国际 · 航班紧急情况

是什么迫使迪拜航空航班安全改道？坠机企图指控仍未得到证实

FZ1073航班抵达塔布克，乘客安全，人数已核实无误。关于驾驶舱暴力事件和可能有人蓄意试图让飞机坠毁的报道，仍属指控，尚未成为确立的调查结论。

播出 2026年9月30日 UTC 14:02文字 2026年9月30日 UTC 14:14阅读需 8 分钟24 个来源

通过 RSS 关注

新闻追踪第 1 天

1 篇报道26 家媒体24 个来源

暂无标注日期的事件

第 1 次更新9月30日 14:02 UTC是什么迫使迪拜航空航班安全改道？坠机企图指控仍未得到证实当前位置

译自英文原文。

原语言视频

文字实录 · 正在加载

迪拜航空 FZ1073 航班驾驶舱内究竟发生了什么？如今出现的说法是否能证明有人试图让飞机坠毁？目前尚无定论。2026年9月30日，这趟迪拜至特拉维夫的航班改道飞往沙特阿拉伯塔布克，并安全着陆。迪拜航空表示，所有乘客均安全，且人数已核实无误。但有关事件的解释已从飞行员之间发生争执的报道，转向有人持刀刺伤机长并试图夺取飞机控制权的指控；然而，尚无经核实的调查结论证实这些行为或其意图。² ⁸ ²⁴

这一区别是报道的核心，并非可以留到结尾才补充的限定语。安全着陆已得到确认。蓄意试图让飞机坠毁则尚未得到证实。航空公司关于乘客人数核实情况的更新，回答了航班上人员是否平安这一紧迫问题，却没有解释是什么迫使飞机偏离预定航线。

FZ1073航班原定从迪拜国际机场飞往本-古里安国际机场，途中改道。机上乘客最终抵达沙特阿拉伯，而非以色列的目的地。尚未确认是否安排了替代航班、后续航班的起飞时间、住宿安排，或乘客后来是否抵达特拉维夫。² ²⁴

紧急信号实际能证明什么

Flightradar24报告称，应答机依次设置了三个代码：7700，通用紧急代码；7500，非法干扰代码；之后又切回7700。这些信号传达了飞机处于紧急状态并可能遭到非法干扰的信息。但仅凭这些信号，无法独立证实发生劫机、确定由谁选择这些代码，或解释代码为何发生变化。⁶

据CBS/AP报道的同期报道摘要称，紧急情况最初引发劫机担忧后，以色列出动了战机。战机是否实际出动、是否进行了拦截或护航，以及军方的依据评估，均尚未得到证实。Ahram随后报道称，内塔尼亚胡总理办公室撤回了最初关于劫机的说法，并表示认为此次改道并非劫机。这只是早期评估，并非已完成的调查结论。¹ ¹⁴

最初在公众间流传的解释是飞行员发生肢体冲突。NBC News援引以色列媒体称，事件似乎由飞行员之间的争执引起；其他报道则援引一名以色列官员。以色列国家新闻报道称，航空公司确认飞行员发生过冲突，但没有一份完整引用的航空公司声明能证实这一解释。半岛电视台报道中直接转述的航空公司说法只有“事件”一词。³ ⁷ ¹² ¹³

随后出现的报道提出了严重得多的指控。JNS称，副驾驶多次刺伤机长，并试图夺取飞机控制权，随后被机组人员和乘客制服。该报道关于以色列当局将事件作为恐怖主义事件处理的说法，明确依据记者阿米特·塞格尔的消息。Israel.com报道说有人怀疑这是一次试图让飞机坠毁的行为，DW则称正在调查是否有人试图让飞机坠毁。这些报道证明，严重指控和怀疑已经出现，但并不能证明调查人员已证实这些说法。⁸ ¹⁷ ²²

《耶路撒冷邮报》援引一名未具名乘客的话说：“据我了解，飞行员试图和我们一起自杀。”这句话开头的措辞很重要。这是乘客对事件的理解，并非对飞行员意图的确证。这番话传达了飞机上的恐惧，却无法厘清驾驶舱内究竟发生了什么。⁵

同样，也不能把公开说法似乎发生变化视为已核实的官方改口。没有具名调查主管部门直接发表声明，解释早期关于非劫机的评估是否已被修订。文章的发布时间和更新时间，不能代替主管部门作出评估的时间。后来出现的恐怖主义定性，并非最终的恐怖主义认定。⁸ ¹² ¹⁴ ¹⁷

戏剧性细节背后的疑点

一些看似最精确的细节，恰恰是最没有定论的。9月30日，《环球报》报道称机上有174名乘客，《以色列时报》则报道称有180名。两种说法都未能与权威乘客名单或航空公司确认的总数核实一致。两者都称其数字为乘客人数，因此不能负责任地假定其中一个数字包含机组人员，以此解释差异。机组人员总数也尚不清楚。⁴ ¹⁸

