May be Acceptable Based on Previous Training.

18 FLIG HT ATTENDANTS WI TH IN THE DEFIN ITION OF “AIRMAN ’
Cha rt 2 MIN IMUM PROGRAMMED HO UR S OF TRAIN ING —SMALL AIRCRA FT

(12,500 Pou nds or Less MGTOW)

I II II I IV

Synthetic

Ins trume nt In itial Equipment

Ground Fli ght Training Trainer

I Line Check

PC 2C PA PC 2C PA PC 2C PC 2C PA DS

Basic Ind oc trinatio n of New Hi res 40 40 20

— — —

—

—

— — —

— Single Engine I/ T 8 —

— 2 — — 1 — 5 — —

—

U

—

—

—

— — —

—

—

— — —

—

R 5 —

— 2 — — 1 —

— — —

— Multiengine I/T 20 20 4 4 1 2 1 5 3 —

_

U

— 8 —

— 3 —

— 1 — 2 —

—

R 8 8 2 2 1 — 2 1 — — —

— In strumen t I/ T 20 10

— 6 1 4 2 10 5 _

U

— 6 —

— 5 —

— 3 — 5 —

—

R 4 4 — 2 1 — 2 1 — — 

—

—

1 Link time not required when equivalent training la giv en in an airc raft under hood.

Notb.—Thia standard does not apply to turbine-powered airplanes.

F L IG H T A T T E N D A N T S W IT H IN T H E D E F IN IT IO N O F " A IR M A N ” 19
20 FLIGHT ATTENDANTS W ITHIN THE DEFINITION OF "AIRMAN”

(2) Recurrent ground school training includes 

Instruction In such general subjects as regulations, 

weather, and company policy, as well as training on 

a specific type of airplane. In programming recurrent ground school training for crewmembers or dispatchers who hold qualifications on more than one 

type of airplane, the general subjects applicable to 

all types need not be repeated, and training may consist of tha t necessary to cpver such general subjects 

and to Insure adequate training on each type of ai rplane involved.

(3) The minimum programmed hours of recurrent ground school training may be reduced up to 25 

percent when the ai r car rier provides a directed study 

course, including properly supervised closed-book 

examinations.

(b) Flight training.

(1) The minimum programmed hours of flight 

training required by section 13 for all curriculums Is 

tha t time required In the airplane when training in 

aircra ft simu lators or procedural traine rs is not provided. When approved simulator training is provided, and the programmed time is equivalent to tha t 

contained in the procedural train er/a pprove d simulator column, the minimum programmed flight time for 

Initial trainin g may be reduced by 25 percent.

(2) When trainin g is provided in procedural 

traine rs or aircr aft simulators that have not been 

approved, a representa tive of the Administrator may 

authorize appropriate reductions up to 25 percent in 

the airp lane flight time programmed for initial tra in ­

ing. Pri or to such authorization, the trainin g device 

will be evaluated to determine the degree of simulation provided.

(3) Any programmed period of recu rrent flight 

training in a par ticula r type of airplane may also be 

accomplished by means of a proficiency check or an 

approved course of training in an air craft simulator. 

When a proficiency check is used, the flight time must 

be sufficient to satisfactorily accomplish the check, 

but need not be equivalent to th at programmed for the 

training period. A course of trainin g in an aircr aft 

simu lator may be approved for the recu rrent flight 

training of flight engineers ns well as pilots.

(4) Flight crewmembers who reta in qualifications on two or more types of airplanes need not be 

given more than one period of recu rrent flight tra in ­

ing in each type within a 12-nionth period. For a 

second in command, third pilot, or flight engineer, the 

crew concept must be used In at least one period of 

recurrent flight trainin g within each 12-month period.

(5) When a proficiency check or period of 

recurrent flight training for a second in command, 

third pilot, or flight engineer is given separately and 

does not Involve the crew concept, the flight training 

time programm ed for tha t period may be reduced to 

tha t necessary for covering the required training or 

proficiency check maneuvers. If this procedure Is 

used, the crewmember Involved shnll be required to

satis factorily accomplish each trainin g or proficiency 

check maneuver prio r to completion of the check or 

training period.

(6) Crewmembers who progress successfully 

through any phase of the ai r car rier’s flight training 

program in less than the minimum flight time programmed for tha t phase, and are recommended by the 

air carrier, may be flight checked by a representative 

of the Administrator or a check airman of the air 

carrier. The privilege of flight examining crewmembers recommended for checks with less than the 

minimum programmed hours of flight training will be 

discontinued if the failure rate of such crewmembers 

Indicates that the training given is not sufficient to 

insure competence.

(c) Ground school and flight training.

(1) An air car rier may obtain approval of a 

modified version of the complete training course, for 

use in trainin g crewmembers or dispatchers hired 

from another air car rier using the same type of 

equipment in n comparable operation. The modified 

version shall provide for sufficient trainin g to bring 

the individual or group to the proficiency level normally achieved by a complete course of training, and 

shall Include at least the following:

(1) A written exam ination on company policies and procedures, the airplane typ e(s ) involved, 

and other subjects peculiar to the particular air 

ca rr ie r;

(ii) Appropriate flight checks on all normal 

and emergency procedures ; and

(ill) A requirement that the training record 

for the crewmember or dispat cher must Include a complete history of the Individual’s background, previous 

training, qualifications, and the examinations conducted by the present employer to determine his proficiency status.

(2) An air car rier may obtain approval of 

modified versions of the complete training course, for 

use in training crewmembers or dispatchers transitioning from one variation of an airplane type to 

another variation of the same type, or from one airplane type to a similar type, as in the case of tra nsition from a Boeing 707 to a Douglas DC-8. For simplicity of reference, the term “differences training ” 

may be used to identify this training. "Difference 

training” courses must provide for sufficient training 

to insure proficiency in the air pla ne(s) involved, and 

will be evaluated on an individual basis.

(d) fnitial equipment line checks. The minimum 

programmed hours of Initial equipment line checks 

for a pilot In command, second In command, or flight 

engineer may he reduced by not more than 50 percent by substituting one tnkeoff and landing for each 

programmed hour. For example, the 20 hours of line 

checks programmed for a pilot In command in L-1649 

airplanes may l>e reduced to 10 hours when this crewmember makes 10 takeoffs and landings durin g the 

10-hour iieriod.

(e) Prohibition against deviations. An air carrier shall not deviated from the minimum pro-
FLIGHT ATTENDANTS WITHIN THE DEFINIT ION OF ' AIRMAN'’ 21

grammed hours specified In Its training program curriculum, except In accordance with adjustments specified In and approved as a part of the approved training program.

4. By promulgating similar amendments to Part 41

and to Part 42 for the carriers and commercial operators operating large airc raft under the provision s of

that Part.

These amendments are proposed under the authority of sections 31 3( a) , 001 and 004(a) of the Federal

Aviation Art of 1958 ( 72 Sta t 752, 775, 778 ; 49

U.S.C. 13 54(a), 1421, 1424).

Flight Standard* Service.

Issued in Washington, D.C., on March 2, 1962.
22 FLIGHT ATTENDANTS W ITHIN THE DEFINITION OF ‘ AIRMAN”

F ed er a l Av ia tio n Ag en c y, 

Washington, D.C., Ap ril SO, 196S.

D ea r M r. B l a n k : The recent tragic loss of life in survivable air carrier accidents 

has focused t he attention of all responsible segments of Government and industry, 

as well as Congress and the general public, on the problems of emergency evacu ation, where large numbers of passengers are involved, and dramatically underscores the extreme importance of timely and aggressive corrective action.

As you are aware, the Federal Aviation Agency and industry have recently 

conducted extensive studies of the passenger evacuatio n problem in survivable 

accidents, including observation of many sim ulated emergency evacuations. It is 

app are nt from these studies th at the chance of successful evacuation and passenger 

survival in actual emergencies is directly related to the adequacy of crew training 

and passenger briefing.

The Civil Air Regulations require initial and recu rrent training in emergency 

procedures for all crewmembers. The regulations also require each air carrier to 

demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Adm inistrator t ha t the functions assigned to 

crewmembers are reasonable and practicable. Reports indicate t ha t crewmembers 

of some air carriers, particularly cabin att endants , are not required to actually 

operate emergency equipment during training, as required by the Civil Air 

Regulations.

Such a ctual practice during initial and recurre nt crew training is essential to an 

adequate and effective training program and must cover the physical operation of 

escape slides, opening of emergency and other exits, placement of escape ropes, 

use of fire extinguishers, and, when appropriate, demonstration of knowledge of 

proper launching procedures and physical movement of life rafts from airc raft 

stowage area to launching area, by each cabin a tte nd ant and o ther crewmembers. 

If your training program does not now provide for this dem onstratio n of competenc y by actu al operation of the emergency equipment, it is necessary that 

immediate actio n be taken to insure th at such demonstration is accomplished. 

Our field inspectors are being instructed to review^ your crew training program to 

insure th at this requirement is being or will be satisfactorily accomplished.

Certain air carriers presently require crewmembers to demonstrate their knowledge of the location of emergency equipment and exits under the direc t supe rvision of the captain. This is accomplished by the use of mockups of the appropria te aircra ft interior prior to the origination or continuation of a flight with a 

new crew. The mockup may consist of an outline of the aircra ft with small 

magnetized blocks, representing emergency equipment and exits, which can be 

placed in the ir proper location. Another method is through the use of a printed 

outline of the airc raft involved on which the individual crewmembers are required 

to draw in the location of all emergency equipment and exits. We believe these 

are simple bu t effective metho ds of insuring crew knowledge of locations of emergency equipment and exits, particularly where crews are assigned to operate aircraft of different types and configurations. I am sure you will agree th at this is 

most impor tant and I am asking th at you require such a demonstration by your 

crewmembers in this or a similar manner.

It is also appar ent from studies and observations th at one of the majo r factors 

affecting evacuatio n is the conduct and action s of the evacuees themselves. In 

considerable measure, their conduct and actions in an emergency can be directly 

related to the extent of their knowledge of the interiors of the passenger cabin and 

the means of escape available. Informed passengers have a much b etter chance of 

survival tha n those who are uninformed. We believe th at the most effective 

means of supplying this information is by public address announcements, supplemented by demonstrations, adequate signs, clearly defined exits and explanatory 

material in the passenger information folders. Accordingly, I am asking th at all 

carriers and commercial operators establish procedures for oral briefing of boarding 

passengers prior to each departure, concerning the location and operatio n of all 

emergency exits. This should be included in any routine briefing procedures now 

in effect. If no such procedure is presently in effect, I reque st t ha t you insure the 

establishme nt of an acceptable m ethod of passenger briefing as soon as practicable.

We will a ppreciate your early reply as to what action has been or will be taken 

by your company to require the actual operation of emergency equipment by 

crewmembers during initial and recurre nt training, and what action you have 

taken or contemplate with respect to pred epa rture passenger and crew briefing.

I am sure th at you recognize the urgency of the situation and the extreme 

importance of the procedures outlined above. For this reason, I ask th at you 

give this matt er your personal attention.

Sincerely, .

N. E. H a la by, Admin istrator.
FLIGHT ATTENDANTS W ITHI N THE DEFINIT ION OF ‘‘AIRMAN’’ 23

Mr. Williams. Any further questions?

Mr. J arman. No.

Mr. Springer. No.

Mr. Williams. Thank you very much, Mr. Prill.

Mr. Prill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Williams. I see we have listed here Mr. James F. Horst, inter ­

national vice president of the Tran sport Workers Union and director 

of the air trans port division; accompanied by Mr. Roland K. Quinn, 

Jr., president, Air Line Stewards and Stewardesses Association, and 

Miss Barbara Roads, legislative representative, Air Line Stewards 

and Stewardesses Association. Is this one group or is it several 

witnesses?

Mr. Horst. Mr. Chairman, if we could beg your indulgence, we 

would like to make a statement, and I would like Mr. Quinn and Miss 

Roads to be with me in making the statement to assist in the presentation.

Mr. Williams. I presume tha t you will make a statement?

Mr. Horst. I will make a statement, and I am sure this committee 

will be interested in Miss R oads’ statement as well.

STATEMENTS OF JAMES F. HORST, INTERNATIO NAL VICE PRESIDENT OF TRANSPORT WORKERS UNIO N AND DIRECTOR OF

AIR TRANSPORT DIVISION , ELMHURST, N.Y .; ROLAND K.

QUINN, JR., PRESIDENT, AIR LINE STEWARDS & STEWARDESSES ASS OCI ATION; AND MISS BARBARA ROADS, LEGISLATIVE

REPRESENTATIVE, AIR LINE STEWARDS & STEWARDESSES

ASSOCIATION

Mr. Horst. Mr. Chairman , we certainly want to thank you, on 

behalf of the Trans port Workers Union, for giving us this opportunity 

to appear before your committee.

The Trans port Workers Union and the Air Line Stewards & 

Stewardesses have been vitally concerned in this problem for a number 

of years and, as you probabiv know, have been actively supporting 

this type of legislation. The Transp ort Workers Union represents the 

flight service personnel in the airline industry.

My name is James F. Horst. I am international vice president of 

the Tr ansport Workers Union and director of the air tran sport division.

Immediately to my left is Mr. Roland K. Quinn, Jr., who is the 

president of the Airline Stewards & Stewardesses Association, Local 

550 of the Trans port Workers Union.

And immediately to my right is the charming young lady, Miss 

Roads, whom the gracious Congresswoman has already introduced so 

very eloquently.

She is the legislative represe ntative for the Airline Stewards & 

Stewardesses Association.

For the clarification of your committee, this local represents a large 

section and a large number of the stewards and stewardesses. However, we have in our organization other locals in other airlines tha t 

are affiliated also, representing stewards and stewardesses.

