More and more questions about what really occurred on the infamous Flydubai flight on Wednesday morning (September 30, 2026) arise as the hours pass. The official narrative speaks of an attack by the first officer against the captain and an attempt to crash the aircraft... However, the questions that have emerged generate various suspicions. How was the weapon found in the cockpit? Why were «7700» and «7500» activated in succession? How did an Omani pilot find himself in the cockpit of a flight to Israel? What was ultimately the real sequence of events?
The chronicle
The Boeing 737 MAX 8 of flight FZ1073 was at an altitude of approximately 34,000 feet when a violent incident occurred in the cockpit. The Indian captain, Smit Machchhar, was reportedly attacked by the first officer, who according to the Israeli version subsequently attempted to seize control of the aircraft and steer it toward destruction.
The aircraft lost approximately 14,000 to 17,000 feet in an exceptionally short period of time, depending on the source of the data. The flight consecutively broadcast emergency signals 7700 and 7500, with the second being the international transponder code denoting unlawful interference or possible hijacking. And that is roughly where the oddities begin. The injured captain reportedly managed to open the cockpit door, allowing passengers and crew members to enter and restrain the first officer.
Other off-duty pilots were also on board the aircraft, who reportedly contributed to regaining control. Ultimately, the airliner landed safely in Tabuk, Saudi Arabia.
The incident is real and the attack inside the cockpit is no longer seriously disputed. What has not yet been fully clarified is the why, the how, and the precise sequence of events.
The 12 questions awaiting answers
1. What exactly happened inside the cockpit?
The core narrative is that the first officer attacked the captain and subsequently attempted to take control of the aircraft. Yet the exact sequence of events has not yet been publicized in a manner that resolves all gaps. How long did the struggle last? Who had hands on the controls when the aircraft began abruptly losing altitude? Who activated the distress signals? Exactly when did the cockpit door open? And for what span of time was the aircraft effectively left without a standard operator in place? According to reports so far, Smit Machchhar, despite his injuries, managed to open the cockpit door, an act that enabled passengers and other crew members to intervene.
The detailed answer now lies within the data of the flight data recorder, the cockpit voice recorder, communications with air traffic control, and cockpit door entry recording systems.
2. Why does «7700» appear and then «7500»?
This is one of the most critical aspects of the case. Code 7700 is the international squawk code for a general emergency, whereas 7500 is used to indicate unlawful interference with the aircraft, including potential hijacking. In the case of FZ1073, available reports show that the aircraft first broadcast 7700 and subsequently 7500.
The transition from one signal to the other carries particular significance. Why was a general emergency initially declared followed by a far more specific squawk code of unlawful interference? Who keyed in the second code? Was it the captain himself while attempting to defend himself? Or perhaps another flight crew member? And most importantly: at what exact juncture of the altercation did the transponder code switch from 7700 to 7500? The answer may shed light on the entire chronological timeline.
3. Does «7500» mean there was an attempted hijacking?
Formally, 7500 denotes unlawful interference. It does not by itself establish the motive of the perpetrator. In the case of Flydubai, however, Israeli authorities treated the incident as a probable attempt to commandeer the aircraft and crash it.
The Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, stated that the first officer had undergone radical Islamist ideological indoctrination and that his action resembled a suicide mission. Concurrently, Israeli officials argued that the initial assessment was that he acted alone. Here, however, an important distinction exists. These statements represent assessments by Israeli authorities rather than the definitive conclusion of the investigation.
The public prosecution of the United Arab Emirates ordered an investigation to ascertain whether terrorist activity, premeditation, or direction by third parties was present, while calling on the public not to jump to conclusions before the probe is finalized. Thus the question remains: was this an act of terrorism from the outset, a personal assault that escalated into an attempt to hijack the aircraft, or something else?
4. Knife or axe? The weapon remains one of the greatest mysteries
Several initial reports mentioned a knife. In other reports, as well as in statements by Israeli officials, the scenario surfaced that the emergency crash axe from the cockpit may have been used. The President of Israel, Isaac Herzog, spoke of «an axe or knife», while Benjamin Netanyahu also referred to the possibility of the axe being utilized. The distinction is not a minor detail. If a knife was used, then it must be answered: how did it get into the cockpit? If the axe was used, the picture changes entirely. Boeing 737 aircraft carry a crash axe or equivalent tool in the cockpit as part of required emergency gear. Civil aviation regulations of the UAE mandate relevant equipment for airliners of this size. This implies that the axe did not need to be smuggled through airport security screening. It was already aboard the plane. But which weapon was actually used?
