Dimitri de Bournonville
Bournonville Grigorieff, Brussels

On 30 September 2026, a Flydubai Boeing 737-8 (A6-FKF) operated scheduled flight FZ1073 between Dubai International (OMDB) and Tel Aviv Ben Gurion (LLBG), when, according to reports available at the time of writing, the first officer attempted to seize control of the aircraft. The incident led to a physical altercation between the first officer and the captain. The first officer was eventually restrained with the assistance of passengers, and an off-duty flight crew managed to perform an emergency landing at Tabuk Airport (OETB) in Saudi Arabia. The aircraft landed safely, with the captain and first officer injured and several passengers sustaining minor injuries. In addition, the airframe sustained significant structural damage.^[1]

Although the outcome could have been more catastrophic, the incident raises interesting questions concerning the applicable jurisdictions in case of an attempted aircraft hijacking. This note first examines which state is responsible for the safety investigation under the Chicago Convention and Annex 13, then considers the framework governing criminal jurisdiction and the forums available for civil claims.

Jurisdiction for the safety investigation

The first question is which state leads the safety investigation. Under Article 26 of the Chicago Convention,^[2] when an accident involving an aircraft of a state party occurs in the territory of another state party and involves death or serious injury or indicates a serious technical defect in the aircraft or air navigation facilities, the state where it occurred must institute an inquiry, following ICAO procedures insofar as its laws permit.

In addition, the State of Registry of the aircraft must be given the opportunity to appoint observers, and the state conducting the inquiry must communicate its report and findings to it. Furthermore, Annex 13^[3] to the Chicago Convention sets out the standards and recommended practices for accident and incident investigations. It grants the state of occurrence the responsibility for initiating the investigation, while allowing it to delegate some or all of that responsibility. Crucially, Annex 13 defines the notion of accident, specifically excluding injuries merely inflicted by another person from its injury criteria, and setting a threshold that aircraft damage must meet.^[4] The primary purpose of such an investigation is to identify causes and contributing factors in order to prevent future occurrences, rather than to determine blame or liability.^[5]

This distinction is particularly important, as information relevant to a safety investigation does not automatically determine civil liability or criminal responsibility.

Since the occurrence took place in Saudi Arabian airspace, Saudi Arabia is the state of occurrence.^[6] Saudi Arabia is thus responsible for instituting the safety investigation, though it may delegate some or all of it. Article 26 of the Chicago Convention requires an inquiry in specified cases, including where an accident involves death or serious injury or indicates a serious technical defect. The UAE, as the state of registry of the concerned aircraft, may appoint observers and participate through an accredited representative under Annex 13, to which Saudi Arabia must communicate the report and findings.

Criminal jurisdiction

The Flydubai incident also illustrates the importance of distinguishing between the classification of an incident and the determination of responsibility. Safety investigation and criminal jurisdiction are separate questions. Under Annex 13 to the Chicago Convention, an occurrence involving an aircraft may qualify as an accident where the applicable criteria are satisfied, including specified consequences involving injury, death or aircraft damage. An injury deliberately inflicted by another person is excluded from the relevant definition of accident. Consequently, an assault alone does not automatically determine the classification of the event; the wider circumstances, including any aircraft damage and resulting safety consequences, must be assessed.

Questions of jurisdiction must similarly be addressed based on the applicable legal framework and established facts. The fact that the aircraft landed in Tabuk does not, by itself, establish that Saudi Arabia is the only state with relevant investigative responsibilities. The location and circumstances of the occurrence, together with any applicable arrangements between the involved states, must be considered before drawing conclusions regarding investigative competence or delegation.

Of course, the incident may also trigger the broader international framework that governs criminal offences committed on board aircraft and other unlawful acts against civil aviation. Contrary to Annex 13, whose sole objective is the prevention of future accidents, these legal instruments also raise questions of jurisdiction and criminal liability.

