China authorities investigating paraglider who was sucked into the clouds
Chinese authorities are investigating an incident in which a paraglider was sucked into the clourds and carried more than 8,500m above sea level.
He survived the chilling ordeal but authorities are looking into potential regulatory violations, Chinese media outlet Global Times reported on Wednesday (May 28).
The man, known as Liu Ge, was paragliding in the Qilian Mountain region of Northwest China's Qinghai and Gansu provinces on Saturday when he was caught in a 'cloud suck' - a phenomenon where paragliders experience a significant lift.
The moment was captured on camera, showing his face and clothes covered in frost. He remained conscious throughout the video while controlling the parachute.
Liu was not wearing an oxygen mask and was seen to suffer from extensive frostbite.
He managed to control the parachute and landed safely in what local media reports are calling a miraculous survival.
'I just kept communicating over the radio the entire time," he told local media.
An experienced paraglider surnamed Ou told local media that participants typically prepare cold-weather gear as temperatures at 2,000m are already frigid. At 8,000m, temperatures drop to around -40 degrees Celsius with critically low oxygen levels.
While there are global cases of cloud suction incidents reaching 6,000 to 7,000m, few people survive such extreme altitudes, Ou said.
'This is truly miraculous. His mental resilience was extraordinary,' Ou added.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNA
an hour ago
- CNA
Why isn't China's defence minister attending Shangri-la Dialogue, and how will it affect Sino-US ties?
SINGAPORE: China's decision not to send its defence minister Dong Jun to this year's Shangri-La security dialogue (SLD) in Singapore reflects a deliberate decision on Beijing's part to withhold ministerial-level participation amid fraught geopolitical conditions, analysts told CNA. In a statement issued on Thursday (May 29), a day before the forum's official opening, China's Ministry of National Defense said a delegation from the People's Liberation Army's National Defense University would attend in Dong's place, without providing details on who would be leading it. The delegation 'will have in-depth exchanges with different parties to build more consensus', said ministry spokesman Zhang Xiaogang, who did not address why Dong would not be attending or whether the Chinese team would meet with US counterparts. This will be the first time since 2019 that China will not be represented by its defence minister at the annual security summit, a key platform where Beijing's positions on flashpoints like Taiwan and the South China Sea have drawn intense international scrutiny over the years. 'Past records show that the level of China's delegation is closely linked to the international climate and perceived external pressures,' said Lim Tai Wei, an East Asian affairs observer and professor at Soka University in Japan. With US President Donald Trump back in power, analysts who spoke to CNA believe that Beijing may see limited strategic benefit in sending its top defence ministry official to the annual event, particularly with newly appointed US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth slated to be in attendance. Without ministerial-level attendance, Beijing will also forgo the opportunity to hold high-level bilateral meetings with direct counterparts in countries like the US, experts added. CONTROLLING THE NARRATIVE Beijing's decision to forgo high-level ministerial representation might also be related to unfavourable optics, Lim said, especially in environments where Washington and Western counterparts may seek to frame the dialogue in more performative terms. 'China operates within a high-context political culture, where atmospherics, non-verbal cues, and the overall tone of engagement carry significant weight,' Lim said. 'There tends to be a preference for controlled settings and predictability,' Lim added. 'In a fluid international environment, where developments can shift quickly, this may have contributed to the decision not to send a senior-level delegation this year.' Benjamin Ho, an assistant professor at the China Programme of the S Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS) in Singapore, noted that China has historically sent its defence ministers to the annual summit when 'global conditions were right' for talks with counterparts - especially those from the US. US-China relations have rapidly deteriorated, particularly with renewed tariff disputes, trade tensions and Trump's decision to clamp down on Harvard's Chinese international students. Against this current backdrop, there has been 'little strategic reason' for Beijing to send a ministerial-level delegation to the SLD, Ho added. 'Last year, (then-US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin) reiterated the idea that when US-China relations are not good, (both sides) should meet and talk,' Ho said. 'But for China, it's quite different. For Beijing, if relations are not good, there is no need for the military to meet and talk.' 'Beijing only talks when political conditions are correct so I think (they) are operating from a very different kind of paradigm.' Lin Ying-yu, an assistant professor at the Graduate Institute of International Affairs and Strategic Studies at Tamkang University in Taiwan, said Beijing's hesitation may reflect internal uncertainty about how to manage defence diplomacy under Trump's second term. 