Evening star., 1932-04-24

had reduced naval aviation appropria.
tions for 1888 a total of IA per cent
under the 1882 appropriation, wherea'
the other naval maintenance appropri.
ations were reduced only ga per cent
As a result of the House Committee
action, naval aviation will fall ever
further behind the rest of the Navy
next year. Airplanes to be purchased
with the reduced funds in the bill will
amount to only 1913, whereas 100 planes
should be bought In order to merely
maintain the aviation units of the
fieet.
The most urgent arguments have
been brought to bear against the triplS
pay slaShes for the flying services. The
naval personnel entitled to fight pay
probably will be spared all but the re-
duction in base pay, provided the Navy
makes up the necessary saving in othe.
directions. The Army Air Corps is ex-
pected to be able to make the same
arrangement.
Extra Pay Is Incentive.
Remove flight pay or drastically
change 1t, and YOU will ruin United
States naval aviation morale as 1t exists
today, and also Army aviation" de-
cAred Rear Admiral william A. Moi
SSsss CA4xCA VI b14C Navy ouIGdu Ol AeIO-
nauttcs. 81 say this advisedly and from
an intimate knowledge not only of
naval aviation. but also Of the Navy
as O whole"
The viewpoint Of other flying person
mel Is in some cases even more drastic
IT the triple reduction goes through -
one Army flying officer predicted there
won't be enough room in the Air Corps
storage warehouses to hold the air
planes which will be put out of service
for lack of pilots to fly them"
Military flying, despite the increased
safety of the past few years, is a
dangerous business. 1t is a voluntary
service. as all duty involving extra
hazaros should be. The incentive for
Aviation Service has been extra OF
night pay. II flight pay is drastically
reduced men, especially men with fam
ilies, are not going to voluntarily ex-
pose themselves to Unnecessary risk OF
life and limb in peace times.
Should flight pay be seriously cur
tailed, as it will be IL the proposals
now pending In Congress are adopted,
there probably will be many requests
from experienced, capable and impor-
tant military pilots for transfer from
aviation to the less hazardous arms of
the military service. The writer knows
personally several military aviators
who already are drafting their requests
for transfer in case the flight pay re-
ductton measure goes through, so that
they may, through early application,
have preference in choosing the arm
In which TO serve.
They cannot be criticized by any one
who knows the facts. All of them
have families. Their base pay and
flight pay are stretched to the limit
today to cover their needs. They have
taken out every dollars worth of in
surance their pay will permit. For
this insurance they are forced to pay
a great deal more than their fellow
officers in the less dangerous branches
OF the service. For every thousand
dollars worth Of life insurance he buys
the military aviator must pay from
$12 to $50 more than other officers.
II he carries adequate insurance to
protect his family the premiums alone
eat up every bit of flight pay he
makes. Denied this flight pay, he
cannot carry his insurance and must
give up flying or expose his family to
risks no reasonable man would care
to take.
Demands Extra Training.
Not only is military flying deserving
Of extra pay because Of its danger. but
also because 1t requires extra training.
The military flyer must give up whole
year of his military life to training for
flight duty, In addition to his regular
four years Of training in common with
other officers. He Is super profess
sional man and, as such, Is entitled to
extra pay.
The lying service must draw pilot
material from the graduates OF the
Naval and Military Academies TO large
extent. It is not to be expected that
young officers, Just commissioned. are
going to volunteer for whole year OF
arduous, dangerous training, followed by
a military career Of unusual hazard, un-
less there Is sufficient extra pay to make
such training and service attractive.
Without fight pay the military ny
ing services are going to be left without
the pilots they must have. And the
nation which lacks air strength In these
times is laying itself open TO catas-
truphe unthinkable II the storms Of war
begin to blow.
hIet's stop and think what is being
done" said a former naval aviator who
put in eight years Of military flying Gall
officers, including ex-oficers, are chary
OF appearing under their names in
print In connection with congressional
matters. The services took up avia-
ton in 1910, just % years ago. Since
that time countless homes have been
broken up, mothers and children left
without proper support, by young man
hood going on the altar OF sacrifice to
science. In both services today there
are aviators who are now older men,
but still very active IN their flying.
AZ reward. are we going to cut their
payf
An Unfair Proposition.
That's the human side. This is the
practical side: What inducement have
we to draw young men into this new
science II we can't pay them suffl-
cient amount Of money to make it at
tractive for them? Worse than that,
how are we going to keep people flying
who are now taking part in this Gan-
gerous work2 Is 1t fair for any man to
continue in known hazardous occupa-
ton when not even a sufficient amount
of extra money Is provided in order that
he may pay for the increased amount
Qt life insurance necessary, due to the
decreased years Of his life's expectancy?
There is the argument that the
young men do all the flying. That isn't
true, BY observation know about the
Army and because I was naval avia-
tor for eight years 1 know about the
Navy, and I know that without any
difnculty figures would prove my state
ment.
Just one more point. America has
always prided herself on fair play, and
now with a tidal wave Of economic
hysteria we seem to be losing all sense
Of values. The recommendation that
pay for aviators be cut did not come
from the Naval Affairs Committee-the
committee which settles questions of
policy. This Is a question of policy be-
cause 1t resolves itself into a question
of do we want a strong air force or
don't we?
The recommendation was made by
the Naval Appropriations Committee,
and without taking the testimony Of a
single aviator. Whether the pay should
be decreased or not is question which
certainly should be decided only after
q most careful consideration, and II we
are to be fair to our country, to the
l. kIz4- 4