Colonel BRECKINRIDGE. Does that log show how much helium you started with and how much you had when you got there? Lieutenant Commander ROSENDAHL. Yes.

Colonel BRECKINRIDGE. The difference would give you the answer. Lieutenant Commander ROSENDAHL. It would have to be corrected for temperature and other conditions; of course, it would take a while pick that out; the basic information is there.

Colonel BRECKINRIDGE. Could you pick that out and put it in the record for the Senator's information?

Lieutenant Commander ROSENDAHL. At the present moment?

The CHAIRMAN. No; just hand it to Colonel Breckinridge; the amount that you lost, and I would like for you to state the log as to the time when you were near those points in Texas to which I directed your attention; anything in the log as to why you went through the pass and why you did not go over the mountains.

Lieutenant Commander ROSENDAHL. The log would not contain the latter, but I made a search of the log for the days when we were near the border, showing the ship's position, and they were all within the continental limits of the United States, as I testified.

The CHAIRMAN. Does the log show how far to the south you went and how far to the south heretofore you deviated from your direct path which you would have pursued except for the wind and storm? Lieutenant Commander ROSENDAHL. The log shows the precise route taken.

The CHAIRMAN. Does that show all of the back tracks that you made?

Lieutenant Commander ROSENDAHL. Yes, sir; it would show everything.

The CHAIRMAN. And the reason for that?

Lieutenant Commander ROSENDAHL. Not necessarily; no, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, is there information there to indicate why you made the back track?

Lieutenant Commander ROSENDAHL. I think there probably is at the time we turned back at the mountain pass, yes, sir; but in general there are not reasons ascribed for every change of course.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I wish I had an opportunity to go through that log, but I have not, to determine whether any portion of it, other than what we have indicated, should be placed in the record, but I will have to forego that examination for lack of time; if you will give that data to Colonel Breckinridge.

Does the log show why you landed before you reached your destination?

Lieutenant Commander ROSENDAHL. If the log does not show it, my operations report does. The log would not contain the reason for my decision to land at Camp Kearney, but the operations report would.

The CHAIRMAN. Does the log indicate the death of those two men and the cause?

Lieutenant Commander ROSENDAHL (reading). 11:52 on Wednesday, May 11, 1932, two men fell off trail rope and were fatally injured.

The CHAIRMAN. Does the log indicate why you landed short of your destination?

Lieutenant Commander ROSENDAHL. No, sir; it does not.

The CHAIRMAN. Does it show-by the way, those two men were killed at the point where you landed before reaching your destination, were they not?

Lieutenant Commander ROSENDAHL. They were killed at Camp Kearney, and our destination, of course, naturally, was Sunnyvale. The CHAIRMAN. They were killed when you were landing or when you were leaving?

Lieutenant Commander ROSENDAHL. During an attempt to land. The CHAIRMAN. How many men were there to aid in the landing? Lieutenant Commander ROSENDAHL. I do not recall, sir, but I imagine there were in the neighborhood of 300.

The CHAIRMAN. If I wanted to exame that log, where would it be? Lieutenant Commander ROSENDAHL. This log

The CHAIRMAN (interposing). And your report?

Lieutenant Commander ROSENDAHL. The log, just as the log of any ship, is in the custody of the Chief of the Bureau of Navigation and is there at any time.

The CHAIRMAN. As well as your report?

Lieutenant Commander ROSENDAHL. My report is made to the Chief of Naval Operations, and it would be in his file, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. If I get a little time I might want to examine both.

Colonel BRECKINRIDGE. Commander, Congressman

McSwain asked you to make a specific answer here to some questions that he was interested in. Are you prepared so to do?

Lieutenant Commander ROSENDAHL. I am, sir; it will take a few minutes to read it.

Representative DELANEY. If the commander sees fit, it will go into the record, so why not let us save a little time by having it placed in the record, because of the absence of Congressman McSwain? The CHAIRMAN. It is satisfactory to me.

Lieutenant Commander ROSENDAHL. The question propounded by Mr. McSwain requires me to give my opinion as to the advisability of setting up in our Navy a system whereby there would be selected for aeronautical duty only, and without any requirement of rotation with duty in surface vessels, a certain number of officers in various upper grades who by training, temperament, or otherwise, are especially qualified therefor, in order that they might devote themselves to aeronautical duty solely and yet be afforded an opportunity to attain rank and command commensurate with that of their contemporaries. The answer to such a question is far reaching and important, and consideration shows that we have in effect a modified form of policy of that nature now. It is undoubtedly true that this is, in the general industrial world, the day of specialization. Yet the needs of the naval service, particularly as to its line officers, are not strictly parallel or analogous to those of the general business world. In the Navy specialties are performed by the various staff corps, leaving however the performance of certain operating specialties to line officers. These operating specialties, if such they may be so styled, involving such phases as the operation of submarines and aircraft, are best performed or guided by line officers who possess not only the specialized knowledge but well-rounded naval experience as well.