And it is for this reason th at we would like to appear as a committee 

appointment for the purpose of presenting our problem.
24 FLIGHT ATTENDANTS W IT HI N THE DEFINIT ION OF "AIRMAN ”

We are a labor organization representing more than 30,000 airline 

employees on practically every major U.S. domestic and international 

air carrier, as well as employees of a number of foreign air carriers 

based in the United States. Included in the membership of the air 

transport division are flight navigators, airframe and powerplant 

mechanics, dispatchers and dispatcher clerks, office, clerical, agents, 

and other related employees, stores, and ground service personnel and 

flight attendants—pursers, stewards, and stewardesses.

The air transport division represents the flight attendants on 

American, Eastern, Northeast, Northwest, Western, Trans Caribbean, 

Trans-Texas, Aloha, Central, Caribair, Hawaiian, Seaboard World, 

Trans-World, Pacific Northern and Pan American World Airways, 

numerically speaking, over 7,500 flight atte nda nts—nearly threefourths of all flight attendants—on 15 major air carriers.

The air carriers operate under three different sets of civil air regulations; some under Civil Air Regulations, part 40, “Domestically 

Scheduled” ; some under Civil Air Regulations, part 41, “Internationally Scheduled” ; and others under Civil Air Regulations, part 

42, “Nonscheduled Air Carriers” ; nearly all of whom operate military 

charter flights in international service.

I am certain you are all well aware, from your many past hearings 

on aviation safety, of the great, and sometimes conflicting, differences 

in the various p arts of the Civil Air Regulations. Allow me to inform 

you tha t those differences in the Civil Air Regulations which this 

committee has uncovered in the past have not altogether disappeared. 

For instance, Civil Air Regulations, part 40, requires one flight 

atte ndant on any domestic aircraft for hire with 10 or more passenger 

capacity. Civil Air Regulations, part 41, “International Air Carriers,” at least until March of 1963, does not require any flight 

attendants, likewise there is no requirement in Civil Air Regulations, 

part 42, for any flight atte ndan ts.

H.R. 8160, 8327, and 8334, the legislation pending before this 

committee today, were introduced for the purpose of including within 

the definition of the term “airm an,” flight attendants.

By including flight attendants within the definition of the term 

“airman” this committee would be establishing vital lifesaving safety 

standards for the air-traveling public.

I would like to say to you parenthetically tha t this is a most vital 

question in this whole country in terms of air safety.

And I would also like to say, in deference to Mr. Prill who has just 

made a presentation to this committee, tha t it seems to me an unfair 

standard to place in the scale of balance dollars on one side and human 

lives on the other side in the question of air safety.

The public would benefit in the following ways:

(1) In accordance with the Civil Air Regulations all airmen must 

be licensed before performing the duties for which they are employed; 

that is, pilots, navigators, flight engineers, mechanics, dispatchers, 

and flight attendants, providing, of course, this legislation is approved.

(2) In order tha t applicants can qualify for the license they first 

must have training—training which is basic to the position for which 

they apply.

(3) As in the case of those currently described as “airmen,” the 

FAA will establish minimum basic training standards for cabin 

attendants in the civil air regulations. The FAA would be required 

to do so under the Federal Aviation Act of 1958.
FLIGHT ATTENDANTS WIT HI N TH E DEF INIT ION OF “AIRMA N" 25

(4) Wherein the civil air regulations require certain minimum 

retraining and updating standards at prescribed intervals, for all 

licensed personnel, the licensing requirements for flight atte nda nts 

would likewise require minimum retrain ing and updating standards; 

and finally, whereas the civil air regulations provide tha t certain 

qualifications must be met before becoming a licensed airman, for 

example, written , oral, and practical examinations, the adoption of 

this legislation would require tha t all flight atte nda nts would be 

tested in accordance with prescribed FAA standards.

Basically, what we in the air tran sport division are asking you to 

do by approving H.R. 8160 is to provide a standardi zation of train ing 

courses for flight atten dants. A training program tha t would insure 

the air traveling public that the flight atte ndant on board air carrier 

aircra ft have met minimum standards of training in the inter est of 

safety.

I ask you, gentlemen, where is the logic in requiring a steward or 

stewardess to be a pa rt of the crew and then not take appropriate 

action to make sure the required atte nda nt is trained? We know 

from a long sad history tha t the carriers will not undertake to train 

the cabin atte nda nts unless pushed into it. It is a consta nt fight 

now to maintain even the present inadeq uate level of training. I am 

sure tha t you will agree tha t safety and trainin g matters do not belong on the bargaining table—subject to the whims of economic 

pressures from both management and labor.

1 would suggest again, Mr. Chairman , th at certainly this has been 

recognized in the certification of all of the other airmen; tha t this is 

a responsibility of the FAA and not a responsibility of the collective 

bargaining table.

The passenger, when he buys a ticket, assumes, and rightly so, 

that the airline is required by law to provide him with the best crew 

and airplane possible from a safety standard . He is correct in 

assuming this with regard to the operating crew, the airplane, and the 

ground personnel. But he is incorrect when he assumes that the 

cabin attend ant —who may be called upon to save his life in event of 

a crash or other emergency—is the best possible. The fact of the 

ma tter is tha t she or he can be a danger to the passenger. The 

passenger will wait for instructions, in case of emergency, from his 

cabin atte nda nt—psychologists bear this out. What happens if th ey 

are not forthcoming because the atte nda nt simply doesn’t know 

what to do?

You gentlemen, because of the nature of your careers, do considerably more flying than the average public. I wish it were possible 

for you to take from the cabin attenda nts with whom you fly a 

sampling of their knowledge of emergency procedures. I guaran tee 

you would be appalled.

The United States has much to be proud of in the field of aviation. 

We have almost completed three decades of powered flight. This 

country has produced and is currently manufactu ring the most 

advanced jet-engine-powered aircraft in the world. Many of our 

accomplishments in this field of aviation can be attributed directly 

to the work, study, deliberations, and perseverance of this committee 

and to the Congress as a whole.

Where we have been the technical leader in aviation these many 

years and even now are planning for the future with the design and

83 87 0 O—6 2----- 4
26 FLIGHT ATTENDANTS WITHI N TH E DEFINITION OF “AIRMAN”

development of a supersonic transport, we have, at least in the area 

of flight attendants’ training, fallen far behind.

And, if I may say so, Mr. Chairman, it is our opinion tha t we are 

still operating with DC-3 psychology in this jet age in terms of the 

flight atten dants. This is something that we have fallen far, far 

behind in realizing the responsibilities of these people.

France, 2 years ago, recognized the necessity for requiring flight 

attendants to be licensed, and last year Mexico likewise adopted a 

requirement for the certification of flight attendants. Other studies 

by foreign-flag carriers are now in process. Can the United States 

afford not to provide for its air traveling passengers the same measure 

or standard of safety as France and Mexico? Mr. Chairman, we 

think not, and therefore respectfully request your committee to act 

favorably on this legislation.

I would say to you that the arguments and the presentation of the 

FAA would seem to me to be met on the basis of one yardstick and 

only one standard: Could they not argue, through this whole presentation here, the same argument against licensing pilots, against licensing 

navigators, against licensing dispatchers, flight engineers, or 

mechanics?

What is the argument? It is too costly. It is too much of a burden 

from an administration standpoint.

But I say tha t those arguments have been met in the past by regulations, licensing these individuals, and here again it must be m et with 

the flight atten dan t group. And I think it is also significant, and all 

due respect to Mr. Prill and the FAA, tha t their statement talks in 

terms of “proposed” ; tha t they intend to do this, tha t they intend to 

do that. They intend to do the other thing.

In fact, the statement states at one point or makes reference to the 

date of April 20. Now, we submit to you tha t we have been urging 

this legislation for 5 years. We have appeared before committees, 

we have appeared before the FAA, and we believe that there is only 

one way to answer this problem, and that is to effectively pass this 

legislation so that the flight atte nda nt will be licensed; so that there 

will be a standard yardstick of competency, training and rechecking, 

to assure the traveling public, and the other crewmembers, tha t the 

flight atte nda nt is a well qualified person for the purpose of emergency 

action.

I am sure, Mr. Chairman, tha t Mr. Quinn, sitting to my left, and 

Miss Roads would like to make a statement. They are the experts 

in this field.

Mr. Quinn was a flight atte nda nt on Eastern Airlines for a number 

of years, and has been a full-time officer of the union.

And Miss Roads has been a full-time stewardess for a U.S. airline, 

and has continued, and is presently flying as a stewardess on a certificated airline, and I am sure tha t they would be able to give you 

some detailed information.

Mr. Quinn has submitted a statement, and I would appreciate the 

committee taking time to read tha t statement in detail and the facts 

attach ed to tha t statement.

And I would appreciate it if we could have the indulgence of your 

committee to have Miss Roads make her statement.

Mr. WTlliams. Is it Mr. Quinn’s desire to insert his statement in 

the record of the hearings?
FLIGHT ATTENDANTS WITHI N THE DEF INITION OF “AIRMAN” 27

Mr. Horst. It would be his desire, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Williams. Without objection, it will be included in full, as 

requested.

(The statement of Roland K. Quinn referred to follows:)

Statement of Rowland K. Quinn, Jr., President, Air Line Stewards and

Stewardesses Association, International, TWU, AFL-CIO 

IN TR ODUCT IO N

My name is Rowland K. Quinn, Jr., and I am representing the Air Line Stewards and Stewardesses Association, International, TWU, AFL-CIO. We appreciate this opportunity to appear before this committee in behalf of bills H.R. 

8160, H.R. 8327, and H.R. 8334. We have always considered it a major responsibility of our association to help make the airplane cabin a safe place in which 

our people can work and the traveling public can be transported. We have 

pursued this objective in our collective bargaining, in our day-to-day relations 

with the airlines, and before State and Federal legislators where our organization 

has actively sponsored and supported safety legislation. Through this statement we wish to provide this committee with the views of the Air Line Stewards 

and Stewardesses Association, International, TWU, AFL-CIO, on the subject 

of airman certification insofar as it affects the cabin attendants serving in commercial air transportation.

TH E PU R PO SE OF TH IS LE GI SL ATI ON

The purpose of this legislation is to insure that every airline cabin attenda nt 

serving in the commercial airline industry shall have received and satisfactorily 

assimilated initial and periodic recurrent training on such subjects as emergency 

evacuation, ditching, and inflight emergencies, thereby assuring th at each flight 

attenda nt has achieved and retained a minimum level of competence in these 

subjects. It is the intent of this legislation that such training, recurrent training, 

and physical fitness shall be verified by the issuance of a license for this category 

of flight personnel.

THE FU NCTIO N OF THE A IR LIN E CAB IN ATTENDANT

The most importan t function of the cabin attenda nt is their responsibility for 

the inflight safety for the airline passenger. This can be broken down into three 

importan t duties:

1. Surveillance of passengers in cabin to prevent dangerous acts on the 

part of passengers.

2. To take action to protect passengers in the event of decompression, 

turbulence, mechanical malfunction, illness, injury, or unconsciousness.

3. To handle passenger evacuation in the event of emergency crash 

landings and ditchings.

In essence the cabin atten dant’s primary job is taking command of the situation 

under an emergency and directing the action of the passengers so that those passengers will be provided with a maximum amount of protection in th at particular 

condition. As recently as December 1957, the Air Transport Association of 

America took the position that the use of flight attenda nts aboard the aircraft 

was solely for reasons of service to passengers, not for reasons of safety. We 

believe tha t a proper evaluation of the role of the purser and hostess in a safe 

operation of air transport would quickly expose the fallaciousness of this position. 

Basically, a planeload of passengers consists of a group which is untrained for 

coordinated expeditious action in the event of an emergency. Unknowledgeable 

and existing for the time being in a strange environment, such a group always 

contains a few individuals who are beset by fear and anxiety even under normal 

conditions. When an emergency arises, unless there is someone present who can 

be looked to for authoritative leadership chaos can be expected. Such chaos can 

result in a high loss of life in, for example, a crash landing followed by fire. Regrettably, this point was graphically demonstrated on November 8, 1961, when an 

Imperial Airlines Lockheed Constellation crashed near Richmond, Va. In this 

accident 74 passengers and 3 crewmembers died as a result of carbon monoxide 

poisoning. An investigation revealed that none of the passengers had been 

injured in the impact. The record is replete with the most shocking examples 

of irresponsibility on the part of the airline operator in failing to provide a trained
28 FLIGHT ATTENDANTS W ITHI N THE DEFINITION OF “AIRMAN

crew. Although ample time was available, no precrash emergency procedures 

were initiated , no evacuation of passengers was atte mp ted. The record is silent 

as to whether the stewardess had any emergency procedures training. The 

CAB accident repo rt points out th at this was a survival accident and at least 

some of the passengers should have escaped if they had been provided with any 

assistance.1

 An examination of the wreckage revealed the passengers piled up 

around the rear door and not one emergency exit had been opened. No further 

proof should be necessary th at there is a need for guaranteeing a minimum level 

of competence of cabin attend ants.

The argument raised by the opposition to the licensing of cabin attendants has 

been the administrative burden resulting from the high attritio n rat e in this crew 

member category. Adm ittedly, the license requirem ent will cause some additiona l workload on the agency or agencies which must enforce the program and 

the employer who must meet these requirem ents. However, this issue of at trition 

serves to amplify the need for the license. It should be obvious th at a large 

number of inexperienced and in some cases untrain ed individuals are fulfilling an 

imp ortant function. It would app ear to me th at we should be ingenious enough 

to be able to devise an enforcement procedure which will overcome the agency 

objections in order to achieve a level of protectio n th at a well-trained crew will 

provide the traveling public.

At the present time the major carriers all conduct training programs of varying 

quality but they are not adverse to using totally untrain ed personnel for operational expediency. Several instances of the use of untrain ed personnel were reported on two of the Nation’s major commercial air carriers during the months 

of February and March of this year. In fact one company advertised the use of 

an untrained company employee as a flight att en da nt in one of its house organs.2

Many of the airlines are not maintain ing enough trained personnel to meet their 

day-to-day operational requirements. Most airlines are grossly and facetiously 

wasteful of their experienced and trained cabin att en da nt manpower by such 

practices as requiring stewardesses to leave the employ of the company on their 

32d birthd ay and requiring stewardesses to termin ate their employment when 

they marry. The term ination of these experienced people is a serious loss to the 

to the industry and results in many flights being operated by inexperienced 

personnel.