'China has yet to settle on a clear approach to engaging the US,' he said. 'At present, (President) Xi Jinping has not had direct or formal dialogue with Trump since his return to office so I think China has not finalised its position on how to handle relations with the US under this new term.' Sending a lower-level delegation would be a way for Beijing to test the waters, Lin added. 'This is a way for China to first observe how the US responds in the security and defence space, before deciding what kind of posture or attitude to adopt going forward.' ALLEGED CORRUPTION PROBE NOT AT PLAY? Dong, a Chinese naval admiral from the People's Liberation Army (PLA), assumed the role of Chinese defence minister in late 2023. His predecessors Wei Fenghe and Li Shangfu were both expelled from the ruling Communist Party and dismissed from their roles over bribes and other 'serious disciplinary violations'. Observers have noted Dong's own brush with the wide-ranging corruption campaign, which has plagued China's military since last year - nine PLA generals and at least four aerospace defence industry executives were removed as a result. Dong's SLD absence has prompted speculation of him being under an alleged disciplinary probe - but defence officials and analysts now caution against drawing direct conclusions, noting his recent travel history and no official comments linking him to misconduct. 'There's been speculation about whether Admiral Dong is in political trouble, but that doesn't ring true,' said Drew Thompson, a former US Department of Defense (DOD) official, in a LinkedIn post shared on Friday, which noted Dong's three-day visit to Berlin in mid-May, where he met with Germany's defence minister and addressed UN officials. Dong also recently held a high-profile meeting with Thailand's Chief of Defense Forces, General Songwit Noonpakdee, in Beijing. Thompson said it signalled that Dong remained active in his official capacity as Chinese defence minister despite his absence from the annual regional forum. Lin said there was no clear connection between the ongoing anti-corruption drive within the PLA and Dong's SLD absence. 'In China, decisions to prosecute senior officials are made at the top levels of the party hierarchy. These are not developments that outsiders can easily interpret or anticipate,' he said. From his assessment of the situation, it also appeared that Dong might have been given clearance to attend the summit in Singapore and may even have intended to go. 'But due to how the optics might play out, they likely opted for a lower-level delegation instead.' 'I don't believe this has anything to do with the current probe inside the PLA,' Lin added. REVERTING TO A PREVIOUS NORM Attended by world leaders and high-ranking government officials from more than 40 countries, as well as academics and business leaders, SLD is widely regarded as the region's most prominent multilateral forum on defence and security. China's attendance and participation is often among the highlights. The US has maintained consistent participation at the highest level, with its defence secretary attending every edition of the forum. By contrast, Beijing has varied its level of representation over the years, observers added. Since 2019, excluding 2020 and 2021 when the forum was cancelled due to the COVID-19 pandemic, China's last three defence ministers, Wei Fenghe, Li Shangfu, and Dong Jun each attended and delivered keynote speeches. But the level of engagement has not always been consistent, analysts noted. China began participating more actively in 2007, initially sending deputy chiefs of the General Staff, including Zhang Qinsheng and Ma Xiaotian, between 2007 and 2010. In 2011, during a period of improved China-US ties following then-President Hu Jintao's visit to Washington, Beijing dispatched its then-defence minister, Liang Guanglie, to the forum for the first time. But it lowered its profile the following year, sending Ren Haiquan, then vice president of the Academy of Military Sciences instead. Between 2013 and 2018, China continued to participate, but again at a sub-ministerial level. Delegation leaders during this period included Deputy Chiefs of the General Staff Qi Jianguo (2013), Wang Guanzhong (2014), and Sun Jianguo (2015 and 2016), as well as He Lei, vice president of the Academy of Military Sciences (2017 and 2018). The presence of Hegseth, an outspoken critic of China, may have been a significant factor in Beijing's decision not to send a defence minister to this year's SLD, analysts said. 'If Dong comes, he is basically coming here to get whacked by Hegseth,' Ho said. 'He is going to repeat very much the same lines, in a way, and if he doesn't repeat the same lines, then it's going to be much more aggressive.' 'For the Chinese, they don't see that the political conditions are right. Having a defence minister coming and saying certain things (in response), which may or may not run in accordance to what the party wants, might create more problems than solutions,' he added. China also has the Xiangshan Forum, its own security forum that's touted as an alternative to Singapore's SLD, Ho added. 'So in a way, they are not losing out because they have their own (security) platforms.' Tamkang University's Lin noted that Beijing favoured settings where it could shape its narrative. The Xiangshan Forum would be a much more comfortable platform for defence engagement as compared to the SLD. In his LinkedIn post, Thompson said Dong's absence could reflect deeper dissatisfaction with the nature of the SLD itself. 