Admiral Pratt, the Chief of Naval Operations, and Rear Admiral King, the Chief of the Bureau of Aeronautics, have already outlined

to this committee clearly and at some length the principles and policy of the Navy in regard to the rotation of duty for line officers, particularly those engaged in aeronautical activities; but, to develop my answer as requested by the committee, involves limited repetition of some of these features.

In my opinion the greatest personnel consideration in such a specialty as naval aeronautical activity is that of continuity in both the material and operating phases. Analysis shows that the Navy's present system contains many favorable elements as it now stands. For example, our naval constructors who are specialists in aeronautical designs, material, and construction have, in most cases, devoted almost entirely unbroken service in this line, from the moment of their attainment of these special qualifications. Naval records will show a high percentage of them who have performed strictly aeronautical duties for periods of 10 to 15 or more years.

A line officer restricted to engineering duty only has served in the aeronautical organization continuously for some 16 years. Certainly such cases are evidence of admittedly desirable continuity.

In the field of aerology our line officers who are specialists are likewise able to continue these specialties not only on shore but at sea as well, in conjunction with other collateral duties.

Our heavier-than-air pilots are peculiarly fortunate in that their branch goes to sea in units that permits such personnel to continue, actively and almost exclusively, actual flying in heavier-than-air craft for extended periods. This is easily substantiated by records of numerous officers in that activity who have done such exclusive duty for from 10 to 15 years and a good deal more in a number of cases. In fact, a recent number of the Army and Navy Register-a nonofficial publication-contained an item of interest in connection with the promotion of a line officer of our Navy to the rank of captain, remarking that he "will have completed 18 years of continuous service in naval aviation in April of this year."

Another outstanding case is that of the late Rear Admiral William A. Moffett of the line of the Navy, who as a captain became a director of naval aviation early in 1921 and shortly afterward became the Chief of the Bureau of Aeronautics, upon its creation in September of that year. Everyone knows of his retention in that service until his death in aeronautical duty in April 1933, and that his retention in this important post had been ordered until his prospective retirement late in 1933, representing a continuity in that office of over 12 years.

Such cases are examples of the recognition of the necessity for, and the realization of, continuity in personnel of the aeronautical organization of the Navy.

Boiled down, then, we find that practically the only officers in the aeronautical organization of the Navy who in the past and at this time are not afforded the opportunity for very extended specialization, or who cannot go to duty on board surface vessel and there continue an active hand in their specialties, are those line officers who specialize in lighter-than-air craft. But before taking up consideration of their special situation, it is well to look into the policy and principles of "rotation" of duties for line officers and certain legal aspects in which promotion and duty are bound up.

There may easily exist some confusion as to the meaning of "rotation of duty." In my opinion the policy of rotation of duty for a line

officer does not imply necessarily a wide divergence in the character of duties performed alternately at sea and on shore, although that it is possible and doubtless does occur in numerous cases. As I interpret rotation, it should be possible for a line officer, without detriment to his chances for promotion, to perform, for example, duties on board rigid airships and at airship bases alternately with the requirement of a cruise in some type of surface vessel perhaps once in 8 to 10 years and still conform to the existing principles and policy of rotation.

In this connection, the following Bureau of Navigation circular letter, no. 55-32, is considered pertinent.

BUREAU OF NAVIGATION CIRCULAR LETTER NO. 55-32

To: All ships and stations.

1. The following letter is quoted for the information of the service: "From: The Secretary of the Navy. "To: The Bureau of Navigation.

"Subject: Sea duty of line officers.

"Reference: (a) Bureau of Navigation Bulletin No. 183, of November 5, 1932. "1. The Secretary has noted that there is some uncertainty in the minds of line officers as to what types of sea duty comprise a proper professional career for naval officers. The question has been accentuated due to the increase in officer personnel assigned to submarines and aviation, both of which require a considerable amount of definite training and specific certified qualification also.

"2. The large combatant surface ship remains the backbone of the fleet and sommand of such a ship is the basic sea duty of a captain in the line of the Navy. Not many years ago the battleship was the only type considered as fulfilling this requirement, but the reduction in number of battleships and the increase in size and number of cruisers have brought about the necessity of including battleships, aircraft carriers, heavy cruisers, and light cruisers in the classification of "large combatant ships."

"3. The preceding statements do not affect the importance and necessity of the supporting types in the fleet; destroyers, aircraft, submarines, minecraft, and auxiliaries. Patrol vessels are also an important branch of the Navy due to the independent duty required of them.