Th at the presence of dedicated, intelligent, and well-trained stewards and 

stewardesses makes the difference between life and dea th was graphically illustra ted by the Northwest Airlines ditching at Puget Sound, Seattle, Wash., April 

2, 1956. The plane was ditched 4 nautical miles from shore. It rapidly settled 

so completely in the w ater as not to afford a place for survival for any person. Its 

passengers included non-English-speaking Korean women, children, and invalids. 

They had neith er liferafts nor lifevests, the tem per ature was 40° in the water 

and no help arrived for abo ut 40 minutes. Only 5 lives o ut of 38 were lost in 

this accident. There was unanim ity of agreement among all survivors of the 

accident th at the lives of most, if not all survivors was due to the fact th at one 

stewardess remem bered th at the sea t cushions were buo yan t and saw to it that 

every passenger had a seat cushion before the plane sank.

NECESSARY QUALIFICATIONS REQUIRE D FOR THE AIRLINE CABIN ATTENDANT

The job of the hostess and purser requires judgment, ingenuity, skill, and 

independence in an area of the most difficult sort—not handling inanimate and 

usually predictable machinery, bu t large numbers of human beings of all ages, 

walks of life, varied national and racial backgrounds, under panic conditions. 

The hostess or purser must be trained in judging and handling people. Ju st as 

the pilot is trained to keep his mind geared to what he would do at each instan t 

should an emergency arise throu gh failure of aircraft engine or stru ctu re or through 

storm or collision, so the hostess or purser must be trained to mentally assess the 

passengers from the minute she or he first sets eyes on th em with a view to several 

objectives, as for instance, to single out psychotics or drunks who should not be 

boarded, or if discovered for the first time in flight, to handle with a view to the 

safety of the aircra ft; to eva luate who are th e able-bodied men who could be called 

on in an emergency; to remember where each passenger sits who is infirm or a child 

and mav need special help in eve nt of evacuation.

1

 Attached as app. A, pp. 1-2, 23-24, of CAB report, file No. 10025, Imperial Airlines, Inc., Richmond, 

Va., Nov. 8, 1961.

* App . B, excerpts from the Falcon, p ublication of Eastern Air Lines.
FLIGHT ATTENDANTS W ITHIN THE DEFINIT ION OF "AIRMAN ” 29

I have been personally impressed with the numbers of times that alert, experienced flight atten dants have rendered personal assistance to passengers who 

have become incapacitated during a flight. As an example, one purser reports 

tha t he has had four passengers with serious heart attacks while in service on the 

North Atlantic?

We have had numerous reports from stewardesses wherein the prompt action 

of the cabin atte nda nt in administering oxygen to heart cases may have saved 

lives. The most recent case reported was an incident where the stewardess detected physical signs of a heart attac k in a passenger who had no previous heart 

history. The prompt action by the stewardess in administering oxygen and determining if assistance was available from a source amongst the passengers may 

have saved this man’s life. An untrained or less experienced stewardess would 

probably have been unable to have rendered this assistance?

POSITION OF THE FEDERAL AVIATION AGENCY ON THE QUESTION OF FLIGHT 

ATTENDANT TRAININ G

We detect for the first time a sympathetic ear in the Federal Aviation Agency 

by their most recent draft release, No. 62-9, entitled “Approval of Air Carrier 

Training Program.” 5

 This Agency proposal has outlined the subjects in which 

the flight attendant must be trained and a minimum number of hours of instructions in the initial ground school and recurrent training tha t must be provided. 

However, the program outlined by the FAA is deficient in one respect. This is 

the followup to determine if, in fact, the training is actually given to each individual flight attenda nt and whether the recurrent training of the flight attenda nt 

is accomplished within the maximum periods of time allowable. It is for this 

reason tha t we testify to the necessity tha t the FAA training program be augmented with the requirement for a license. Our contact with the Federal 

Aviation Agency leads us to believe that the Agency feels that it is not empowered 

to make this requirement for a license to supplement its program, but that this 

requirement must be included in the basic act.

SPECIFIC PROPOSALS OF LEGIS LATIVE ACTION AND RUL E CHANGES FOR THE TREA TMENT OF THESE PROBLEMS

The association proposes the following specific legislative program to insure 

tha t necessary minimum standards will be established and maintained:

1. That the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 be revised to specify tha t the 

cabin a ttendant will be certificated as an airman.

2. That the Federal Aviation Agency issue airman certificates to each 

individual cabin atte nda nt on the completion of an approved training program, the content of such program to be specified by the Federal Aviation 

Agency.

3. That a minimum age limit or the successful performance on a test to 

measure an acceptable minimum maturity level of the individual be one of 

the qualifications for a cabin attendan t certificate.

4. That the Federal Aviation Agency enact a realistic minimum cabin 

attendant crew complement based on the passenger carrying capacity of each 

commercial aircraft.

The adoption of these recommendations, in the opinion of the Air Line Stewards 

and Stewardesses Association, International, TWU, AFL-CIO, will establish a 

comprehensive program which can be effectively implemented to provide the 

level of safety to which the commercial air traveler is entitled.

We have appreciated the courtesy tha t this committee has extended to our 

association in allowing us the opportunity to present our views on this important 

subject.

Mr. J arman. Mr. Chairman, I was impressed with the strength of 

the language tha t Mr. Horst used in his comment on the statement 

made this morning by Mr. Prill. I would be interested in hearing 

phrased again that particular comment of yours about weighing 

human lives in the balance against dollars and cents or something to 

tha t effect.

’ See app. C, “ Report from George H aag,” dated Apr. 13, 1962.

4

 See app. D, “ Reports from Joan Bra nne lly,” d ate d Apr. 15, 1962, an d Apr. 19, 1962.

• See app. E, FAA Draft Release No. 62-9.
30 FLIGHT ATTENDANTS W ITHIN THE DEFINITION OF “AIRMAN”

Mr. Horst, would you care to state it again?

Mr. Horst. I would be glad to s tate it again.

It gave me the impression, as I listened to the presentation of Mr. 

Prill, tha t the basic argument was tha t this would, by licensing the 

flight atte ndants, result in adding administrative costs to the Government and the question of regulation.

And the thoug ht occurred to me t ha t there seems to be two standards. One yardstick is tha t that same argument could be argued by 

anyone, including the FAA, if we were talking about licensing other 

personnel in the aircraft, knowing as we do, th at they are now licensed 

—but tha t same argument could be made, and it certainly was discarded years ago in terms of the other crew members.

And the other thought tha t struck me very forcibly, as I was 

listening, is tha t I do not think this committee, nor any other, can 

sit idly by and think in terms of puttin g into a scale the questions of 

dollars and administra tive costs on one side of the scale and human 

lives on the other.

I think the responsibility of this committee is to make a determina ­

tion tha t this is of vital concern to the air traveling public, and tha t 

we cannot excuse ourselves from tha t responsibility on the basis of 

a dollars-and-cents argument, but tha t we have to realistically assure 

the traveling public tha t we are doing our utmos t to see tha t every 

safe procedure is made or taken so the traveling public has complete 

confidence in our air transport industry.

Mr. J arman. This comment. I listened carefully to Mr. Prill’s 

statem ent, and I have read it very carefully. I will say very frankly 

to you, sir, t ha t what Mr. Prill said, and what his statement reads to 

me, certainly does not justify your hard-hitting comment.

As I read his statement, he is emphasizing tha t the heart of the safety 

program, as the FAA interprets it, lies with the personnel whose jobs 

are directly connected with the operation and navigation of the 

aircraft.

He goes on to point out tha t tha t is where the field of certification 

lies and is justified, in the opinion of the agency.

He goes on further, in discussing the general subject, on page 4 

where he says:

As indicated, we do not believe certif ication of flight att en da nts will speed or 

facili tate the achie vement of the air safety progr am.

Certainly, this is open to debate. The position he takes, as I understand it, is not one of weighing lives in the balance of the economy of 

the issue, but in terms of how far the Government should go in its 

regulation program.

The only point I wish to make, Mr. Chairman, at this point in the 

record, is tha t I think tha t the very hard-hitting comment of the 

witness is not justified in the light of Mr. Prill’s testimony this morning.

Mr. Horst. Well, I would suppose again tha t tha t would be a 

matter of opinion.

I would only say to you tha t we feel very deeply on the subject, 

and I would onlv say to you t hat, perhaps, the depth and unde rstan ding we have of this is because of the number of flight atten dants whom 

we represent, and the closeness th at we have to this p articula r problem.

And I would assure you, sir, tha t our interests are the interests of 

the aviation industry in providing safe, efficient, air transp ortation .
FLIGHT ATTENDANTS WITHI N TH E DEF INIT ION OF “AIRMAN” 31

And if we did not sincerely believe this and have the convictions we 

do, we would not have been spending our time and efforts for the last 

5 years urging the licensing of flight atten dants .

I submit to you we have no selfish motive to derive from the licensing 

of the flight atten dants . In fact, it has taken a real educational 

program among some of our flight attendants to point out to them 

tha t this is for the good of the whole industry, because people can 

certainly look a t the small narrow point and say, “ Well, why should 

I have to go through the tests; why should I have to go through the 

training; why should I be required to have a license?”

But we honestly and sincerely believe t ha t this is the only effective 

way tha t this can be accomplished so tha t we and the public are 

guaranteed a y ardstick standard tha t each flight atte nda nt has had a 

certain amoun t of basic training, has spent a certain amoun t of time 

on emergency procedures, has passed their written and oral and 

practical examination, which test their training knowledge, and is 

issued a certificate, the same as any other airman is issued a certificate, 

to qualify them and, most importantly, to then have a procedure for 

retraining and requalifying during the term of th at period.

And this is our honest and sincere belief.

Mr. Jarman. I understand the position you are stating but the 

thing I get back to is this:

Are you taking the position tha t the FAA is n ot concerned about 

the safety of human lives on an aircraft in their reasoning on these 

particular issues?

Mr. Horst. I did not make tha t accusation, sir. I merely said 

tha t I do not believe tha t this can be a criterion for balancing the 

economics against the question of human lives.

I made no accusation of the FAA, tha t they were not considering 

air safety, nor were they considering the safety of the lives of the 

passengers.

That was n ot our position.

Mr. Jarman. Well, then let’s see if I do understand what your 

position is.

The position you take is tha t the financial aspect of it is of little 

importance in the evaluation of whether this is necessary from a 

safety standpoint?

Mr. Horst. Right. That is my position-----

Mr. J arman. You think then tha t there should be no testimony 

from the FAA as to the economic side of the admin istrative burden 

tha t might be placed upon them?

Mr. Horst. Well, I believe two things in tha t respect:

I believe, one, tha t the statistics could be argued as to what is the 

real cost, because we understa nd that, for instance, the FAA have 

inspectors on the aircraft inspecting and check-riding the other crewmembers.

Now, this would not be an undue burden for the FAA inspector to 

also go to the back of the airplane and check ou t the stewardesses or 

the stewards on tha t same airplane, to find out whether they knew 

the emergency procedure. Certainly-----

Mr. Jarman. Well, if I can break in right there, I understood that 

the thing that Mr. Prill was emphasizing, from the administrative expense aspect, was the fact tha t the turnov er is such among atten dan ts 

tha t it would require the FAA to issue as many as 10,000 certificates
32 FLIGHT ATTENDANTS WI TH IN T HE DEFINITION OF “AIRMAN”

annually, certificates tha t would be based upon the necessary checking of examinations and qualifications, and all tha t would go into the 

certification.

Tha t was the particular aspect of the administrative burden tha t 

he was pointing up.

Mr. Horst. All right. Mr. Prill stated that he had checked with 

the industry, with the ALPA, and with the Tran sport Workers 

Union.

I know of no inquiry from our organization as to the statistics of 

turnover on the yearly basis. In fact, it is my judgment tha t it is 

almost double t hat, if no t more, on the question of turnover.

Mr. J arman. It is double this number, you would say?

Mr. Horst. That would be my judgm ent-----

Mr. J arman. I do not want to prolong this because you have two 

colleagues who are testifying also, and you are making a very good 

presentation of your own position.

Since I was the member of the committee who asked Mr. Prill 

about the expense aspect and whether the FAA was in a position to 

estimate roughly what the added expense adminis tratively would 

be, I would say to you tha t I would be very happy to have, from 

you information on the expense side of it, because I think th at is one 

aspect of the question tha t we are here to decide.

Mr. Horst. Well, I think it would be r ath er difficult for us to make 

an exact or an accurate estimate on t hat .

Mr. J arman. But you indicated tha t you thoug ht the expense 

aspect of it could be arguable?

Mr. Horst. Correct, and I would also submit to you tha t I think, 

even more importantly, tha t the same argument of expense could be 

used against certificating the other crewmembers, and we have 

definitely recognized for a number of years-----

Mr. J arman. You mean against certificating the pilot-----

Mr. Horst. Correct.

Mr. J arman (continuing). Copilot, and the navigator?

Mr. Horst. Correct. And we have recognized for years t ha t w hatever tha t expense is, tha t it is most importa nt tha t tha t expense be 

spent for the insurance for the air travelin g public of a safe operation.

I would also submit to this committee, assuming the figure of 

turnove r is somewhere in the neighborhood of 2 years or assuming 

tha t it is a compromise of 18 months, a turnover, to us this is even 

more important tha t these people be licensed because the faster the 

turnover, the more assuredly it is t ha t these people are not receiving 

the proper training and are not receiving the proper requalifying 

during tha t period.

And I would submit to you tha t on t ha t factor alone, it would seem 

to me more impo rtant to have a procedure whereby we could have 

a yardstick for the flight attendan t’s licensing among that group 

because of the turnover, to assure tha t we have qualified people 

aboard the aircraft.

