Updated October 9, 2026. UAE prosecutors say the violent cockpit takeover attempt aboard flydubai flight FZ1073 was part of a plan to crash the aircraft into the passenger terminal at Israel’s Ben Gurion Airport. Their account marks a significant development in the September 30 incident, but it remains an allegation advanced by investigators rather than a final court finding.
The Boeing 737 MAX 8 was flying from Dubai towards Tel Aviv when, according to Emirati prosecutors, Omani first officer Hammam al-Hammami attacked captain Smit Machchhar with an emergency crash axe. The captain, though injured, managed to alert others. Crew members and people aboard intervened, control was recovered and the aircraft landed at Tabuk in Saudi Arabia rather than continuing to Israel.
Reuters reported an altitude loss of approximately 16,000 feet in about 30 seconds during the encounter. That alarming figure should not be mistaken for a complete technical account of the flight: investigators still need to establish the precise sequence of cockpit inputs, crew actions and aircraft responses.
The newly alleged target and preparation
On October 9, the UAE attorney general publicly identified the airport passenger terminal as the alleged intended target. Prosecutors said the first officer had previously flown the Tel Aviv route to learn more about the approach and airport, and investigators are examining his online activity and background. The UAE account also says he passed the professional and security screening used when flydubai recruited him in January 2026.
Claims about motive and planning must be attributed to the authorities presenting the evidence. The disclosures illuminate the scope of the investigation, but do not eliminate questions about corroboration, possible accomplices or the suspect’s legal position.
Criminal accountability and aviation safety are different inquiries
Saudi Arabia has opened a separate aviation safety investigation. Its role is to reconstruct what happened to the aircraft and examine lessons involving cockpit security, crew response and the operational handling of an intentional in-flight threat. That safety remit is distinct from the UAE criminal investigation into the alleged plot and the suspect’s intentions.
Airlines and regulators may scrutinize pre-employment vetting, the sharing of relevant security information between jurisdictions and safeguards against threats posed by authorized cockpit occupants. But the fact that an employee passed screening cannot, on its own, show whether a warning was available or missed. An evidence-led assessment will be required before systemic conclusions can be drawn.
The flight ultimately reached the ground without the mass-casualty outcome prosecutors say was intended. The emerging account is important, but the criminal and safety investigations have not reached the same endpoint.
This case has two different evidential tracks: prosecutors’ allegations about intent and an aviation investigation into the aircraft’s behaviour. Recorded flight path, cockpit actions and aircraft-system responses require technical analysis of their own. The alleged objective attributed to the first officer must remain clearly identified as a prosecutorial claim unless established by a final judicial finding.
The judicial allegations and the aviation safety findings need to be assessed separately; neither can be treated as a substitute for the other’s conclusions.
October 10: inquiries expand to Australia and India
New reporting has brought the first officer’s background in Australia under scrutiny. Australian authorities are reviewing his time in Melbourne after UAE prosecutors said his alleged radicalisation began during studies there in 2017. RMIT University confirmed he had attended the institution but had not completed his degree. That confirmation does not establish wrongdoing by the university or people who may have crossed his path.
India’s National Investigation Agency has also registered a case concerning the attack on captain Smit Machchhar. Investigators will explore whether it was an isolated act or part of a wider conspiracy. Opening such an inquiry is not evidence that accomplices existed; it means the question is being examined. UAE prosecutors had indicated in their preliminary account that the suspect acted alone.
The diversion to Tabuk and the crew response are documented elements of the incident. The alleged target at Ben Gurion Airport, the first officer’s intentions and the possibility of screening failures remain matters that need careful attribution. Saudi Arabia’s separate aviation safety investigation will be important in reconstructing aircraft handling and the rapid altitude change.
October 10 reporting: The Indian Express, NIA inquiry; The Guardian, Australian inquiry.
Sources: Reuters, October 9; Associated Press, October 9.