"4. Every line officer, before reaching the grade of captain, should have performed sufficient duty in a large combatant ship to qualify him for comm.and of those types. Restriction to such duty, however, carried with it the disadvantage of being in a subordinate position without the responsibility of the command function, which is fully as important as familiarity with the type. A line officre who has spent his entire career in subordinate positions in large combatant ships is not so well qualified to assume command of one of those ships as he would be with less duty in those types and with additional experience in the sexercise of command.

"5. Assignments of similar value for training exist in the command of destroyers, submarines, patrol vessels, and certain vessels of the train, and, in the case of aircraft, command of squadrons of nine or more operating planes attached to the forces afloat, or a rigid airship, provided that in each case the officer concerned shall hold command for at least 1 year.

"6. Staff duty is essential to the Navy and is excellent training for the young officer. However, an officer may devote so much time to staff duty that he may be handicapped by a lack of other duties at sea which tend to develop a greater sense of individual responsibility and capacity for command.

"7. To sum up, since the varied types of duty required of naval officers preclude an equal amount of experience in all by each officer, the directive should be a general rule as to the professional career of officers which will bring the best results to the Navy as a whole. Their professional career must include as a minimum, some duty in large combatant surface ships, and some duty in command.

"8. As to more junior officers, reference (a) sets forth the requirements of the Department and of the selection and examining boards in the matter of diversified duties, wherein those of the specialist cannot be permitted to exclude or even to obscure the first essential, namely, that a line officer be a capable mariner

"9. It is directed that the topic "Qualifications for promotion" in reference (a) be brought to the attention of all officers of the line of the Navy.

"C. F. ADAMS."

That no

Amongst the legal angles pertaining to the subject are the following: (August 29, 1916: Service in grade necessary before selection.) captains, commanders, or lieutenant commanders who shall have had less than 4 years' service in the grade in which he is serving on November the 30th of the year of the convening of the board shall be eligible for consideration by the Board. (39 Stat. 578, ch. 417.)

(August 29, 1916: Sea service and age requirements for promotion; exceptions.) On and after June 30, 1920, no captain, commander, or lieutenant commander shall be promoted unless he has had not less than 2 years' actual sea service on seagoing ships in the grade in which serving or who is more than 56, 50, or 45 years of age, respectively: Provided, That in exceptional cases where officers are specifically designated during war or national emergency declared by the President by the Secretary of the Navy as performing, or as having performed, such highly important duties on shore that their services cannot be or could not have been spared from such assignment without serious prejudice to the successful prosectuion of the war, the qualification of sea service in the cases of those officers so specifically designated shall not apply while the United States is at war, or during a national emergency declared by the President, or within 22 years subsequent to the ending of such war or national emergency: Provided, That the qualification of sea service shall not apply to officers restricted to the performance of engineering duty only. (39 Stat. 579, ch. 417; 40 Stat., 717-718, ch. 114.)

In connection with the above it should be noted that a recent law has changed from retirement at a definite age, as specified above, to retirement after a certain number of years in grade provided the officer concerned has not by that time been selected for promotion.

[Public, No. 366, Seventieth Congress, H.R. 5465]

An act to amend section 1571 of the Revised Statutes to permit officers of the Navy to count duty on airships as sea duty.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 1571, Revised Statutes, is hereby amended by changing the period at the end of said section to a colon and adding thereto the following:

"Provided, That when officers are assigned to airships on duty requiring them to participate regularly and frequently in aerial flights, the Secretary of the Navy shall determine and certify whether or not, in his judgment, the service to be performed is equivalent to sea duty. If such service is thus determined to be equivalent to sea duty, it shall be considered to be actual sea service on seagoing ships for all purposes.'

Approved May 11, 1928.

It should be noted that the Secretary of the Navy determined and certified that duty performed on board the Los Angeles subsequent to the passage of this act and on board the Akron was in his judgment to be considered actual sea service on sea-going ships for all purposes. The following is taken from the Air Program Act of 1926:

(Sec. 3, par. 6. Promotion by selection of aviation officers; additional numbers in grade or rank.) That any officer of the Navy, line, or staff of the permanent rank or grade of commander or lieutenant commander, at the time of the passage of this act who has specialized in aviation for such a period of time as to jeopardize his selection for promotion or advancement to the next higher grade or rank under existing provisions of law and whose service in aviation has been in the public interest, shall be so notified by the Secretary of the Navy and at his own request be designated as an officer who will be carried as an additional number in the next higher grade or rank not above the grade of captain if and when promoted or advanced thereto: Provided, That selection boards in cases of such officers shall confine their consideration to the fitness alone of such officers for promotion, not to the comparative fitness of such officers. (44 Stat. 767, ch. 668.)