对于飞机突然下降的说法，也应同样谨慎。《Business Upturn》称飞机似乎在37秒内下降了14,300英尺，《印度斯坦时报》则称下降了17,500英尺。另有17,400英尺的说法也曾流传。没有经核实、带时间戳的高度轨迹能证实上述任何一种描述。选取最惊人的数字，或将它们取平均值，都会制造出并不存在的确定性。即使下降一事得到证实，也仍需结合背景，才能判断它是否表明有人意图让飞机坠毁。¹ ²⁰ ²¹

航班的时间线和地理位置也不完整。GreekReporter根据航班追踪信息给出的起飞时间为协调世界时03:05，但Flightradar24现有的报道并未独立重现这一时间。《环球报》称，当天“上午”约09:08收到第一个紧急信号，但未注明时区。准确的应答机代码切换时间以及经核实的协调世界时着陆时间，均尚未确定。⁴ ⁶ ¹¹

《环球报》称飞机当时位于约旦上空，ABC则描述飞机从约旦领空改道。Flightradar24称机上事件发生时飞机位于沙特阿拉伯上空；《以色列时报》则描述飞机在约旦与沙特阿拉伯边境附近掉头，并曾短暂在沙特上空发出非法干扰信号。这些说法可能描述的是不同阶段。若没有与每起事件对应的带时间戳位置数据，就无法确定驾驶舱紧急情况发生的确切地点。⁴ ⁶ ¹⁸ ¹⁹

GreekReporter称涉事机型为波音737 MAX 8，《以色列时报》则称为737 MAX。航空公司或主管部门尚未直接确认机型，飞机注册号也未确定。JNS报道旁的一张配有图注的737-800照片，不能证明执行FZ1073航班的飞机就是这一机型。⁸ ¹¹ ¹⁸

已知

飞机在塔布克安全着陆；迪拜航空表示，所有乘客均安全，且人数已核实无误。 2 24

未知

驾驶舱内事件经过、飞行员的身体状况、完整伤者人数、是否有人被捕，以及乘客后续行程，均尚无定论。

后续

由航空公司或调查主管部门直接发布、可明确归因的事件经过及后果说明。

对于医疗状况的区分尤其需要谨慎。“安全，且人数已核实无误”并不能证明无人受伤，也不能确认机长或副驾驶的状况。《IntelliNews》另称没有人员伤亡报告，但并未提供完整的受伤情况。类似地，有人被制服的报道并不能证明有人被捕；目前尚未确认有人被捕，也未确认无人被捕。⁸ ⁹ ²⁴

《Aviation Shop》刊载了一则标注为协调世界时08:10的更新，其中引用一名发言人的话称，迪拜航空“正与相关部门密切合作”。这是该媒体更新的时间，并非经核实的航空公司声明发布时间。尚未确认有沙特民航主管部门直接公开发表声明，澄清这些指控。²³

目前，负责任的报道只能写到证据所及之处：一架遭遇紧急情况的航班安全着陆，乘客人数已核实无误，而一起令人深感不安的驾驶舱事件仍未得到解释。乘客已抵达塔布克，这一点已得到确认。他们的身体状况、可能涉及的犯罪行为以及行程是否完成，仍有待进一步答复。

本报道来源

CNN的同期报道 ¹；《海湾新闻》援引航空公司消息的着陆报道 ²；NBC News的紧急事件报道 ³；《环球报》关于航班和乘客人数的报道 ⁴。

《耶路撒冷邮报》的乘客说法 ⁵；Flightradar24的航班追踪报道 ⁶；《Global Banking & Finance Review》关于飞行员冲突的报道 ⁷；JNS关于涉嫌刺伤及恐怖主义的报道 ⁸。

IntelliNews关于航班改道的报道 ⁹；《印度快报》的实时报道 ¹⁰；GreekReporter关于机型和起飞情况的报道 ¹¹；《以色列国家新闻》关于驾驶舱冲突及后续指控的报道 ¹²。

半岛电视台援引航空公司消息的事件报道 ¹³；Ahram Online关于内塔尼亚胡办公室评估的报道 ¹⁴；WSLS转载的美联社报道 ¹⁵；Middle East Online早期关于飞行员争斗的解释 ¹⁶。

Israel.com关于疑似试图让飞机坠毁的报道 ¹⁷；《以色列时报》的航班综述 ¹⁸；ABC News Australia关于航班改道的报道 ¹⁹；《Business Upturn》关于下降高度的说法 ²⁰。

