Flydubai captain Smit Machchhar recounts how he opened a cockpit door after the attack as UAE investigators examine flight FZ1073's descent.
ABU DHABI, UNITED ARAB EMIRATES — Captain Smit Machchhar says he did manage to open the cockpit door after being wounded aboard flydubai flight FZ1073, allowing others to take control of the aircraft.
Captain Smit Machchhar has described how he fought to open the cockpit door of a flydubai passenger jet after being injured during a violent confrontation on a flight from Dubai to Tel Aviv, a decision that allowed other people aboard to intervene as the aircraft rapidly lost altitude.
Speaking from Abu Dhabi during a video call with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, the Indian pilot said he was on the floor and injured when he realised the aircraft was descending and that he had to make another effort to reach the door release.
Machchhar said he made what he regarded as one final push to open the door from inside the flight deck. Once access was possible, other people aboard intervened and helped bring the emergency under control.
The captain said that although he was fighting for his own life, he was also conscious of the danger facing everyone else aboard the aircraft.
His account provides one of the clearest first-person descriptions yet of the critical moments aboard flight FZ1073 on 30 September. It also comes while investigators in the United Arab Emirates continue examining exactly what happened, why the confrontation occurred and whether it was connected to terrorism.
That distinction remains important. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has publicly alleged that the co-pilot stabbed Machchhar and attempted to crash the aircraft. UAE authorities, however, have not announced a final finding on motive and have explicitly urged the public not to pre-empt the investigation.
Machchhar describes one last effort to release the cockpit door
Machchhar told Modi that he was injured and lying on the floor during the confrontation but understood that the aircraft itself was in serious danger.
He described telling himself to make one final effort to open the cockpit door from inside. Once the door was released, others were able to enter and participate in controlling the situation.
The captain said he had been flying for 17 years and had developed an instinctive understanding of an aircraft's behaviour. His description suggests that his awareness of the jet's changing flight path played a central part in his decision to keep trying to reach the door despite his injuries.
Machchhar did not portray the outcome as the work of one person. He specifically acknowledged the role played by others after the cockpit became accessible.
That point is consistent with the UAE General Civil Aviation Authority's subsequent account. The regulator praised Machchhar, the crew and passengers who contributed to containing the emergency, saying their rapid intervention and cooperation prevented more serious consequences.
The GCAA said on 2 October that Machchhar had returned safely to the UAE, was in good condition and was receiving medical treatment.
His comments to Modi were made while he was recovering in Abu Dhabi. Indian officials have also publicly followed his condition, while the Indian government has praised his actions during the emergency.
Flight data traces a rapidly developing emergency
Public flight-tracking information provides a separate record of how quickly the situation developed.
Flight FZ1073 departed Dubai for Tel Aviv at approximately 03:05 GMT on 30 September and climbed to about 34,000 feet, according to flight-tracking data reported after the incident.
At around 05:21 GMT, the aircraft began a dramatic series of altitude changes. Tracking data showed a steep descent, a climb and another descent. By approximately 05:33 GMT, it was flying at roughly 15,000 feet.
The transponder sequence adds another important element to the timeline.
At approximately 05:28 GMT, the aircraft transmitted code 7700, the internationally recognised transponder code for a general emergency. Minutes later it changed to 7500, the code used to indicate unlawful interference with an aircraft.
The aircraft subsequently turned towards Tabuk in north-western Saudi Arabia. Saudi authorities reported receiving a distress call requesting an emergency landing.
These electronic signals establish that the crew was dealing with an extraordinary emergency and that unlawful interference was indicated during the episode. They do not, by themselves, establish the attacker's motive, which remains a matter for investigators.
The distinction is particularly significant because early descriptions of the incident have included claims about terrorism, radicalisation and suicidal intent. Those questions cannot be settled solely from the aircraft's flight path or transponder codes.
Two pilots travelling aboard helped bring FZ1073 to safety
One unusual circumstance aboard FZ1073 proved important once the confrontation in the cockpit had been contained: other qualified flydubai pilots were travelling on the aircraft.
Accounts released after the emergency say two pilots who were aboard but were not operating the flight were able to help take control and bring the aircraft safely to Tabuk.
Airlines routinely transport crew members as passengers for operational reasons, a practice commonly known as deadheading or positioning. In this case, their presence meant qualified personnel were available during an emergency in which the pilots originally assigned to operate the aircraft had been involved in the confrontation.
The episode therefore involved several layers of intervention rather than a single action. Machchhar's effort to release the cockpit door created access; people aboard helped subdue the other pilot; and qualified crew travelling on the aircraft were available to operate it.
The jet landed safely at Tabuk, ending the immediate danger. The injured captain received medical treatment in Saudi Arabia before being transferred to Abu Dhabi.
The passengers were subsequently able to continue their journey.
The sequence also illustrates why cockpit security can create an unusual dilemma during an internal threat. Reinforced flight-deck access is designed primarily to prevent unauthorised entry. When the threat is already inside the cockpit, however, gaining controlled access from the cabin can become essential.
FZ1073 represents an exceptionally rare version of that problem because the alleged confrontation involved members of the operating flight crew themselves.
UAE investigators are examining motive and possible terrorist links
The most consequential unanswered question concerns motive.
The UAE Attorney-General, Hamad Saif Al Shamsi, ordered a specialised Public Prosecution team to investigate the incident. Investigators are working with the General Civil Aviation Authority and other relevant authorities.
Their mandate is broader than simply reconstructing the physical confrontation.
