Chinese passenger plane narrowly avoids mid-air collision with cargo jet over Siberia
Air China Flight CA967, en route from Shanghai to Milan, abruptly climbed from 34,100 to 36,000ft without instruction from Russian air traffic control on 6 July, reported the South China Morning Post.
The manoeuvre brought it within roughly 300 to 400ft (90–120m) of SF Airlines Flight CSS128, a Boeing 767 cargo jet flying from Budapest to Ezhou in central China. International aviation safety protocols require a minimum vertical separation of 1,000ft between aircraft at cruising altitude.
The near miss occurred above Tuva, a remote mountainous region in southern Siberia bordering Mongolia, and was captured on live tracking data from Flightradar24. The unauthorised ascent triggered onboard alarms known as the Traffic Collision Avoidance System (TCAS) in both aircraft, prompting emergency evasive action.
Audio recordings circulating on Chinese social media since the weekend suggest the Russian controller was simultaneously handling four aircraft and may have issued unclear instructions.
The source of the leaked recordings remains unknown and their authenticity could not be independently verified. Air China, SF Airlines and China's civil aviation authority have not issued public comments. The Independent has written to them for comments.
In the English-language communication, the controller is heard asking: 'Are you climbing with instruction or without instruction? Confirm, please.' The Air China pilot replies: 'No. Thank you.'
It remains unclear why the Air China crew altered altitude but miscommunication of command directed at another aircraft is being considered as a possible reason, reported Belgium outlet Aviation24.be. The pilot's full response was inaudible due to overlapping radio transmissions.
After switching to a private frequency, the two Chinese pilots conversed in Mandarin. The SF Airlines captain expressed concern over the climb, calling it 'very inappropriate' and questioned whether the move had been cleared. The Air China pilot attributed the confusion to a Russian controller who he claimed had made 'a fuss', leaving the crew 'confused.' He admitted they would need to file an official report.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
6 hours ago
- Reuters
UK's Birmingham Airport temporarily shuts after emergency landing
LONDON, Aug 6 (Reuters) - Birmingham Airport in central England temporarily shut its runway on Wednesday after a small aircraft was involved in an emergency landing that left one person with minor injuries. The police said in a post on X that emergency crews responded to the incident, which occurred at around 1340 local time (1240 GMT). The airport said in a later update that all people on board the aircraft had been discharged by the emergency services. Check in services and security screening were temporarily closed, it added. Images shared on social media showed a small propeller aircraft stationary on the runway of Britain's seventh busiest airport. The aircraft is a Beech B200 Super King Air that took off at 1211 local time and was bound for Belfast in Northern Ireland, according to plane tracking website Flightradar24. A spokesperson for the airport told Reuters they could not immediately confirm a timeframe for the reopening of the runway. The airport website showed some flights have been diverted to other British airports and some departures have been delayed to 1800 GMT. The airport, which served some 13 million passengers last year, is Britain's third largest outside London.
The Independent
10 hours ago
- The Independent
Aer Lingus crew injured after plane suffers ‘tailstrike' during landing
Two Aer Lingus cabin crew members sustained injuries after a 'tailstrike' during an aborted plane landing, an investigation has revealed. An Airbus A321 flying from Dublin to Washington Dulles Airport on 30 August 2023 gained substantial damage after the incident, the Air Accident Investigation Unit (AAIU) has found. The injured cabin crew members were seated in the rear of the aircraft and sustained 'lower back ache and strain' when the plane made contact with the runway, known as a tailstrike. It was carrying 145 passengers and six crew members. As the aircraft descended, a drop in headwind and gusty conditions led to a partial loss of lift, which the pilot attempted to correct. During the landing, the plane bounced slightly, then pitched up too much, causing its tail to strike the runway. It became airborne again and landed 'uneventfully' in a second attempt. One of the injured cabin crew said that the first touchdown was similar to a hard landing – where an aircraft lands with greater speed and force than normal. She heard a bang during the second touchdown which seemed to come from underneath the aircraft. She said she had experienced hard landings before, but nothing like this incident. She also told the investigation that she was not aware of the term 'tailstrike' before the event and that the subject had not been covered during regular safety training. According to the report, an audible safety feature designed to prevent tailstrikes was not emitted by the flight warning system, which meant the crew was not informed in advance. As a result, the 'tailstrike checklist' was not actioned. A report from a US-based repair organisation found damage on the outside of the plane, including material loss with punctures and cracks at the frame stations, but minimal internal defects were created. The aircraft was grounded requiring repairs and did not return to operation until January 2024, five months after the incident. Following the occurrence, the operator outlined several implemented Safety Actions including tailstrike awareness and identification in annual cabin crew member training and tailstrike awareness simulator training for flight crew. A spokesperson for Aer Lingus told The Independent: ' Aer Lingus has received the AAIU's report into a tail-strike occurrence on a landing at Washington Dulles Airport in August 2023. 'Aer Lingus engaged extensively with the AAIU during its investigation process and implemented a number of safety actions following the occurrence, including implementing training-related safety actions covering awareness and identification, as well as simulator training. 'Aer Lingus notes that consequently there were no safety recommendations contained in the AAIU's report.'