《印度斯坦时报》关于下降情况的报道 ²¹；DW关于调查可能试图让飞机坠毁事件的报道 ²²；《Aviation Shop》关于乘客安全情况的更新 ²³；《The Arabian Stories》援引航空公司消息的着陆及乘客人数核实报道 ²⁴。

播出原貌 12 行

Flydubai flight FZ1073 landed safely after an emergency diversion to Saudi Arabia. All passengers are safe and accounted for, but that does not establish everyone's medical condition. What forced the diversion—and do the later allegations establish a deliberate attempt to crash the plane?
The passengers' flight ended in Tabuk, not at its scheduled destination near Tel Aviv. FZ1073 was flying from Dubai International Airport to Ben Gurion International Airport when it diverted on September 30, 2026. The landing is confirmed; the precise location of the emergency is not. Descriptions place different stages over Jordan, in Jordanian airspace, over Saudi Arabia, or near the Jordan–Saudi Arabia border. Without positions tied to timestamps, those descriptions cannot establish where the cockpit event occurred. They may describe different stages, rather than contradictory locations for the same moment.
The reported departure time is 03:05 UTC, but that time has not been independently verified. No verified UTC landing time is established. The aircraft's identification is also provisional: a Boeing 737 MAX 8, with another identification specifying only a 737 MAX. The exact model and registration remain unconfirmed by the airline or aviation authorities. A photograph caption identifying a 737-800 does not establish that this flight used that model.
The aircraft transmitted 7700, then 7500, then 7700 again. The middle code communicates unlawful interference; it does not independently prove that a hijacking happened. The sequence does not establish who selected the codes or why. Exact times for the changes are unverified. Receipt of the first signal is placed at about 09:08 that morning, but without an established time zone. That time cannot responsibly be converted to UTC or used to calculate how long the emergency lasted.
Israel scrambled jets after the emergency raised hijacking concerns. The aircraft deployed, any interception or escort, and the military's underlying assessment remain unestablished. The early assessment was that the diversion was not believed to be a hijacking. A physical fight between the pilots became the initial explanation, but that cause is not independently established. A complete airline statement confirming the cockpit-fight explanation has not been established either. The directly reproduced description was simply an incident. Later allegations went much further: that the co-pilot repeatedly stabbed the captain, tried to seize control, and was subdued by crew and passengers. Those actions remain alleged, not confirmed investigative findings. Suspicion of terrorism and a possible attempt to crash the aircraft also emerged. Neither suspicion establishes intent, a motive, or a final terrorism determination. No direct statement from a named investigating authority establishes whether the early no-hijacking assessment was formally revised.
The timing of publication does not establish the timing of an official reversal. The terrorism-framed account carries publication metadata of 08:21:06 UTC. Other accounts display later updates: 12:10 without a separate time-zone label, and 12:07 Israel time. Those are publication markers, not verified times when authorities issued or changed an assessment. The early no-hijacking assessment lacks a sufficiently precise clock time to reconstruct that official sequence.
A passenger feared the pilot intended to kill everyone aboard. But the account expressly qualifies that interpretation with an acknowledgment of limited understanding. The fear is real testimony about the passenger's interpretation; it is not proof of what the pilot intended or what happened in the cockpit.
The passenger figures differ by six: 174 versus 180. Neither figure has been reconciled with an authoritative manifest or a confirmed airline total. Both are described as passenger counts, so the difference cannot be explained by assuming one includes crew. The total crew count is also unknown. References to the two pilots do not establish how many cabin crew were aboard or the total number of occupants.
No verified altitude trace supports the claimed 17,400-foot descent. Other descriptions use an apparent 14,300-foot plunge in 37 seconds, or a 17,500-foot drop. None is substantiated by a verified timestamped altitude trace. Those figures cannot be averaged, chosen for dramatic effect, or treated as evidence of a deliberate crash attempt. Even a verified descent would need its own context before it could establish what was happening in the cockpit.
All passengers are safe and accounted for, but that wording does not establish a zero-injury count. It does not confirm the captain's or co-pilot's condition, or whether a stabbing occurred. A separate description of no casualties does not settle those medical questions. No arrest, suspect identity or charge is established; nor is a confirmed absence of arrests. The passenger-safety update was carried at 08:10 UTC, but that is not a verified release time for the airline's own statement. A complete public airline statement resolving the allegations remains unestablished, as do direct Saudi aviation-authority, Israeli military and foreign-ministry statements resolving the cause and consequences.
The answer to the central question remains limited: the flight made a safe emergency diversion, but the cause is unresolved. The stabbing, seizure-of-control and deliberate-crash allegations have not been established as investigative findings.
The passengers' journey also remains unfinished in the established account. No replacement flight, onward departure time or accommodation arrangement is confirmed. There is no established confirmation that they subsequently reached Tel Aviv. Their confirmed arrival is in Tabuk, Saudi Arabia.