'I surmise Dong Jun's absence is a signal of frustration with the dialogue itself. They've never liked it, which is why they started the Xiangshan Forum,' said Thomson. He also recalled a past exchange. 'My PLA counterpart once explained what they didn't like. He said: 'We don't like being made out to be gladiators fighting one another for others' entertainment. We want to deal with our differences bilaterally, in channels, not in public forums.'' 'Beijing always wants to control the narrative and discourse. Shangri-La does not enable that. Xiangshan Forum does,' Thompson said. ABSENCE WITH A COST SLD remains one of the rare global venues which sees senior Chinese defence officials field direct questions from foreign counterparts, scholars and journalists - offering a rare window into Beijing's strategic posture. The presence of China's defence minister also enables other countries to engage Beijing in bilateral meetings on the sidelines of the forum. This year however, that opportunity will be missing, experts said. Dong's absence will be an 'opportunity loss' for Beijing, Ho said, noting that the decision likely reflects a calculated trade-off. 'They probably made a calculation to the extent that their strategic interest obviously outweighs the fact that they are absent … that the fact they can preserve their interest without being at the forum is something that probably swung the decision not to come,' he said. Ho pointed out that ministerial meetings can still happen through other channels. 'One could say that maybe the Chinese would find other avenues to meet the Americans, and not necessarily at the SLD. And I think vice versa - Americans will probably shrug and say, 'Okay, it's an opportunity loss, but we'll find other ways to meet the Chinese, assuming that's what they want to do.'' Thompson said that both Beijing and Washington still had pre existing bilateral mechanisms. 'Beijing knows how to engage Washington and does not need third countries to facilitate. If political conditions are right, the PLA will meet with the DOD,' he said. The overall strategic cost of skipping the forum would likely be minimal for Beijing, Lim said, adding that the Chinese defence minister typically served more as a diplomatic envoy than a core decision-maker. 'Take for instance regional players including ASEAN nations - they will be understanding of how China manages its representation,' Lim said. 'They have other avenues to engage with Beijing, and some of these, away from the glare of media and in a bilateral format, would probably be as useful, if not more useful, than a full-scale forum,' Lim said.
CNA
2 hours ago
- CNA
US should not see China defence chief's absence at Shangri-La Dialogue as a snub: ISEAS director
Mr Choi Shing Kwok, director and chief executive officer at the ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute, explains why he does not see the absence of Chinese defence officials at the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore as a missed opportunity for Beijing. He also shares why French President Emmanuel Macron's attendance at the annual defence gathering is a show of support for Asian allies.
CNA
10 hours ago
- CNA
Second group of Hong Kong democrats freed after 4 years in jail
HONG KONG: Four people jailed in the landmark Hong Kong national security trial of "47 democrats" accused of conspiracy to commit subversion were freed on Friday (May 30) after more than four years behind bars, the second group to be released in a month. Among those freed was long-time political and LGBTQ activist Jimmy Sham, who also led one of Hong Kong's largest pro-democracy groups, the Civil Human Rights Front, which disbanded in 2021. "Let me spend some time with my family," Sham said after arriving at his home in the Kowloon district of Jordan. "I don't know how to plan ahead because, to me, it feels like today is my first day of understanding the world again. So, as for what I can do or should do in the future, or where is the red line, I feel like I need to explore and figure it out all over again." CHRF was one of the largest pro-democracy groups in the former British colony and helped to organise million-strong marches during pro-democracy protests in 2019 that turned violent at times and had a major impact on business and tourism. The others who were released were Kinda Li, Roy Tam and Henry Wong. At the end of April, former pro-democracy lawmakers Claudia Mo, Kwok Ka-ki, Jeremy Tam and Gary Fan were released from three separate prisons across Hong Kong around dawn. Since the 2019 protests, which disrupted Hong Kong for most of that year, China has cracked down on the democratic opposition as well as liberal civil society and media outlets under sweeping national security laws that were imposed in 2020. The 47 pro-democracy campaigners were arrested and charged in early 2021 with conspiracy to commit subversion under a Beijing-imposed national law which carries sentences of up to life in prison. Forty-five of the defendants were convicted following a marathon trial, and given sentences of as long as 10 years. Only two were acquitted. The democrats were found guilty of organising an unofficial "primary election" in 2020 to select their candidates for a legislative election that was later postponed. Prosecutors accused the activists of plotting to paralyse the government by engaging in potentially disruptive acts had they been elected. Some Western governments, including the US, called the trial politically motivated and had demanded that the democrats be freed.
