Menu
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
List of Smoke in the Cockpit Landings
References
ALPA Comments on FAA Draft Advisory Circular 25-9A
"Doomed plane's gaming system exposes holes in FAA oversight"
Past attempts at smoke removal
FAA Draft Smoke Evacuation AC 25-9A acknowledging continuous smoke
1986 Smoke Evacuation Advisory Circular (AC 25-9)
Rep. Hirono’s Questions to the FAA on Smoke in the Cockpit
FAA’s response to Rep. Hirono’s questions on Smoke in the Cockpit
References
Blinding Smoke in the Cockpit (1 Page)
Executive Summary of Blinding Smoke (3 pages)
Blinding Smoke Paper (17 pages)
Suggested House FAA Reauthorization Language
Suggested Continuous Pilot Vision Act of 2009
Designee Transport Airplane Directorate Newsletter
Paul Halfpenny, Probability Analysis
Smoke Evacuation Test on 747-400
Paul Halfpenny, Smoke Hazards on the Flight Deck
Letter to FAA Associate Administrator for Safety, N. Sabatini
Response from FAA Associate Administrator for Safety, N. Sabatini
Head of Swissair Safety regarding pilot vision after on-board bombing
Smoke Triggers More Diverted Flights Than Engine Problems
Potential In-Flight Fire Events Occur Daily; Many in Inaccessible Areas
Wall Street Journal on cockpit Smoke 1991
List of some smoke-related accidents
German recommendation for vision tunnel technology
European Definition of an “Unsafe Condition”
Boeing Statistical Summary of commercial Jet Airplane Accidents--Worldwide Operations 1959-2007
Smoke in the Cockpit: The FAA Does Not See It
The recent crash of a Cessna 310 aircraft on July 10, 2007 has raised, once again, the issue of smoke in the cockpit. The pilot radioed an emergency, declaring “smoke in the cockpit” and then crashed into homes killing several people on the ground as well as those on board.
Rep. Mazie Hirono, (D) representing the second district of Hawaii, questioning Nancy D. LoBue, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Aviation Policy, Planning and Environment at a House Transportation and Infrastructure Aviation Subcommittee Hearing February 11, 2008 as to why the FAA should not mandate the same level of safety against blinding, unstoppable smoke in the cockpit for the public that the FAA has on its own airplanes. Ms. LoBue was substituting for Acting Administrator Lynne A. Osmus who was sick.
Most of the public believe that this event is unique to small aircraft. On the contrary, there is, on average, an emergency landing due to aircraft smoke once per day in North America alone. The airlines and the FAA have have not solved this problem for the pubic. Meanwhile, the FAA, the Department of Transportation, and senior Executive Branch officals fly with equipment that permits them to see in the event of smoke in the cockpit. Only one airline, Jet Blue, flies with equipment that permits its pilots to see in the event of smoke in the cockpit.
Airline pilots should be able to see their vital instruments to navigate and view out their windows to safely land their aircraft. It should not matter whether or not the cockpit if filled with dense continuous smoke. The hubris required for these senior government officials to fly with the knowledge that their pilots will be able to land safely in the event of a smoke emergency is unmeasurable.
![]() |
| The FAA Gulfstream |
![]() |
| The Department of Homeland Security Gulfstream |
![]() |
| VIP military Gulfstream |
|
“It is perplexing that FAA has equipped its own aircraft but has not mandated similar action for the commercial transport fleet.” Ken Mead Inspector General, Department of Transportation, May 18, 2004. |
| The three aircraft shown at the left are transport for some of the highest officials of the Executive Branch and senior military leaders. They all share one safety feature in common: if continuous smoke invades the cockpit, the pilots will have adequate vision to safely land their aircraft. |