BBC News
a day ago
- BBC News
Titan submersible implosion that killed all five on board was 'preventable', says report
The US Coast Guard has determined the implosion of OceanGate's Titan submersible that killed all five people on board was "preventable", citing the company's "critically flawed" safety practices.A damning 335-page report from Coast Guard investigators states that OceanGate, the company that owned and operated the Titan, failed to follow maintenance and inspection protocols for the deep-sea vessel."There is a need for stronger oversight and clear options for operators who are exploring new concepts outside of the existing regulatory framework," Jason Neubauer, the chair of the Coast Guard Marine Board, said in a Titan submersible disappeared in the Atlantic Ocean while descending to the wreckage of the Titanic on 18 June 2023. OceanGate has extended its condolences to the families of the victims and stated that it "directed its resources fully toward cooperating with the Coast Guard's inquiry".Here are five key takeaways from the two-year investigation. OceanGate had 'critically flawed' safety practices and a 'toxic' workplace culture The report condemns OceanGate's safety practices as fundamentally inadequate. It says the primary causal factor for the implosion was the firm's failure to follow "established engineering protocols" for safety and were "glaring disparities between their written safety protocols and their actual practices", the report states. "This marine casualty and the loss of five lives was preventable," said Jason Neubauer, the chairman of the Coast Guard Marine Board of Investigation that was charged with investigating the Titan company continued to use the Titan sub despite a series of previous incidents that compromised the craft without properly assessing its suitability, the investigation found. Loss of sub's structural integrity caused implosion The sub imploded 90 minutes into the dive after its carbon-fibre hull suffered a catastrophic loss of structural integrity, the investigation report says the crew died instantly, subjected to nearly 5,000 pounds per square inch of water fibre has not been used for a deep diving sub is known to be unreliable under pressure, and its layers are known to come apart in a process called submersible did complete 13 dives to the Titanic in the two years preceding the tragedy. But the coastguard criticised the company's continued use of the submersible without checking its hull, after a number of safety issues were picked up its McCallum, from EYOS expeditions, a specialist in deep water operations, who advised Oceangate between 2009 and 2016, told the BBC that carbon fibre is an unpredictable material."When you listen to the sounds of that hull under stress, and the cracking and the popping, that's the sign of damage in the hull, that means the hull is getting weaker," Mr McCallum said."So you can't expect to take a vehicle to the same depth every time knowing that it's weaker than the dive before, and expect it not to fail at some stage, It is a mathematical certainty that it will fail," he said. "The tragedy is, you don't know when it's going to fail." OceanGate used 'intimidation tactics' to avoid scrutiny The report accuses OceanGate of intentionally avoiding regulatory scrutiny through intimidation and strategic the years leading up to the incident, the company "leveraged intimidation tactics, allowances for scientific operations, and the company's favorable reputation to evade regulatory scrutiny", the report said."By strategically creating and exploiting regulatory confusion and oversight challenges, OceanGate was ultimately able to operate Titan completely outside of the established deep-sea protocols," it added. OceanGate founder and Titan pilot Stockton Rush's 'negligence' contributed to deaths The report also blames Stockton Rush, OceanGate's founder and the pilot of the Titan sub during its fatal voyage, for contributing to the "exhibited negligence that contributed to the deaths of four individuals" (apart from his own), investigators said. Had he survived, investigators said they would have recommended referring him to the US Department of Justice for potential "criminal offences".Coast Guard Marine Board of Investigation Chair Jason Neubauer told the BBC that the structure of the organisation was "deeply flawed"."One of the biggest standouts that I think that any company could take away is, if your CEO, was also filling the role of safety officer, and lead engineer at the end, it's just too many," he said. "It's a consolidation of power that leads to no checks and balances." Recommendations to prevent future incidents To prevent similar disasters in future, the Marine Board issued 14 safety recommendations to the US Coast Guard and the wider submersible among them:US Coast Guard (USCG) pursue "proper regulatory oversight" of submersiblesRevoking ORV (Oceanographic Research Vessel) designations for submersibles, requiring them to meet certification standards under new passenger vessel requirementsDedicated USCG resources "providing field support for vessels of novel design" In a statement, Oceangate offered condolences to the families of those who died in the deadly disaster, and to all "those impacted by the tragedy"."After the tragedy occurred, the company permanently wound down operations and directed its resources fully towards cooperating with the Coast Guard's inquiry through its completion," it said.