Mr. J arman. I think tha t is all, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Williams. Are there any further questions?

Mr. Springer. No.

Mr. Williams. Mr. Horst, I am going to have to agree with my 

colleague, Mr. Jarm an, and take exception to your statement, to the 

effect tha t the essence of Mr. Prill’s stat eme nt was, or the essence of 

his objection was, an economy objection.
FLIGHT ATTENDANTS W ITHI N THE DEFINIT ION OF “AIRMAN” 33

After having looked over his statement again I find tha t he uses 

four pages to discuss various and sundry reasons why the Agency 

feels tha t this legislation is not necessary, and uses only one brief 

paragraph to discuss the economic aspect of it or the cost of it to 

the Agency.

I am afraid tha t you let your enthusiasm for the legislation, perhaps, 

take you a little afield of the actual essence of the statement in this 

respect.

However, tha t is understandable because you are a proponent of 

the legislation, but I am very happy tha t Mr. Jarman called t hat to 

your attention.

Are there any further questions?

Mr. Friedel. No.

Mr. Springer. May I just ask one question, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Williams. Mr. Springer.

Mr. Springer. Now, at the present time your pilot, copilot, and 

the flight engineer, are certificated.

Is that correct?

Mr. Horst. And the navigator.

Mr. Springer. Is t ha t all?

Mr. Horst. No; you have the mechanic who is licensed. The 

dispatcher is licensed also by the Federal Government.

Mr. Springer. That gives five classifications that are “airmen” ?

Mr. Horst. Of the “airmen” it’s the crewmembers, the first tha t 

we had listed.

Mr. Springer. In other words, just those first three classifications.

Is tha t correct?

Mr. Horst. Are considered as “ airmen.”

Mr. Springer. As “airmen.” Now, in this you are making the 

stewardess an airman or airwoman, or whatever it is. And we will 

say she becomes licensed.

Does that mean she has to have considerably more training, is that 

it, to become a licensed airman?

Mr. Horst. Well, it would mean tha t the standards would be met. 

The regulations provide a minimum of training. And we believe 

tha t this is necessary, but also very important is tha t there will be 

some measure tha t these people have assimilated this training and 

have been able to apply this training.

Therefore, under certain procedures or under the procedures there 

would be a written examination and a practical checkout examination, 

and at th at point then you would license these people as being qualified 

to perform th eir duty.

Mr. Springer. Now, does tha t mean tha t she would get more 

money then?

Mr. Horst. Not necessarily; no, sir. It has nothing to do with 

that.

Tha t is an economic argument that would be left to the union 

and management across the collective bargaining table.

Mr. Springer. I see. In other words, tha t is another matter 

separate entirely from this.

Is tha t correct?

Mr. Horst. I might point out to you, sir, tha t we represent a large 

number of mechanics, some of whom are licensed and some of whom 

are not licensed.
34 FLIGHT ATTENDANTS WITHIN TH E DEFINITION OF “AIRMAN”

They receive the same wage scale, whether they are licensed or not 

licensed.

Mr. Springer. Thank you.

Mr. Jarman. Will you yield?

Mr. Springer. Yes.

Mr. J arman. Do you take the position tha t all of the mechanics 

should be certified?

Mr. Horst. We would urge tha t as many as possible be, and here 

we have—you, perhaps, know the history of this.

At one time, under the CAA there was a discussion of eliminating 

the licenses, and then there was a discussion of specialized licensing 

of the various factors.

We believe in this type of an industry tha t it is absolutely necessary 

tha t the individual be trained, qualified, and tested on his training 

and qualifications to perform his work.

Mr. J arman. Do you think tha t all of the airline personnel should 

be certified?

Mr. Horst. I think you could certainly make a different argument 

on clerical, and tha t type of personnel who do not directly affect the 

air safety, but you cannot make tha t argument, and it has been 

recognized, about the pilot, the navigator, the flight engineer, the 

mechanic, and the dispatcher.

Mr. J arman. Tha t is all.

Mr. Williams. Thank you, sir.

You may proceed, Miss Roads.

Miss R oads. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My name is Barbara Roads and I am the legislative representative 

for the Air Line Stewards and Stewardesses Association, International, 

TWU, AFL-CIO, which is a labor organization representing 5,500 

flight attend ants; over half of the approximately 10,000 flight a tten dants on the organized airlines. I am a flight attend ant on a major 

trunk carrier and have flown as a flight atte ndant for the past 11% 

years.

We would like to express appreciation for the opportunity to appear 

before this committee in support of bills H.R. 8160, H.R. 8327, and 

H.R. 8334. These bills would require the Federal Aviation Agency 

to license flight attendants on the commercial air carriers. For many 

years we have sought the enactment of this legislation to make the 

airlines a safer means of public transportation and a safer place in 

which our people can work.

The function of the flight atte ndant includes two diverse areas. 

The public image of a flight attend ant is t hat of a smiling, gracious 

steward or stewardess whose duties consist of service items, such as 

food and drink, answering questions, and providing the other in-flight 

services rendered by the individual air carrier.

Admittedly, these duties comprise the greatest part of the flight 

attendant’s time. But, in our opinion, the most important role of 

the flight atten dant lies in the area of safety. These duties are twofold: (1) the prevention of accidents and (2) the prevention of disaster 

in the event of an accident.

Our duties in the prevention of accidents include (1) checking emergency equipment such as fire extinguishers and oxygen bottles filled, 

(2) checking no smoking and seat belts, (3) giving oxygen demonstrations on the jets, and (4) preventing inebriated passengers from boarding the aircraft. These duties also include in-flight surveillance of
FLIGHT ATTENDANTS WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF “AIRMAN ’ 35

passengers and cabin to prevent dangerous acts on the part of the 

passengers such as falling asleep while smoking, actuating safety 

devices, or entering the cockpit.

In the prevention of disaster our most vital role is to handle passenger 

evacuation in the event of an emergency crash landing or fire. We are 

also responsible for the passengers’ protection in the event of decompression, illness, or injury. In i960, A. Howard Hasbrook, a 

noted aviation crash safety research specialist, said:

The cabin attend an t’s primary job is th at of taking comm and of the situ atio n in 

an emergency and direc ting the action of the passengers so t ha t those passengers 

will be provided the maximum amount of protection in th at particular condition * * *.

We agree with this position emphasizing the safety role of the flight 

attendant.

Scientific studies have been conducted on the basic behavior of 

airline passengers. Dr. Glenn L. Bryan and Dr. Joseph W. Rigney 

presented a paper entitled “Emotional Behavior of Airline Passengers” 

on April 28, 1959, at the 30th Annual Meeting of the Aero Medical 

Association, Los Angeles, Calif.

The paper concluded th at passengers, as a group, tend to behave in 

a very dependent fashion. Passengers frequently ask the flight atten dan t’s permission to do things t ha t are obviously all right. Many 

ask questions t hat they can answer themselves.

Fear of flying frequently occurs when there is no obvious reason, 

such as when there is good flying weather and the aircraft is operating 

normally. Generally the flight attendant’s action reassures and 

calms these passengers.

The study further points out tha t the dependency of the passengers 

is exploited in an emergency. Passengers will follow without question 

the instructions of the flight atte ndant in an emergency condition.

Basically, an airplane contains a large number of untrained people 

from all walks of life and varied national and racial backgrounds. 

Accident investigations have shown th at untrained groups tend to be 

extremely disorderly in their actions in an emergency.

The National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, which is now 

the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, tested the time 

which passengers might have to evacuate a burning transport and 

survive. These tests indicated tha t 90 seconds was the maximum 

survival time.

The natural dependence of the airline passengers, their uncoordinated group action, plus the mere seconds available for successful 

evacuation emphasize the importance of the flight att endant’s safety 

responsibilities. These facts show t hat only an adequate number of 

well-trained flight attendants, distributed equally throughout the 

cabin, can direct the passengers out of and away from the plane.

Present Civil Air Regulations, Part 40, require only 1 flight attend ant on all aircraft with a seating capacity of 10 or more passengers. 

It is tragic to conclude tha t 1 flight attend ant would be capable of 

handling a real emergency, such as a crash landing in a jet aircraft 

with over 100 passengers, divided cabins, and 6 abreast seating. 

Moreover, the jet aircraft are of such size and height that only persons 

within the aircraft can open the door and exits. In addition, the 

cockpit is the least favorable position as a maximum survival location 

and the flight attend ant may be the only surviving crew member. 

Thus it is imperative to have a sufficient number of flight attendants
36 FLIGHT ATTENDANTS WITHIN TH E DEFINITION OF "AIRMAN”

within the aircraft to take command of an emergency. On the jets 

we have advocated a formula of at least 1 flight a ttendant for every 

30 seats.

Present regulations in part 40 also require the airlines to provide 

emergency training for all crew members. However, these regulations 

fail to define what the minimum standards will be for the flight 

attendant. The training procedures and programs are left up to the 

individual air carrier.

Some of the airlines have adequate basic classroom training. However, the greatest failing of the air carriers lies in the area of practical 

training. The practical training is the actual location and operation 

of each piece of equipment.

At present some airlines limit the practical emergency training to a 

mere location of the exits, evacuation slides, and fire extinguishers. 

Other airlines limit the effectiveness of their training by administering 

it on a group basis. Classes of 20, 30, or even 40 persons will board 

the aircraft. One flight atte nda nt will execute the operation of the 

evacuation slide or exit while the rest of the class observes.

First aid is almost nonexistent in most of the training programs. 

First-aid instruction proposes oxygen as a panacea for all illness from 

labor pains to air sickness. The jet planes carrying over 100 passengers increase the likelihood tha t passengers will become ill, have a 

baby, or even die.

I just recently talked to a flight attendant, who graduated from the 

stewardesses’ training college on May 11 of this year. The training 

period was 6% weeks.

In tha t time she had one class on first aid, which occurred on a 

Saturday morning from 8 until 12.

So in 6% weeks she had exactly 4 hours’ first-aid training.

Mr. J arman. Mr. Chairman, if I may ask a question:

Is tha t a training college conducted by a particular airline?

Miss R oads. It is conducted by the airlines. This is conducted by 

the air carrier.

I might add, it was also conducted by an air carrier tha t, in the 

opinion of most people in aviation, has the best and most successful 

training, and this is an example of what is considered the best training 

program.

Mr. Williams. What airline was that?

Miss R oads. I would prefer not mentioning, gentlemen, any 

particular carrier.

As I said before, I am employed at the present time by an airline, 

and I would like to remain employed.

Mr. Williams. Was it a trunk carrier?

Miss R oads. It was a major trun k carrier, yes, sir; one of the 

top five.

Mr. Williams. Were their stewardesses members of your organization?

Miss R oads. Yes, sir; they are.

Mr. Williams. Thank you.

Miss R oads. For training to be effective and consistent with the 

safety standards established in other areas of aviation, every flight 

attend ant should execute every drill and operate every piece of emergency equipment.
FLIGHT ATTENDANTS W ITHI N THE DEFINIT ION OF "AIR MAN” 37

We concede tha t you cannot duplicate in a training class the actual 

conditions which may occur in a real emergency. However, effective 

and repetitive training in the operation and location of emergency 

equipment will so condition the response of the flight a ttendant tha t 

these actions become automatic in a real emergency. Leadership is 

of the essence in a crash situation. Leadership is based on confidence 

and for the flight a tten dan t, confidence is based on training.

I would like to list now some of the specific examples which we think 

point out some of the glaring deficiencies of the present regulations 

and the unsafe practices of the air carriers.

1. On a major trunkline in March of this year, the captain ordered 

the hostesses to evacuate the passengers on their jet. The first 

hostess attached the evacuation slide to the retainer brackets on the 

floor. She then reached for the release on the chute cover and discovered it was not there. The chute release was not the type she had 

been instructed on in training class. The company had changed the 

chute pack release on the evacuation slide and neglected to inform 

the flight attendants of this change. After losing a few precious 

seconds, the hostess was successful in ripping off the cover fastening. 

After the chute was kicked out the door, the hostess pulled the 

inflation cord. The chute did not inflate. She pulled the cord again 

and the cord broke off in her hand. The hostess didn’t waste any 

more time on tha t slide but used the other exits. Fortunately this 

accident was not accompanied by a fire or this incident could have 

cost many lives.

2. Another incident which made responsible flight attendants 

shudder was the initial jet training on one of the major trunklines. 

There were 4 days of classroom training, 1 of which was devoted to 

emergency procedures. However, the practical training was limited 

to a mere walkthrough of the aircraft and instruction in the location 

of the equipment. The girls asked to operate the doors and evacuation slides which were an entirely new type on the jets. They were 

told they could not operate the doors, window exits, or evacuation 

slides as tha t airplane was going into service that evening and 25 

girls operating the equipment might damage the airplane. Yet these 

girls were qualified to fly tha t aircraft.

3. On this same airline classes on the evacuation slide were held 

some time later. Of the three slides th at were used only one inflated 

properly.

At this time it was also discovered tha t many of the girls were too 

short to reach the inflation cord which was then recessed in the 

ceiling. The manufacturers of the slides were present a t these demonstrations and several changes in the slide construction were made as a 

result of this incident. Thus these training classes can also serve to 

test new equipment.

4. On another major carrier the girls had never been allowed to 

operate the evacuation slides. The girls had repeatedly asked to 

operate the slide and the company finally held classes. The slide 

was put into position and the girls proceeded to slide down the chute. 

Unfortunately the slide had been in the door pack for so long tha t it 

had deteriorated. The girls started the descent only to have the 

slide split and the girls fell through to the cement. This slide could 

have caused great harm had it been necessary in a real emergency.
38 FLIGHT ATTENDANTS W ITHIN THE DEFINITION OF ‘ AIRMAN"

A flight attenda nt for this same airline confided to us th at although 

she had flown 8 years she had never operated the evacuation slide.

5. Many airline managements operate their schedules with a bare 

minimum of flight atte nda nt personnel. During peak seasons or 

weather emergencies they are, therefore, short of flight attendants. 