Authorities have been instructed to establish the facts and circumstances, determine possible motives and examine whether the incident was connected to terrorist activity or purpose, or involved prior planning or direction.
That official formulation means terrorism is one of the possibilities under examination. It does not mean investigators have reached a final conclusion that the incident was a terrorist attack.
Netanyahu has provided a more specific public account. He said one pilot stabbed the other and then apparently tried to crash the aircraft. He has also made claims concerning the alleged attacker's ideological radicalisation and suicidal behaviour.
Those assertions have received international attention, but UAE investigators have deliberately taken a more cautious position.
The GCAA said it would not comment on details or claims circulating publicly that could pre-empt the findings or compromise the integrity of the investigation. It said conclusions and further developments would be announced through official channels once the necessary procedures had been completed.
Flydubai similarly said at an earlier stage that the reasons and motives were unknown and subject to formal investigation, while urging against premature speculation.
That gap between political statements and formal investigative findings is central to understanding the current status of the case. The violent cockpit confrontation and emergency diversion are established. The precise motive and any organised terrorist connection remain under investigation.
UAE jurisdiction follows the aircraft beyond its borders
The geography of the incident is unusually complex.
The flight departed the United Arab Emirates, was travelling to Israel and made its emergency landing in Saudi Arabia after an incident that unfolded while the aircraft was airborne.
Despite those multiple jurisdictions, UAE authorities have stated that they have legal jurisdiction to investigate because the aircraft is registered in the Emirates and flies under the UAE flag.
The Attorney-General said UAE legislation therefore applies to crimes committed aboard the aircraft even when they occur outside Emirati territory.
The investigation is being coordinated with relevant regional and international authorities. The UAE Foreign Ministry has also thanked Saudi authorities for their handling of the emergency.
Saudi involvement was critical during the immediate response because the aircraft landed at Tabuk and injured people required assistance there.
Israel has a direct interest because Tel Aviv was the flight's destination and Israeli nationals were among those aboard.
The result is an investigation that may require evidence from several countries even though the UAE has asserted its jurisdiction over the alleged offences aboard its registered aircraft.
The 7500 transponder code documents unlawful interference, not motive
One of the most distinctive details in the FZ1073 timeline is the switch from squawk code 7700 to 7500.
Commercial aircraft transponders transmit identifying and flight information to air traffic control. Specific four-digit codes can also communicate emergencies when normal radio communication is difficult, unsafe or insufficient.
Code 7700 indicates a general emergency. It does not specify whether the problem is medical, mechanical, operational or security-related.
Code 7500 has a narrower meaning: unlawful interference. Its transmission alerted controllers that the emergency involved a security threat rather than merely a technical problem.
Flight FZ1073 reportedly returned to 7700 as it approached Tabuk.
The codes provide an independent technical marker in the timeline, but their evidentiary limits are equally important. A 7500 transmission supports the conclusion that unlawful interference was occurring or being reported aboard the aircraft. It cannot determine whether the person responsible was motivated by terrorism, suicide, personal conflict or another cause.
That determination requires evidence such as cockpit recordings, witness accounts, communications, digital records, employment information and interviews with those involved.
Those are among the reasons the official investigation remains decisive despite the substantial amount of information already in the public domain.
Questions now extend beyond what happened inside the cockpit
The investigation is also likely to generate broader questions for aviation security.
Traditional cockpit-security measures were transformed after the September 2001 attacks, with reinforced doors and stricter procedures intended to prevent attackers from gaining control of commercial aircraft.
FZ1073 presents the opposite security problem: what safeguards exist when the alleged threat originates from a person already authorised to be inside the flight deck?
The incident is therefore likely to draw attention to crew screening, psychological and medical oversight, internal reporting systems, cockpit access procedures and the mechanisms airlines use to identify potential security concerns involving employees.
No failure in any particular flydubai screening or employment process should be assumed before investigators establish the relevant facts.
The UAE investigation will need to distinguish between questions that can be answered from the incident itself and broader speculation about what might have prevented it.
Investigators may also be able to reconstruct the episode from aircraft systems and recorded evidence. Commercial airliners carry cockpit voice and flight-data recorders designed to preserve information relevant to accident and serious-incident investigations, although authorities have not yet publicly disclosed the complete evidentiary record from FZ1073.
Until those findings emerge, the most reliable chronology comes from official statements, flight-tracking data and corroborated accounts from people directly involved.
Machchhar says recovery is now another journey
For Machchhar, attention has shifted from the aircraft to his recovery.
He told Modi that he does not want to view his injury simply as a wound because he believes that mindset would make rehabilitation more difficult. Instead, he described recovery as a journey that will take time and expressed confidence that he will become fit and healthy again.
The Indian government has praised his conduct, while UAE aviation authorities have publicly recognised the response of the captain, crew and passengers.
The episode has also produced strong public praise in India and Israel. Such tributes, however, are separate from the investigative process that must establish exactly how the emergency began and what motivated it.
For aviation authorities, FZ1073 now presents two distinct tasks.
The first is reconstructing the cockpit confrontation, including the actions that caused the aircraft's sudden altitude changes and the sequence by which control was restored.
The second is determining why it happened and whether warning signs, planning or external influences existed before departure.
Machchhar's account adds a crucial first-person perspective to the first question: injured and aware that the aircraft was descending, he says he decided he had to make another attempt to open the cockpit.
What investigators have not yet supplied is a final answer to the second.
Until the UAE investigation is completed, claims about the alleged attacker's precise motive, ideological influences or any wider terrorist connection remain claims under examination rather than settled findings.
COMMENTS