5. If it was an axe, why was it in the cockpit?
Here lies a misconception worth dispelling. The crash axe is not an illicit item that slipped past security checks. It is standard emergency equipment. On Boeing 737 aircraft, gear of this type is mandated in the flight crew compartment so that the crew can chop through light structures, panels, or gain access to blocked spaces during an onboard fire or other emergency. Hence the real question is not «how did the axe get through the airport?», but «how was emergency safety equipment used against the crew itself?» And that leads to a broader problem regarding modern aircraft safety. Following September 11, the primary security philosophy was to prevent any outside intruder from reaching the cockpit. But what happens when the threat is already seated inside the cockpit?
6. What happened with the oxygen masks?
Images and accounts from the aircraft raised yet another question regarding oxygen masks. This stems from reports and images that appear to indicate the presence or use of masks in the cockpit, whereas there is no corresponding, fully documented public record of a mass deployment of masks in the passenger cabin.
7. How did passengers enter the cockpit when it is designed to remain locked?
Modern airliner security is designed so that the cockpit is reinforced against passenger entry. Yet on FZ1073, while one pilot was reportedly assaulting the other, passengers and crew members ultimately succeeded in entering the cockpit.
The version presented so far holds that the wounded captain managed to open the door. If this is verified by cockpit door system logs, it explains how the barrier was breached.
However, critical questions persist: how much time did it take? Who authorized the entry? Was the door fully opened or was an emergency entry procedure utilized? And for how long was the aircraft in a state where one pilot was wounded and the other had reportedly lost control? The answers reside in door system flight data and eyewitness testimonies.
8. How was an Omani first officer assigned to a flight to Israel?
Here lies one of the major paradoxes of the case. The first officer has been identified as an Omani national. Oman maintains no diplomatic relations with Israel. Immediately following the incident, Israeli sources raised questions over whether the terms governing flights between the United Arab Emirates and Israel permitted pilots from nations lacking diplomatic relations with Israel to operate these routes.
The Minister of Transport of Israel, Miri Regev, requested the suspension of Flydubai flights to Israel and an inquiry into whether an infraction of relevant terms occurred. And here something intriguing unfolds. Newer sources with knowledge of the investigation dispute that the bilateral air services accord between Israel and the UAE actually imposed such a blanket restriction.
According to a newer report in the Jerusalem Post, sources familiar with the inquiry claim the agreement did not stipulate that pilots must be citizens of countries maintaining diplomatic ties with Israel. The same outlet notes that an earlier source within the Israeli Ministry of Transport had claimed the exact reverse. This produces an exceptionally grave question: was there an actual ban in effect? If there was, how did an Omani first officer end up in that specific cockpit? If no ban existed, why was it initially framed as a clear violation?
9. Was there an actual gap in Israeli security screening?
Israeli media reported that a lapse took place in enforcing vetting protocols for pilots from nations that do not maintain ties with Israel. The Times of Israel, citing a broadcast report, mentioned that Israeli security services reportedly failed to enforce a relevant restriction consistently and that dozens of Omani pilots had previously been allowed to fly to Israel. If confirmed, this transforms the affair from an isolated incident into a systemic screening issue.
10. What did Flydubai know about this specific pilot?
This might prove even more critical than his nationality. The first officer had reportedly joined Flydubai less than a year prior to the incident.
At the same time, a colleague of his reportedly described behaviors considered extreme for religious reasons, such as frequent prayer sessions and refusing to shake hands with women.
11. Why did Israel rush to characterize it as terrorism before the investigation concluded?
This is yet another matter necessitating careful examination of the chronological sequence. Almost immediately following the incident, Israeli officials designated it a terrorist or jihadist assault.
The Minister of Defense, Israel Katz, spoke of an attempted jihadist terror attack, while Isaac Herzog described the first officer as a terrorist.
At the same time, however, the competent authority of the United Arab Emirates announced that the probe had to establish whether terrorist activity, prior planning, or direction were involved. Even on the issue of Iran, an initial cautious approach was taken.
Isaac Herzog declared that it was too early to state whether an Iranian connection existed, while Reuters reported that Israeli officials had not discovered evidence linking the attack to Iran at that time.
12. Is there an Iranian link, or is this an entirely separate affair?
Meanwhile, Iran has entered the public discussion. US President Donald Trump warned that a very tough response will follow if a connection between Iran and the attack is substantiated. Yet so far, the picture emerging from credible reports remains clear: no documented evidence proving Iranian direction of the attack has been publicly presented.
Reuters stated that Israeli authorities were exploring the possibility, but had found no evidence tying the first officer to Iran. That does not imply the possibility has been permanently ruled out.
www.bankingnews.gr
Σχόλια αναγνωστών