Crew schedulers send girls out on planes on which they have not been 

trained. In other emergencies, the companies have even used ticket 

agents, stenographers or other untrained employees in the place of a 

flight attendant.

Two weeks ago two stewardesses—this was on a major carrier— 

were taken off their airplane and assigned to another flight on a different-type jet. These girls had never seen the inside of this plane, let 

alone been checked out on the emergency equipment or procedures. 

Thus, of the four flight atte ndants, only two had received any training 

on that equipment.

Recently on another flight the plane went out short one girl. A 

jet carrying 120 passengers had only 3 flight attendants instead of 

the scheduled 4.

6. The Stewardess Association is very interested in two accidents 

which occurred during the last 9 months causing the death of 91 passengers and 3 crew members. One crash killed 17 passengers in a 

DC-8 on a major trunk carrier. The other crash killed 74 passengers 

and 3 crew members in a Lockheed Constellation on a supplemental 

carrier. There was only one flight atte ndant aboard the Constellation responsible for the 74 passengers.

It should be noted tha t the Civil Aeronautics Board reported tha t 

in both accidents all the passengers survived the initial impact. All 

91 passengers in these two accidents were killed by carbon monoxide 

poisoning. The Civil Aeronautics Board further reported that on the 

Constellation “time would have permitted at least a small number of 

occupants to escape.”

On the DC-8 all the passenger seats and seat belts worked properly. 

The only seat tha t failed on impact was the stewardess seat in the 

rear cabin. The aft bulkhead on which the stewardess jump seat is 

located broke loose and blocked the aft entry door. We have long 

argued that this seat is not safe, and this accident more than proves 

our position.

In addition, the stewardess occupying tha t seat was practically 

covered with miscellaneous equipment and debris which had come 

loose during the ground gyrations. She reported tha t the pile of 

debris was as high as the stewardess seat level. The main cabin entry 

door for the tourist section carrying 76 passengers was thus unusable 

because it was blocked by the jump seat and the pile of debris. All 17 

passengers who died were seated in the tourist section where there was 

only one available exit. The first class section, carrying 39 passengers 

had six available exits, three of which were used.

We feel tha t safer and more equipment could have saved many 

of the lives in these accidents.

N E E D E D LEG IS LA TIO N

We know tha t the responsibilities of the flight atte nda nt have 

increased tenfold in the je t age. We want the guarantee tha t we will 

be trained in such a manner that we will be capable of discharging
FLIGHT ATTENDANTS WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF “AIRMAN” 39

these responsibilities. Only Federal legislation will provide this 

guarantee.

This legislation will include flight attendants within the definition 

of “ airman,” thereby making the flight attend ant subject to certification by the Federal Aviation Agency. Tt will further require the 

Federal Aviation Agency to establish minimum safety requirements to 

be met by every flight atte ndant in order to acquire and maintain this 

license. The public is entitled to the protection of properly trained 

and qualified personnel in the cabins of the Nation’s air carriers.

We hope this committee will support H.R. 8160, H.R. 8327, and 

H.R. 8334 to certifiy flight attend ants. We thank you again for the 

opportunity to express our views and thank you for your courtesy.

Mr. Williams. Thank you very much. You made a very forceful, 

fact-provoking statement.

I don’t think I have any questions. Mr. Friedel?

Mr. Friedel. I would just like to know, have you had any incidents—

Miss Roads. I have had incidents when I have needed first aid. 

Before I had my stewardess training, I had had considerable training 

in first aid as a lifeguard and as a teacher of lifesaving, and I have had 

two passengers die aboard my planes and had possibly eight or nine 

heart attacks.

It is interesting to note on one of the heart attacks, I requested the 

other stewardess to get the oxygen bottle while I was loosening his 

tie and belts, and she came back in 5 minutes and told me she didn’t 

know where the oxygen bottle was.

Mr. Friedel. Have you had any childbirths on the plane? Any 

children born on the plane?

Miss R oads. No, sir. I had a woman go into labor once and we had 

to land the airplane.

Mr. Friedel. That is all.

Mr. Williams. Mr. Jarman?

Mr. J arman. You have been a flight atten dan t for 11% years?

Miss Roads. Yes, sir.

Mr. J arman. Had your airline given you refresher training programs during tha t period of time?

Miss R oads. Yes, sir. According to part 40 you have to have a 

recurrent training every 12 months. Last year we had an 8-hour class 

tha t checked us out on nine different airplanes, so it boiled down to 

less than 1 hour per configuration.

One of the things that we argue about so much is the location of 

the equipment is not standardized. On one airplane the fire extinguisher may be on the wall of the coat closet. On another it might 

be behind the toilet. On another it might be located in the buffet. 

On one air carrier it seems rathe r incongruous to us that they have a 

water type fire estinguisher located in the buffet to be used in the 

event of an electrical type fire. This is the last type of extinguisher 

in the world you would want to use. We questioned tha t and were 

told in case you have tha t you should go back to the rear of the airplane and get the CO2

 bottle to use on this fire.

Mr. J arman. Does your own airline check on flight attendants 

periodically?

Miss R oads. We have this one test once a year. Do you mean do 

we have checkers on board? No, sir.
40 FLIGHT ATTENDANTS WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF "AIR MAN”

Mr. J arman. Do you have any airline personnel that ride on your 

airline?

Miss Roads. No, sir. I have never been quizzed by anyone in 

11# years.

Mr. J arman. Do you know of any instances in your own experience 

of flight atte ndants on your airline being discharged for inefficiency 

or-----

Miss Roads. No. I know of no flight at ten dan t tha t has ever been 

fired for lack of knowledge of emergency training, no, sir.

Mr. Jarman. Th at is all.

Mr. Williams. Miss Roads, is it your thoug ht tha t there should be 

a certification by aircraft for stewardesses or flight at tendan ts?

Miss R oads. Yes. Each airplane, each configuration is different.

Mr. Williams. I understa nd that.

Miss R oads. And you should be checked out on each.

Mr. Williams. Is it your feeling t ha t one basic examination should 

be given to the stewardesses to get their initial certificate and then 

there should be a check by the FA A on each type of aircr aft that they 

might fly?

Miss R oads. Yes, sir. I definitely do, especially in this instance 

tha t I mentioned in here. The girls had been trained. They have a 

basic classroom training and they had trained to operate the doors 

and evacuate the slides on the Boeing 707. Then they were pu t on a 

Convair 990 and they had never seen the inside of it. The door is 

so difficult to operate tha t the Convair people proposed the use of 

explosive bolts such as they have on the satellites to be used to open 

the door. The girls had never attem pted to open the door, and the 

location of all the equipment is so different, I would definitely recommend—

Mr. Williams. That brings up this question. Assuming Mr. Prill 

was correct in his estimate tha t 10,000 licenses should be issued in a 

year, then is it your suggestion also tha t these licenses be reviewed 

periodically by the FAA, th at the flight a tten dan ts should be examined 

periodically by the Agency?

Miss R oads. Right now-----

Mr. Williams. In order to keep a license alive?

Miss Roads. Yes, sir. Well, I think you should definitely—I think 

the girls should have to pass a physical examination and we have to 

pass tha t annually and tha t I would say if a girl has not flown on a 

certain type aircra ft for a certain length of time, tha t she has to be 

rechecked out. This is no t going to take a long time. But tha t she 

at least be refamiliarized with the different locations because out in 

Los Angeles alone we have 11 different type configurations and the 

girls-----

Mr. Williams. In addition to the estimated 10,000 certificates to 

be issued each year or 10,000 examinations to be given each year, 

there would be examinations for license renewals.

Miss R oads. Right.

Mr. Williams. Or license continuance.

Miss R oads. Continuance; yes, sir. Maintenance.

Mr. Williams. Reinsta tement or what have you. In addition to 

tha t there would have to be examinations given by the FAA on aircraft 

types, wouldn’t there, so the 10,000 figure th at was used by Mr. Prill 

would appear to me to be just the beginning. There would be pos-
FLIGHT ATTENDANTS WITHI N THE DEFINITION OF "AIRMAN '' 41

sibly two and possibly three times as many examinations tha t would 

be required and as much bookkeeping to be required by the FAA in 

maintaining these records. I can see where this would be a tremendous administrative task to be assigned to the FAA. Whether it is 

justified or not, of course, tha t is a good question and a question for 

this committee to determine.

Permit me to congratulate you on a very splendid statement of 

your position on this legislation.

Miss R oads. Thank you, sir.

Mr. Williams. You made a very persuasive statement and certainly one tha t is at least thought provoking.

Any further questions?

Mr. Horst. Mr. Chairman, if I may just make one comment in 

closing, as regards the administrative costs and the problem tha t 

you just mentioned in the licensing and retraining, I believe tha t 

certainly were we to have initially a license for flight attendants which 

would establish the basic information on the question of these emergency procedures and then a training program required by the FAA 

to the airlines on various different types of aircraft merely for the 

purpose of location and implementation of tha t basic knowledge of 

FAA procedure for emergency, tha t tha t in itself would answer 

the question.

Mr. Williams. Do I understand tha t tha t is not now required 

by the FAA?

Mr. Horst. It is our understanding tha t tha t is not required.

Mr. Williams. Thank you very much.

Mr. Horst. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

(The following letter was later received for the record:)

Air Line Stewards and Stewardesses Association,

I nt. TW U-A FL-CIO, 

Chicago, III., Ma y 7, 1962.

Re bills H.R. 8160, 8327, and 8334 on the subject of the certification of airline 

flight attendants as “ai rman.”

Hon. J ohn Bell Williams,

Chairman, Subcommittee of Transportation and Aeronautics, House Interstate and

Commerce Committee, House Office Buildin g, Washington, D.C.

Dear Sir : During the public hearing on the above-mentioned bills on May 1,

1962, I noted th at the Federal Aviation Agency opposed the issuance of licenses 

to flight att endants primarily on the grounds th at it would cause a burdensome 

adm inistrative problem for this Agency.

I have taken it upon myself to att em pt to determine the number of licenses 

which this Agency now issues on a yearly basis, exclusive of the cabin att en da nt 

category. The most recent information th at I was able to obtain covers the 

years 1957 and 1958. However, it would appear th at the activity of this Agency 

would probably have increased since th at time. In 1957 the Federal Aviation 

Agency issued 167,793 original licenses and additional ratings. In 1958, 121,910 

such licenses were issued. Since there are approximately 11,000 cabin attendants 

in the United States subject to the legislation we propose, it would not appear 

to me that these additional licenses would be unduly burdensome upon an Agency 

which is obviously geared to this kind of volume.

I would appreciate it if your comm ittee would take this inform ation into consideration in evaluatin g the Federal Aviation Agency’s position in this matter . 

Very truly yours,

Rowland K. Quinn, Jr., President.
42 FLIG HT ATTENDANTS W IT HI N THE DEF INITION OF “AIRMAN”

Airm an issuances— 1955-58

Airman category

Stu den t pilo t.................................

Private airplane p ilot...................

Commercial airplane pil ot...........

Airline tran sport pil ot..................

Helicopter pilot only....................

Glider pilot only .. .___ _______

Other pilot categories...................

Flig ht instructor certificate 1___

Mechanic..... .................................

Parachute rigger...........................

Ground instructor ........ . ..............

Dispatche r.....................................

Air traffic control tower operator.

Flight radio op erator___ ____—.

Flight nav igator............ ..............

Flight engineer........ .....................

Flight in structor rating .........

Instrum ent rating 2____ i _____

Issuances

1955 1956

44,354 45,036

17,791 17, 527

13,029 16, 755

2, 797 3,318

68 142

47 33

21 9

6,288 6,496

264 112

541 519

121 143

2,700 1,965

2 8

39 243

801 958

831 897

2,888 6,993

1957

Original Addiissuances tional

ratings

76,850

21, 793 1,780

14,090 14,283

1,435 3,223

244 35

67 3

14

409 27

5, 653 2,361

173 14

433 331

212

1,677 2,091

208

1,086

1,352

17,949

1958

Original Addiissuances tional

ratin gs

58,107

19,176 1,599

8,801 8,089

1,336 1,818

167 27

56 2

47

1,347 237

5,027 2,279

81 22

319 354

154

1,274 1,684

75

369

9,463

1 Effective Sept. 1, 1957.

2

 Special rating shown on pilot certificates repre sented above, hence, figures do not mean additional 

certificates issued.

N ote.—Additional ra ting s are entered on curren t airman and ground instruc tor certificates as follows: 

Private, commercial, and airline tra nsp ort airplane pilot: Aircraft category, class, and/or type 

ratings, and flight instruc tor or in strum ent ratings.

Helicopter and glider pilot: Flight ins tructor rating.

Mechanic: Airframe or powerpla nt mechanic rating, and repairma n ratings for employees of approved 

repair stations.

Parachute rigger: Senior or maste r p arachute rigger ratings, and type r atings for specific parach ute 

types.

Ground instruc tor: ratings for each ground instruction subject which the holder is qualified to 

inst ruct.

Air traffic control tower operator: Jun ior or senior ratings, and ratin gs for specific airp orts a t which 

the holder may control traffic.

Mr. Williams. Our next witness, and the last scheduled this 

morning, is Mr. Tipton, representing the Air Transport Association.

STATEMENT OF S. G. TIPTON, PRESIDENT, AIR TRANSPORT

ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA; ACCOMPANIED BY J. G. BROWN,

DIRECTOR OF TRAINING, FLIGHT OPERATIONS, UNITED AIR

LINES

Mr. Tipton. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I would 

like to introduce myself. I am S. G. Tipton. 1 am president of the 

Air Transport Association which represents substantially all of the 

certificated airlines of the United States.

I have with me and wish to introduce at this time Mr. J. G. Brown, 

director of training, flight operations, United Air Lines. Mr. Brown 

is accompanying me to answer any questions the committee would 

like to address to us with respect to stewardess training.

If it is appropriate, Mr. Chairman, I will skip around a bit in this 

state ment because part of it is repetitive of statem ents already made. 

