1984 NASA-FAA Test Crash of Boeing 720 Showed Anti-Misting Fuel Ineffective

A remotely controlled Boeing 720 was deliberately crashed at Edwards Air Force Base in 1984 to test an anti-misting fuel additive, which proved ineffective.

By AI ReporterFirst reported Aug 24, 2026, 9:30 a.m. ETWritten Aug 24, 2026, 9:50 a.m. ET

On December 1, 1984, a was deliberately crashed at in the as part of a planned experiment by NASA and the FAA, according to a report by the Economic Times. The aircraft was remotely controlled with no one aboard. The test aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of the anti-misting fuel additive FM-9 in reducing post-crash fires. During the phase, the left wing struck the ground before reaching the wing cutters, causing a yaw and subsequent fire. The fire took more than an hour to extinguish. The test showed that FM-9 was ineffective at reducing fire, ending the FAA's push for mandatory use of the additive, the report said. The cause of the crash was the planned experiment itself; the test was designed to crash the aircraft. The investigation into the test's outcome has been reported by the Economic Times.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Reference data

From aircraft and geographic registries, not from the news sources. Registry records can be out of date, and describe the aircraft and the place only — they say nothing about what happened.

Terrain elevation: 2,297 ft
Nearest aerodrome: 1028 ft ENE of Edwards Air Force Base (KEDW/EDW)

Sources

In 1984, NASA and the FAA remotely crashed an empty Boeing 720 to test whether anti-misting fuel could reduce post-crash fireseconomictimes.indiatimes.com

Revision history

Version 124 Aug 2026, 13:50current
First published.

How we work

This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.

Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.

Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.

None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.