There is an element of unfairness in comparing mechanical failures and human errors on the ground, with those in the air. The results are so different—_as matters stand today_. An automobile engine gives out. Normally the worst that happens is a stalled car, and some resulting inconvenience. Even if a wheel comes off the damage, and danger, is comparatively slight. But let an accident of similar magnitude occur in the air, and the consequences may be serious. Serious, that is, unless there is a landing field in reachable distance. And therein lies an outstanding problem of American aviation development. During 1927 there were 482 municipal and commercial fields in the United States, with 56 under construction. In addition there were 53 army and 8 navy fields. Taking the whole lot, and adding the comparatively few in Canada and Mexico, it gives a pretty thin coverage for the continent. While it is true that in some parts of the country, notably in the level areas of the west, one can land with safety almost anywhere, it is necessary to have service as well as landing facilities. Obviously adequately equipped fields will follow the economic justification for them. And that justification is fast approaching. Too often cities have delayed in purchasing land for air terminal facilities. Acreage near a population center was either not available or too expensive. Many landing fields, excellent in themselves, are so remote that the primary appeal of flying, namely, its time-saving element, is hopelessly offset by the waste of time in getting to and from the airport. Notable among the cities attacking the problem is Chicago. A five million dollar bond issue is being put through there which will finance the creation of a model airport. It will be situated close to the very heart of the city itself, actually only ten or fifteen minutes by automobile from Chicago’s business center. This is in contrast to the forty or fifty minutes required to reach the present municipal field. Chicago’s lead may well be followed by other American cities—although, of course, a number are already well equipped. Hind-sight is so easy—and so costly. If, for instance, in the development of our larger cities, especially the comparatively new towns of the middle western states, we had been able to visualize the present day requirements of the automobile, how easily modern traffic problems could have been prepared for. All our cities have faced the experience and the expense of widening streets already built; and all of them are shadow-boxing with the unsolvable puzzle of forcing a thousand automobiles through inadequate thoroughfares designed to handle perhaps a hundred facilely.