If I may, I would like to have the complete statement put in the record.

Mr. Williams. Without objection, the text of the state ment will 

be included in the record. You may present it in any way you like.

Mr. Tipton. Thank you.

The question before the committee, it seems to me, is not whether 

safety is our primary objective. It obviously is. It is the primary
FLIGHT ATTENDANTS W ITHI N THE DEFINIT ION OF “AIRMAN” 43

objective of the airlines, of the FAA, and all of our employees including, of course, our stewardesses.

That is not the issue here. Nor is it the issue whether a stewardess 

should be well trained and capable of conducting all of her work including that of assisting in the execution of emergency procedures. 

That we are all clear on, and the airlines of the United States, under 

very close supervision by the FAA, maintain elaborate training programs for their stewardesses.

The issue here this morning is whether or not a stewardess should 

receive a certificate or a license. It is our judgment tha t such legislation is not necessary to achieve the objectives to which I have just 

referred. A license or a certificate will not contribute in any respect, 

in our judgment, either to the safety of the operation or to the training of the stewardess. The training, as I say, is conducted under 

regulations issued by the FAA. Those regulations are constantly 

being reviewed, as they are at the present time.

Our training programs are reviewed not only by the FAA b ut also 

by the airlines themselves, so th at in our judgment a certificate is not 

necessary. This legislation is not necessary. Its only result would be 

to create a very substantial administrative burden for the FAA and 

for the airlines themselves.

Now, there has been testimony already this morning as to the 

primary responsibility of our stewardesses. The reference has been 

made to the fact tha t the stewardess from the beginning of the employment of stewardesses on the airlines has had as her primary 

responsibility the looking out for the passengers’ comfort, convenience, 

and enjoyment. The qualifications which the airlines look for in 

hiring cabin atte ndants are mainly those traits of character tha t will 

enable them to become gracious hosts and hostesses in the best tradition of American hospitality. The airlines seek attractive, wellgroomed girls with pleasing personalities, and I think the representative of our stewardess corps th at was here this morning indicates tha t 

we do real well at actually attracting such girls.

The passengers enjoy good conversationalists—cheerful, tactful, 

matu re and intelligent girls. Stewardesses are there to make passengers comfortable, to heat and serve their meals, to supply reading 

material and the like, to assist in the regulation of the cabin temperature and ventilation, to instruct passengers in the use of seat belts 

and other facilities which they might use and make certain tha t the 

instructions are followed, and to perform certain clerical responsibilities.

These are their routine duties. They work in the main cabin 

separated by a partition from those certificated flight personnel whose 

performance of routine duties on the flight deck insures the safe 

operation of the aircraft.

The airlines look more particularly for proven technological skills 

in hiring the personnel to work on the flight deck. Considerable 

mechanical and technical training and aptitudes are some of the additional qualities required of personnel entrusted with the safe operation 

of our airliners. These are the men who must operate the controls 

and the necessary auxiliary equipment required to keep the airplane 

in safe operation, and these are the technical personnel for which the 

present law contemplates certification.
44 FLIGHT ATTENDANTS W ITHIN THE DEFINITION OF "AIRMAN ”

Stewardesses do not share those technical responsibilities. Mr. 

Horst could find no distinction between a stewardess and the flight 

deck personnel as far as safety of operation is concerned.

I believe that there is a very clear and understandable distinction 

tha t the Congress has made alroady between those personnel of the 

airlines tha t carry heavy technical responsibilities for air transport 

operation and stewardesses who do not.

Now, the stewardesses do have responsibilities in those rare, and 

we hope to continue to increase the rarity, emergency operations 

where it is necessary to evacuate passengers. They have responsibilities there and they are trained extensively in carrying them out. 

And I think tha t you always can make some judgment on the effectiveness of training when you consider the results. 1 think the record 

of evacuation of aircraft on the scheduled airlines of the United States 

and the performance of our stewardesses is magnificent. They have 

done a real good job. T know of no case in which a stewardess has 

failed in the performance of her emergency responsibilities.

As a matter of fact, the girls are constantly being commended for 

their conduct during emergencies. Last August, following the Continental Air Lines hijacking, Members of the Congress commended 

the two stewardesses involved as well as other Continental personnel 

who were also involved for their extraordinary devotion to duty and 

concern for the safety of passengers on the flight.

Only a few days ago, Mr. Halaby presented certificates of commendation to four of our stewardesses for their conduct on March 15 at 

Tinker Air Force Base after fire had knocked out the main electrical 

system and filled the cockpit with heavy smoke.

I ju st cannot concur with the criticism tha t Mr. Horst has made of 

our stewardess personnel. I think that they are topnotch efficient 

girls, tha t on the basis of their record they have carried out their 

responsibilities, including their emergency responsibilities, with great 

skill.

Now, I have referred already to our training programs and in my 

state ment I have outlined very quickly the training programs that are 

required by the FAA. If the committee would like to have that 

spelled out in more detail or in any other way, we would be very glad 

to do it.

The question has arisen about recurrent training of stewardesses. 

We are required by the FAA to provide recurrent training to the 

girls tha t have already had their original training and have served 

for a period of time. Tha t recurrent training is, I believe, on the 

basis of a refresher course once each year.

Tha t just about covers the reasons for our opposition to this legislation, Mr. Chairman. We believe strongly tha t certification is not 

required here in the interests of safety, tha t good training is required 

in the interests of safety and the good training is being provided. If 

the Congress feels dissatisfied or the FAA feels dissatisfied with the 

training, existing law provides the necessary regulatory power in the 

FAA to provide for changes in training courses or any extension of 

them or any other action it cares to take. The law is adequate as it 

is to provide for the interests of safety.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Williams. Mr. Jarman?
FLIGHT ATTENDANTS WIT HI N THE DEF INIT ION OF “AIRMAN ” 45

Mr. Jarman. Mr. Tipton, do you feel tha t the present regulations 

are adequate?

Mr. Tipton. Yes. 1 think the present regulations are adequate to 

provide for the training of the stewardesses. The airlines carry them 

out and in addition the airlines, as I said, are under constant inspection by representatives of the FAA as to how they are carrying them 

out.

Mr. J arman. Mr. Prill in his statement referred to the lett er of 

April 20 of this year wherein the Administrator asked the presidents 

of all scheduled airlines, requested of them an immediate review of 

their training and emergency procedures, especially to assure tha t 

flight atte ndants receive adequate training in the actual operation of 

emergency equipment.

Based on your own contacts with the airlines, have you any comment to make on any results tha t have followed from t hat lett er?

Mr. Tipton. The result of the letter is to respond to the FAA by 

a complete review of the airline procedures, and airline training. 

Jus t about everything the airlines do, actually, is under consta nt 

review to see tha t we are not missing anything. Mr. Halaby has 

raised this question. Airlines are going at it hard. And if there 

are changes that need to be made, they will be made.

Mr. J arman. Tha t is all.

Mr. Williams. Mr. Tipton , in your statement you indicate tha t 

the primary service expected of the stewardesses or the flight a tten dants was in rendering service to the passengers to make them more 

comfortable, to give them intelligent conversation, and so forth and 

so on.

You did not suggest tha t there is not a place for the stewardess 

where safety is concerned?

Mr. Tipton. Oh, I am certain ly not suggesting th at, Mr. Chairman. 

There clearly is. She does have responsibilities for aiding in the 

handling of emergencies. I think tha t the impo rtant thing to consider here is tha t fortun ately those emergencies are very rare occurrences. They are obviously of great and impo rtant significance when 

they do, but the bulk of the stewardess’ work is a routine type of 

work.

Mr. Williams. One such emergency is one too many.

Mr. Tipton. There is no question about that . They are rare. 

We will always try to make them rarer. We would like to come to 

the day, as a matt er of fact, when it was not necessary to give the 

stewardesses any training in the handling of emergencies.

Mr. Williams. Miss Roads in her state men t beginning on page 6 

gave us six examples of unsafe practices which have been called to 

her attention. Would you like to comment on these?

Mr. Tipton. I am actually not prepared to comment on these as 

individual cases because I have seen this list for the first time and 

there is no identification of the airline or location of any of these 

incidents. I would propose immediately to inquire into them to 

find out where they happened and, if they happened as described, to 

determine whether the situation has been corrected.

Of course, there is one characteristic common to all of these incidents, in th at none of them would have been dealt with by the pending 

legislation. They are references largely, if not entirely, with one 

exception—to equipment on board the airplane. There is one, No.
46 FLIGHT ATT END ANT S W IT H IN THE DE FINITION O F "A IRMAN ”

2, I notice, which deals with jet training and I would propose to inquire into that.

Mr. Williams. No. 2 does have to do with training. It would 

appear to me tha t No. 2 might be affected by this legislation. In 

her statement Miss Roads says:

How ev er, pra ct ic al tr ai ni ng wa s lim ited to a mere wa lk th ro ugh of th e air cra ft 

an d in st ru ct io n in th e loca tio n of th e eq ui pm en t.

Let me ask you this, Mr. Tipton: Do all of your member airlines 

require tha t a stewardess be examined on each specific type of aircraft before she is permitted to fly as a stewardess on that aircraft?

Is she instructed as to emergency procedures, as to the location of 

emergency equipment, tha t type of thing?

Mr. Tipton. I would like to ask Mr. Brown to comment on tha t 

question.

Mr. Brown. I can’t comment, Mr. Chairman, specifically on other 

airlines. However, I will say categorically tha t in every instance they 

are so instructed on United Airlines.

Mr. Williams. On United.

Mr. Brown. Yes, sir.

Mr. J arman. Will the chairman yield?

Mr. Williams. Sure.

Mr. J arman. Do you send United inspectors, someone in that 

category, along on flights at times to check on your personnel and 

how they do their job?

Mr. Brown. Our stewardesses are given checks by check stewardesses in the performance of their duties. In addition to that, after 

initial training on their first flight, for at least the first 5 hours of the 

flight', the new trainee is accompanied by a girl who is qualified and 

checked out on the equipment. Yes, sir.

Mr. J arman. Then later on, let us say after the atte nda nt has been 

working for a year or two, how do you then ascertain what kind of a 

job he or she is doing?

Mr. Brown. Well, we have, as has been mentioned, a requirement 

to give annual recurrent training which is a minimum of 8 hours of 

training on lecture and on actual aircraft. Then we give a quarterly 

review training to the girls, which is an examination tha t is administered by the stewardess section, chief stewardesses at the various 

domiciles, to determine their level of knowledge.

Mr. J arman. How, then, do you check on how they are actually 

performing in their day-to-day flight attendant work? Do you rely 

on United personnel who may be flying particular flights to report 

back on discrepancies or lack of service?

Mr. Brown. Tha t is done by the stewardess services; yes, sir. 

Not by the FAA.

Mr. J arman. I didn’t understand you. Tha t is done by whom?

Mr. Brown. Tha t is done by the stewardess service, the supervisors of the stewardesses who are in flight. The FAA does, however, 

ride our airline frequently and I am sure there have been cases where 

they have made observations to the company as to the performance 

of the girls.

Mr. Williams. Thank you, Mr. Tipton.

(The complete statement of Mr. Tipton follows:)
FLIGHT ATTENDANTS W ITHIN THE DEFINITION OF “AIRMAN” 47

Statement of S. G. Tipton, Air Transport Association of America

My name is S. G. Tipton. I am president of the Air Trans por t Association of 

America, which is composed of sub stan tially all of the certificated scheduled 

airlines of the United States. Our membership includes domestic trunklines, 

domestic local service airlines, U.S.-flag internatio nal airlines, airlines operating 

in and to Alaska and Hawaii, the thre e domestic helicopter airlines, and most of 

the U.S.-flag, all-cargo airlines. I am accompanied by Mr. J. G. Brown, direc tor 

of training, flight operations, United Air Lines.

The companion bills before the comm ittee today (H.R. 8160, H.R. 8327, and 

H.R. 8334) would amend section 101(7) of the Federal Aviation /Vet of 1958 to 

include flight att endants (hostesses, stewardesses, stewards, etc.) within the 

definition of “ airman.” We oppose any such legislation.

This legislation, if enacted, would broaden the application of section 602 of the 

act, under which the Federal Aviation Agency issues “airman” certificates. 

Section 602 provides th at if the Adm inistrator finds, after investigation, th at an 

applicant is properly qualified, and physically able to perform as an airman, he 

shall issue th e certificate requested, subject to such terms, conditions, and limitations as the Adm inistrator deems necessary to assure safety in air commerce. 

At present, the ac t’s definition of an “airma n” encompasses all those individuals 

who eithe r engage in the navigation of airc raft while underway, or are directly 

in charge of the inspection, maintenance, overhaul, or repair of aircraft, or dispatch 

aircraft, or operate air traffic control towers. Th at sta tut ory definition of “airman” has remained unchanged since the enactm ent of the Civil Aeronautics Act 

of 1938. Since the introduction of stewardesses to commercial airline crews by 

Boeing Air Transport, a predecessor company of United Air Lines, in 1930, 

Congress has never found it necessary or desirable to bring stewardesses under a 

Federal certification or licensing process.

Under the dra ft bills before you, the definition is expanded to include stew ardesses and all other cabin attendants . If these bills are enacted, every stewardess 

serving on any civil a ircraft used in air commerce will be obliged to hold a certificate issued by the Administrator. Under section 610, it would be a violation of 

the a ct if she did not.

Samuel Johnson once wrote that “the law is the last result of human wisdom 

acting upon human experience for the benefit of the public.” Experience does 

not call for the proposed legislation before you; the public does not stand to 

benefit from it. It suggests little more than certification for certification’s sake. 

This certification process, I should point out, requires, at a minimum, an investigation by the FA A. It may also involve appeals, CAB hearings, judicial review, 

reexaminations, and, when amendment or suspension or revocation of a certificate 

is contemplated, FAA hearings, appeals, CAB hearings, and again judicial review. 

Assuredly, this elaborate certification process is justified if certification of a given 

group is necessary for safety in air travel. In this case, it is not.

Under the proposed legislation, the certification process would unfold for some 

12,000 young women whose average length of service is less tha n 2 years. I 

urge you to weigh th at fact carefully as you consider these bills. By and large, 

stewardesses are not care er employees of the airlines. The overwhelming majority regard this work as interim employment, while pilots, flight deck crew 

members, dispatchers, and other technical personnel who are presently certificated 

by the Federal Governm ent are career men. In 1961, the airline labor turn ove r 

rate for stewardesses was 40 percent for tru nk carriers and 53 percent for local 

service carriers. Thus, about 5,000 new stewardesses are hired every year. On 

the other hand, the airline labor turnover rate for pilots for the years 1953 to 1960, 

inclusive, was sligh tly over 1 perce nt. The adm inistrative burden to the FAA 

and the airlines of going thro ugh the certification process, maintain ing records 

and all the other paper work for these constan tly changing personnel, would be 

substan tial.

Of course, we would not wan t to base our opposition on the adm inistra tive burden alone. If experience had demonstrated th at flight att en da nt certification 

was required, if it could be shown th at the public would benefit from such certification, congressional concern would be justified. But we submit tha t this legislation does not meet those tests. The first stewardesses were hired in 1930 to improve passenger service—to serve meals, collect tickets, answer questions. Today, 

32 years later, their prim ary function is still to look out for the passenger’s comfort, convenience, and enjoyment. The qualifications which the airlines look for 

in hiring cabin att endants are mainly those traits of character th at will enable 

them to become gracious hosts and hostesses in the best tradition of American 

hospitality. The airlines seek attrac tive, well-groomed girls, with pleasing per-
48 FLIGHT ATTENDANTS WITHI N THE DEFINITION OF " AIRMAN"

sonalities. The passengers enjoy good conversation alists—cheerful, tactful, 

mature, and intelligent girls. Stewardesses are there to make passengers comfortable, to heat and serve their meals, supply reading material, gum, mints, pillows, and blankets, to assist in the regulation of the cabin tem per ature and ventilation, to instruct passengers in the use of seat belts and other facilities which 

they might use and make certain th at the instructions are followed, and to perform certain clerical duties in filling out re quired reports. Those are their routine 

duties. They work in the main cabin, separated by a partition from those certificated flight personnel whose performance of routine duties on the flight deck 

insures the safe operation of the aircraft.

The airlines look more particularly for proven technological skills in hiring the 

personnel who work on the flight deck. Considerable mechanical and technical 

train ing and aptitudes are some of the additional qualities required of personne l 

entrusted with the safe opera tion of our airliners. These are the men who mu st 

operate the controls, and the necessary auxiliary equipment required to get the 

plane airborne, keep it on course, and return it safely to ear th. These are the 

technical personnel for whom the a ct contemp lates certification.

Stewardesses simply do not share those technical responsibilities. As for those 

rare occasions when emergencies may arise, stewardesses are trained by the airlines to assist the flight crew in providing for th e safety of th eir passengers. How 

have they performed in those situation s? The record speaks for itself; they have 

done a splendid job. I know of no case in which a stewardess has failed in the 

performance of her emergency duties. To the contrary, these girls have been 

publicly commended time and again for their conduct during emergencies. Only 

last August 7, following the Continental Air Lines hijacking incident, Members 

of Congress commended the two stewardesses involved (as well as other crew 

members and Mr. Six, president of Con tinen tal) for their extraordinary devotion 

to duty and concern for the safety of the passengers on the flight. Only a few 

days ago, Mr. Halaby, Federal Aviation Agency Administrator, presented certificates of commendation to Julia Needham, Sharon Jarmusic, Audrey Jubinville, 

and Sandra Mitchell, for their conduct as stewardesses on a United Air Lines 

jetliner during a successful night emergency landing on Marc h 15 a t Tinker Air 

Force Base, Oklahoma City, after fire had knocked out the main electrical syst em 

and filled th e cockpit with heavy smoke.

The certificated airlines are jus tly proud of their cabin att endants . Moreover, 

as I have implied, their performance is not a mere ma tte r of chance. For many 

years, the airlines, at their own expense, have been conducting extensive training 

and refresher program s for these carefully selected girls. Some airlines have even 

estab lished w hat amount to small colleges to train their stewardesses in everything 

from meal service to lifesaving. In fact, long before the enac tment of the Federal 

Aviation Act in 1958, the certificated, scheduled airlines in this country recognized 

th at emergencies, which so rarely arise, call for action by every individual performing duties on an airplane in flight. Consequently, they traine d all flight 

personnel, including cabin attendants , to act in such situ atio ns. More recent, 

the Federal Aviation Agency has by regu lation insured th at all airlines will meet 

certain minim um training requirem ents. Under existing civil air regulations, at 

least one flight att en da nt must be prov ided on all flights of airplanes with a 

capacity of 10 or more passengers (CAR 40.264). These regulations then outline 

minimum ground and flight training programs for such att en da nts (CAR’s 40.5, 

40.280 and 40.286). These programs insure t hat they are well trained before they 

are assigned to duty, that the training covers emergency procedures, and tha t the 

app rop riate instruc tors or supervisors certify to the proficiency of each att endant 

upon completion of his or her training.

These minim um programs require th at each attend an t receive appropriate 

ins truction in all emergency procedures, including assignments in the event of an 

emergency, and proper coordination between crew members. The following 

subjects, among others, are covered: the procedures to be followed in the event of 

the failure of certain of the airplane components or system s, emergency decompression and oxygen training, fire in th e air or on th e ground, ditching, evacuation, 

and the lo catio n and opera tion of all emergency equipment. In every such case, 

the stew ardess is obligated to report to the captain , and is under his direct control 

and supervision. It is the captain who bears the responsibility for the safety of 

the passengers, crew, and aircraft.

FAA regulations also require the airlines to provide periodic refresher train ing 

to insure the continued competence of each flight att endant, as well as familiarity 

with and knowledge of all new facilities a nd procedures to be us ed ; and the carriers
FLIGHT ATTENDANTS W ITHI N THE DEFINIT ION OF "AIR MAN'’ 49

must check each att en da nt once a year as to competence regarding procedures, 

techniques, and information essential to satisfac tory performance of his or her 

duties (CAR 40.289). The results of such checks must be certified in writing 

by the app ropriate instructor. These records are in turn monitored by FA A 

personnel. As a last insurance th at airline training programs are adequate, 

FA A regulations require th at both the initial and recurre nt training programs 

be approved by an authorize d represen tative of th e Adm inistrator (CAR 40.290).

Under these airline training programs, trainees are given lectures, course 

material, dem onstratio ns, and exam inations. In addition to this ground training, 

air carrier train ing programs provide for adequa te actual flight experience before 

assignment to duty. It can thu s be seen th at airline cabin att en da nts are required to and do meet a standard of proficiency with reference to their competency 

in connection with emergency procedures.

In summ ary, we cannot find anythin g in th e history of airline operations which 

would suggest th at experience dictates th at these bills should become law. Nor 

can we conceive of any public benefit which would flow from such legislation. 

There are many airline employees with im portant operational responsibilities 

who are not certificated. Early drafts of the Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938 

would have called for the certification of nearly everyone who had any function 

to perform in relation to the inspection, maintenance, overhauling, or repair of 

any aircraft used in air commerce. Wisely, Congress more specifically defined 

those who should be certificated and thereby obviated an intolerable amoun t of 

redtape . When you weigh the adm inistrative burden which would result from 

requiring certification of employees with an extremely high turnov er rate , the 

endless redtape, and the apparen t and unnecessary expense to the Federal Government and the taxpay er, against the excellent histo rical record of stewardesses 

screened and trained by the airlines, as well as the nature of t he work itself, the 

airlines subm it th at you should reject these bills.

(Th e following le tter was late r rece ived for the re co rd :)

Air Transport Association, 

Washington, D.C., May 7, 1962.

Hon. John Bell Williams,

Chairman, Transportation and Aeronautics Subcommittee, Committee on Interstate

and Foreign Commerce, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. Chairman: During the hearings in your subcommittee on May 1

on legislation to amend the Federal Aviation Act to include flight attend an ts 

within the definition of the term “a irm an” , you asked me if all of our member 

airlines require th at a stewardess be examined on each specific type of aircra ft 

before she is permitted to fly as a stewardess on th at airc raft. Since Mr. J. G. 

Brown of United Air Lines, who accom panied me, could answer only for his own 

company, I am tak ing thi s opportunity to supply a complete answer to your 

question. All of the airline members of AT A do require th at each flight attend - 

ent, as well as oth er members of tlie flight crew, in order to be qualified to serve 

on any par ticular typ e of airc raft, first be trai ned and examined on their duties 

aboard th at aircraft. This training includes in stru ctio n in the location and operatio n of emergency equ ipm ent and procedures to be followed in an emergency 

situ atio n.

I would like to clarify one other point th at was discussed during the hearing 

relative to the six “specific examples of unsafe practic es” recited by Miss Roads 

in her testimony. I comm ented to the effect th at none of these incidents would, 

in my judg men t, have been dea lt with by the proposed legislation. I believe 

there was some question that the situatio n described in the second example cited, 

in which reference was made to the jet training program of one of the trunk airlines, might have been remedied by certificatio n of the stewardesses. Having 

now had the opp ortunity to examine this incident more carefully, I feel certain 

th at, as I testified, this is a training ma tter, and would not be affected by enactment of this legislation. If the course of in struction administered by th at airline 

^s , in fact, deficient in this respect, then the Federal Aviation Agency has the 

autho rity under existing law to take whatever actio n is necessary. The act of 

certificating the stewardesses, it seems to me, would be a meaningless gesture.

We are investigating all of the aforementioned incidents and will be pleased to 

communicate our findings to you as soon as practicab le.

Yours very truly,

S. G. Tipto n.
50 FLIGHT ATTENDANTS WITHI N THE DEFINITION OF “AIRMAN”

Mr. Williams. Before we conclude, T would like to ask Mr. Prill 

one further question in relation to specifically incident No. 6 related in 

Miss Roads’ testimony on page 7 on two accidents, one which killed 

17 passengers in a DC-8, a major trunkline, and another which was 

a Lockheed accident killing 74 passengers and 3 crew members. The 

state ment is to the effect tha t there was only 1 flight attendant 

aboard the Constellation responsible for the 74 passengers.

There is also a statement in here regarding location of the jump 

seat in the DC-8. According to Miss Roads, the aft bulkhead on 

which the stewardess’ jump seat is located broke loose and blocked 

the aft entry door.

I am not going to ask you questions about tha t at the moment, 

but I am wondering if you could submit to the committee a statem ent 

in regard to this and also please advise us if the FAA is doing anything, 

and if so, what you are doing to get the airlines to standardize their 

evacuation and firefighting equipment as well as other emergency 

equipment?

I have no questions. I simply wanted to ask you if you would submit to the committee an explanation of these two accidents.

(See letter submitted by Mr. Prill, appearing on pp. 9-10.)

STATEMENT OE GEORGE C. PRILL, DIRECTOR, FLIGHT STANDARDS 

SERVICE, FEDERAL AVIATION AGENCY—R es um ed

Mr. Prill. I would be very pleased to speak to them now, Mr. 

Chairman.

Mr. Williams. All right, sir. If you have the information.

Mr. Prill. I am quite familiar with both of these accidents. I 

took personal charge of the FAA p art in the investigation of both of 

the accidents.

We were very concerned with the D C-8 crash which was the first of 

the two because of the—well, for a variety of reasons, one of which was 

the DC -8 and what caused the crash. This was our No. 1 priority. 

The second, however, and by no means a low priority, which was of 

considerable interest to us, was the emergency evacuation.

The points Miss Roads mentions, I think, are good and are accurate. 

We have undertaken since then a team review of every aircraft 

interior on all of the jet aircraft operated by the U.S. airlines and have 

put into effect a number of modifications which include one of the 

things she mentions here, provisions to keep equipment and loose 

material from buffets and other areas from blocking doors.

It includes improvements in access to emergency exits, marking of 

exits. We share her concern with these factors.

I personally agree completely with her conclusion which is that, 

“we feel tha t safer and more equipment could have saved many of 

the lives,” I would say in this accident in relation to the DC-8. In 

relationship to the Constellation accident, I am not as sure tha t was 

true. The time situation here was very short and there was a very, 

very rapid burning of the fuel in the tanks because the tanks broke 

and the fuel atomized.

We have been following with the CAB the human factors tha t work 

on both of these accidents. Tha t is now completed, of course. I am not 

as convinced tha t the passengers really had a chance to get out on the
FLIGHT ATTENDANTS WITHI N THE DEFINIT ION OF "AIR MAN” 51

Imperial crash which is the Lockheed Constellation crash. But we 

are working and I will submit for the record a summary of our air 

carrier training program if you wish, Mr. Chairman, on this, and of our 

latest letters to the airlines on the emergency evacuation training and 

equipment changes which have been put into effect progressively over 

the last 6 months.

Mr. Williams. Do you have any information tha t might enlighten 

the committee with respect to whether or not an insufficiently trained 

flight a ttendant may have contributed in some fashion to the loss of 

life aboard an aircraft? In other words, either by making some error 

due to her lack of training or by some act of omission whicn she should 

have performed which might have prevented an accident or might 

have prevented a death or disaster?

Mr. Prill. I do not have any evidence of that, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Williams. In all of the history of airlines flying, have there 

been any indications tha t insufficient training on the part of flight 

attendants or stewardesses may have been a contributing factor in an 

aircraft accident or in deaths or injuries resulting therefrom which 

either were caused by erroneous action on the part of the flight a ttendant or by some act of omission on the part of the flight atten dant which 

should have been attended to in the interests of safety?

Mr. Prill. That is an all-embracing question.

Mr. Williams. 1 understand that.

Mr. Prill. And I would like to research our records a little bit 

before I can give you an answer. No such accident comes to my 

mind but I would like to research our records before I would give 

you an agency answer on that.

Mr. Williams. As I see it, this legislation is primarily intended to 

require tha t standards of training be set for flight attendants. If 

our present standards are low, I would presume that the purpose of 

this legislation is to raise those standards. If our standards are 

already sufficiently high and are being followed meticulously by the 

airlines, then the certification of stewardesses would appear to me to 

have very little if any purpose.

Now, tha t is the issue I think tha t we have to be concerned with 

here. And I would like to have tha t information within a reasonable 

length of time if you could research it for us.

Mr. Prill. I certainly can and will, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Williams. Any further questions?

Thank you very much. That concludes our hearings. I don’t 

believe we have any further witnesses on this bill.

Without objection we include a copy of the letter from George D. 

Riley, legislative representative of the AFL-CIO for inclusion in the 

record.

(The letter referred to is as follows:)

A m eric a n F e d e r a tio n of L a bor

an d C o n g r ess of I n d u str ia l O r g a n iz a tio n s,

Washington, D.C., April 87, 1968.

Hon. J o hn B ell W il l ia m s,

Chairman, Transportation and Aeronautics Subcommittee, House Interstate and

Foreign Commerce Committee, House Office Building, Washington, D.C.

D ea r C h air m a n W il l ia m s : It will be appreciated if you will include this

communication in the proceedings on H.R. 8160, H.R . 8327, and H.R. 8334. 

The proposal would broaden the scope of the definition of “air ma n” to include

flight attendants .
52 FLIG HT ATTENDANTS WITHI N THE DEFINITION OF “AIRMAN"

As matters now stand and as we und erstand the situatio n, the regulations 

of the Federal Aviation Adm inistration would be revised to provide certification 

of att endants in flight after sta ndard and ade qua te training and proper testing.

Certa inly, attendants con trib ute greatly toward safety in flight, a facto r which 

the AFL-C IO and its affiliated unions strongly endorse as prop er protectio n to 

the trav eling public and employees alike. Today, we furth er und erstand there 

is approximate ly 100 perc ent ann ual turnov er among flight att endants . It is 

reasonable to assume t ha t through centralization and stand ard ization a nd thro ugh 

FAA supervision such costly item, which would seem not to con trib ute greatly 

toward the morale of employees, could be eliminated.

With all good wishes, I am,

Sincerely,

George D. Riley, 

Legislative Representative, AF L-CI O.

(Th e following m ate ria l was su bm itted for the rec ord :)

• House of Representa tives,

Washington, D.C., April 27, 1962.

Hon. J ohn Bell Williams,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Transportation and Aeronautics,

House Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee, Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. Chairman: Reference is made to H.R. 8160 and other pending 

legislation now under consideration by the Subcommittee on Tra nsportatio n 

and Aeronautics to amend the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 so as to include 

flight att endants within the definition of the term “airman.”

Enclosed please find copies of two letters I have received during the past year 

from Mr. Wyman R. Rice, operations manager of N orthern Consolidated Airlines, 

Inc., Anchorage, Alaska, in opposition to all of th e pending measures. I herewith 

submit said letters for inclusion in the record as expressing both Mr. Rice’s views 

and my own.

Tha nking you, I am,

Sincerely yours,

Ralph J. Rivers, 

Member of Congress.

Northern Consolidated Airl ine s, I nc.,

Anchorage, Alaska, April 24, 1962.

Hon. Ralph Rivers,

House of Representatives,

Washington, D.C.

Dear Representative Rive rs: Reference is again made to H.R . 8160, 

H.R . 8327, and H.R. 8334. These bills would amen d section 101(7) of the 

Federal Aviation Act to include flight attendants within the definition of “airm an.”

I wrote to you regarding these same bills on August 24, 1961; however, information recently received indicates th at Congressman John Bell Williams, chairm an 

of the Tra nsp ortatio n and Aeronautics Subcommittee of the House of Representati ves Committe e on Inter sta te and Foreign Commerce, has announced th at 

his subc omm ittee will hold hearings on these bills commencing May 1, 1962.

I will not att em pt to reiterate our objections as this was thoroughly covered 

in my above dated lette r. I wish, however, to requ est opposition to this proposed 

legislation as it is not in the public intere st as indicated by the bill. Ample 

training is prese ntly provided in the civil air regulations and in our operations 

manual which is written in accordance with the civil air regulations. I would 

like to state again th at we feel this legislation was sponsored by the stewardess 

personnel only and does not have the sup port of the FAA.

Yours very truly,

Wyman R. Rice, 

Operations Manager.
FLIGHT ATTENDANTS WITHI N THE DEFINITION OF 'AIRMAN” 53

Northern Consolidated Airlines, Inc.,

Anchorage, Alaska, August 24, 1961.

Hon. Ralph Rivers,

House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. Rivers: Reference is made to House bill, II.R. 8160, introduced in 

the House of Representatives on July 13, 1961, by Mr. Mack. This bill proposes 

to amend section 101(7) of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 so as to include 

flight attendants within the definition of “airman.” I would also like to refer 

to an excerpt from the Congressional Record, House, page 11606, July 13, 1961, 

copy of which I am attaching.

Certain of the statements made by Mr. Mack are not exactly correct insofar 

as they relate to training requirements of a flight attendant. Effective January 

1, 1961, the FAA promulgated rules contained in Civil Air Regulations parts 40, 

41, and 42, requiring tha t each air carrier have a training program approved by 

the Administrator. This training program requirement set up the training requirements for a flight atte nda nt. I will probably concede tha t prior to the 

first of this year, various airlines did have different standards of qualifications 

for flight attendants. However, since the first of this year, I feel quite certain 

that the problem no longer exists and was recognized by the FAA upon issuance 

of the above quoted parts of the regulations.

I would like to object to the legislation as it is unnecessary in the interest of 

safety and it would impose an additional burden on the air carriers by requiring 

they assist flight attendants in obtaining FAA “airman” certification. Our 

present operation requires employment of six stewardesses. Of these six stewardesses, four are new hires during this summer season of 1961. Two of the 

former girls married and terminated; one desired more extensive travel and 

resigned to take a position with an oversea carrier. A replacement of one of the 

above discovered after passing all her examination and test flights tha t she 

became airsick too frequently; therefore, terminated without notice. This leaves 

me with two regular girls whose employment is longer than this summer season.

First, I have to interview and hire a prospective girl, give her the training as 

required in our approved training manual, and upon certification of a check 

stewardess, authorize her for scheduled operation. There are very few stewardesses available who have past experience. , We, in Alaska, prefer to hire local 

personnel; therefore, the only possible way we could comply with the proposed 

legislation would be requiring an additional step, mostly involving additional 

paperwork, after we have supplied the required training. This legislation appears 

tailor made for flight attendant training institutions to obtain some sort of monopoly on a pool of flight attendants who had received their training in the school 

and the school had greased the way for obtaining an airman certificate issued 

by the FAA.

In the past I have tried employing flight atten dants with experience on other 

airlines who were operating in the lower 48 States. One thing or another has 

precluded their coming to Alaska and the whole project of employment from the 

south has been unsuccessful. Our training program is adequate; all safety and 

emergency procedures are covered, and they demonstrate to a check stewardess 

who is approved by the FAA as a check stewardess, tha t their proficiency is of 

an acceptable level and certified as being qualified as a flight atten dant.

I would appreciate consideration on this legislation.

Yours very respectfully,

Wyman R. Rice, 

Operations Manager.

[Telegram]

Arlington, Va., April 30, 1962.

Hon. John Bell Williams,

House Office Building, Washington, D.C.:

If an Air Force private may carry title of “Airman” even with no duties related 

to aviation whatsoever would it not be reasonable to certificate airline flight 

attendants and call them airmen if it can be shown they have air-safety responsibilities in flight. H.R. 3334 has our endorsement.

R. E. Commerce,

President, Airlines Dispatchers Association.
54 FLIGHT ATTENDANTS W ITHIN THE DEFINITION OF AIRMAN”

Air Line Pilots Association,

Chicago, III., May 7, 1962. Hon. John Bell Williams,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Transportation and Aeronautics of the House Interstate

and Foreign Commerce Committee, New House Office Building, Washington, D.C.

My Dear Congressman: The Air Line Pilots Association, as the representative 

of a major portion of the flight att endants who will be affected by the legislation 

proposed in H.R. 8160, H.R. 8327, and H.R . 8334, is very desirous of making its

views known to you with respect to the bills under consideration.

We are pleased to note the interest shown by the Congress in this phase of our 

aviation activity. Since most of you from time to time have occasion to ride 

our airline tran sports, it is not deemed necessary to explain in detail the importance of the functions performed by the individuals who will be affected by the 

proposed legislation. Their contribution in term s of service to the general public 

is monumental. We cannot o verestimate the importance of th e flight attendants 

in terms of providing assurance to the trav eling public th at they will be handled 

courteously and made comfortable during flights aboard our aircraft.

In addition to the foregoing considerations, there is an area of responsibility 

which is very seldom exercised bu t nevertheless is of paramoun t im portance. We 

refer to the cabin attend an t’s responsibilities in matters of safety aboard the 

aircraft. There have been many insta nces where these individuals by promptly 

fulfilling their responsibilities w ith respect t o evacuation of passengers in emergency 

conditions have contributed immeasurably to the saving of lives. In order to 

properly fulfill this imp orta nt function, it is imperative th at these individuals 

be afforded the maximum opportunity for proper and adeq uate training to assure 

the highest safety standards, to perform airc raft evacuatio n functions and other 

in-flight duties. These training requirements should include, among other factors, 

the following:

1. General inform ation with respect to the psychology of human reactions to 

sudden or unusual conditions in order to assure a maximum of personal safety 

to the passengers who might be involved.

2. A cabin att endant must receive specific inform ation with respect to each 

aircraft on which he is expected to perform his duties, including workable and 

practical knowledge of cabin emergency equipment and evac uatio n procedures. 

Proper knowledge in these areas would require practical practice sessions on 

emergency procedures both in the air and on the ground.

3. In order to assure a maximum of safety, efficient train ing must be conducted 

on a continuing basis so th at flight attendants will have an opp ortuni ty to refresh 

their knowledge. It is believed th at a minimum of one such refresher course each 

year must be established.

4. In order to assure contin uing and up-to-date inform ation with respect to 

the foregoing, it is believed th at an appropriate procedures train ing manual must 

be provided by each company to which the flight att en da nts may refer from time 

to time for current airc raft procedures.

5. During initial qualification period, it is believed th at each flight att en da nt 

should be scheduled for a minimum of 5 hours of supervised flight before being 

flown as a crew member on any trip as the sole flight attend an t aboa rd the aircraft.

While the foregoing is only a general summ ation of the problem areas involved, 

we believe th at it will serve to illustrate the areas of our concern.

We note th at the Federal Aviation Agency has in recent mon ths institu ted a 

program requiring that the air carriers establish training programs in these areas. 

As recently as March 2, 1962, a notice of proposed rulem aking was published 

which if effectively pursued would sub stantially revise and strengthen the training requirements for cabin attendants.

At the present time the association is actively stud ying this problem and committees composed of our cabin attend an t members throug hou t the Nation are 

participating in our review of the matter. In our review of the subject the cabin 

att en da nt repre sentatives are not prepared to recommend the proposed legislation 

as a complete answer to the problem. The program underway, if properly developed with adequate criteria established in the Civil Air Regulations, would 

help assure the cabin attendants and the trave ling public of the desired level of 

competency.

On the oth er hand, it is our view th at these programs are essential to the safe 

operation of airc raft and should the Congress feel th at their legislative powers 

must be utilized to induce prompt and effective action by the Federal Aviation
FLIGHT ATTENDANTS WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF “AIRMAN” 55

Agency, the ena ctm ent of the legislation under consideration might help accomplish this purpose.

Irrespective of your decision on the subject legislation, we do wish to assure 

you of our inte rest in the ma tte r and our desire to be of help to your com mittee 

in developing proper safety regulations and adequa te train ing programs for the 

cabin att en da nt group.

Again, thank you for your consideration in allowing us to express our views on 

the subject.

Sincerely yours,

Kay McMurray, 

Executive Administrator.

Riddle Airline s, 

Wash ington, D.C., Ap ril SO, 1962.

Hon. J ohn Bell Williams,

Chairman, Subcom mittee on Transporta tion and Aeronautics, Committee on Interstate

and Foreign Commerce, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. Williams: This is to register the opposition of Riddle Airlines to

legislation th at would authorize the Federal Aviation Adm inistration to issue 

certificates for flight att endants such as are now issued for pilots, mechanics, and 

others responsible for flight safety.

The position of this airline is th at such legislation is not required for air safety.

In general, our worldwide observation of the operation of U.S. airlines indicates 

no deficiency in present personnel.

Riddle Airlines conforms to the standa rds recommended by the Air Tra nsp ort

Association of America for the training of stewardesses. Our military flights are 

under continual surveillance and there are formal procedures for recording the 

views of passengers and officers in charge. The comment on Riddle service both 

in military and civilian charters is favorable.

The proposed ame ndm ent to the Federal Aviation Act would authorize FA A 

to certificate an d th us to set sta ndard s for anyone who “serves as a flight a tte nd an t 

on an airc raft while underw ay.” This is so broad and general th at it might 

greatly impair th e needed flexibility of operations of a cargo airline, such as Riddle, 

with convertible airc raft engaged also in passenger service.

In our foreign operations, we sometimes need to employ stewardesses who speak 

the languages of countries where we fly, often on short notice. If we were barre d 

from employing com pete nt multilingual stewardesses except from some FA A 

register, it would be most costly in money and time.

Also, att endants are needed with cargo, with livestock, and some special types 

of freight. The bill as i t stan ds is broad enough to cover all a ttendants. We feel 

th at legislation is not needed for safety or any other public purpose and request 

th at our statem ent be incorporated in the record of y our hearings.

Respectfully,

A. J. Rome, Vice President.

Mr. Williams. The committee will stand adjourned.

(Whereupon, at 12:05 p.m., the committee adjourned.)