The 1963 Tokyo Convention^[7] addresses, among other things, offences and certain other acts committed on board aircraft, including the powers of the aircraft commander in responding to such conduct. It designates the state of registration of the aircraft as being competent to exercise its jurisdiction over offences and acts committed onboard.^[8] It was later completed by the Montreal Protocol of 2014,^[9] expanding the jurisdictional gateways for states party to it by recognising, under certain conditions, the competence of the state of the aircraft’s last point of take-off or next intended landing, if the aircraft lands there with the alleged offender aboard, and the state of the operator (in case of dry leasing) to exercise jurisdiction over offences and acts onboard.^[10]

The Montreal Convention of 1971^[11] criminalises acts of violence and other conduct that may endanger an aircraft in flight, including sabotage. It was supplemented by the 2010 Beijing Convention,^[12] adding certain offences, such as using an aircraft as a weapon, organising an offence or the use of nuclear or biochemical materials on or against an aircraft, and prevails over the Montreal Convention between states party to it.^[13] The Montreal Convention grants jurisdiction for the state where the offence took place, as well as the state of registration, place of landing or operator (dry lease).^[14] For certain offences, it also requires a state where the alleged offender is present to establish jurisdiction if it does not extradite them to a state with one of those jurisdictional gateways. The Beijing Convention applies the same gateways but adds the nationality of the offender the list, as well as optionally the nationality of the victim.^[15]

In addition, the 1970 Hague Convention^[16] is also relevant. It defines unlawful seizure as unlawfully and intentionally taking control of an aircraft in flight, or trying to do so, by force, threat of force, or intimidation. It also covers complicity in such an act.^[17] In case of a forced landing, the aircraft is still treated as in flight until the authorities take over the aircraft and the persons and property on board.^[18] The Convention’s establishes jurisdiction for the state of the aircraft registration, the place of landing with the alleged offender aboard and the state of the operator (dry lease). It also requires a state where the alleged offender is present to prosecute if it does not extradite the person to a state with one of those jurisdictional links.^[19] The instrument is supplemented by the Beijing Protocol,^[20] that also grants criminal jurisdiction for the state where the offence occurred, of the nationality of the offender or, facultatively, when the offence is committed against a national of that state.^[21]

Of course, the application of these conventions will depend on the concrete facts of the events, which states have the jurisdiction to investigate or prosecute, and the international agreements that apply to those states.

Applied to the Flydubai incident, it appears that the alleged violences of the first officer and his attempts to take control or to crash the aircraft could trigger the application of the Tokyo, Montréal, Beijing and The Hague regimes, at least depending on the exact conduct and intent of the perpetrator established by the investigation.

The UAE thus has jurisdiction as the state of registration of the aircraft, as does Saudi Arabia as the state where the aircraft landed with the perpetrator on board based on the Hague Convention, as amended by the Beijing Protocol. The Beijing Protocol also grants Oman jurisdiction as the alleged perpetrator was of Omani nationality.

In addition, the Beijing Convention designates Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Oman as having jurisdiction, on the grounds of the place of the forced landing, the registration of the aircraft and the nationality of the alleged perpetrator respectively.

Despite most passengers being of Israeli nationality, Israel may not, however, use the Beijing Protocol or the Beijing Convention as a jurisdictional gateway since it is not a party to either legal instrument. Nevertheless, it may of course still rely on its domestic law or another applicable treaty.

Lastly, the UAE may also establish jurisdiction through the Tokyo Convention, amended by the Montréal Protocol. Saudi Arabia may, however, not rely on the place of landing-gateway included in the Protocol as it is not party to it.

Civil jurisdiction

Passenger claims for damages are separate from criminal proceedings and are governed by a distinct liability and forum regime. While the Flydubai incident didn’t cause any fatalities, several passengers sustained injuries. The Montreal Convention of 1999^[22] provides an extensive liability and compensation regime in case of death or injury to a passenger or damage to their baggage.^[23] The 1999 Montreal Convention determines that damages claim may be brought in the state where the airline is domiciliated, which in Flydubai’s case is the UAE, where the booking contract was made, or at the ticketed destination, which in this case is Israel. For a passenger’s death or injury claim, the state of the passenger’s principal and permanent residence is an additional jurisdiction, albeit only if the passenger’s principal and permanent residence are in the state where the carrier operates or conducts business.^[24]

All in all, these connecting factors create several possible forums for passenger claims, with the jurisdiction depending on the carrier’s places of business through which the contract was made, the destination and, for injury or death claims, the passenger’s principal and permanent residence.

Conclusion

Overall, the Flydubai incident engages distinct but potentially overlapping regimes for safety investigation, criminal jurisdiction and civil claims. The result is a patchwork of states and forums, with the applicable role of each depending on the established facts, treaty participation and domestic law.

---

^[1] S Hradecky, 'Accident: Flydubai B38M near Tabuk on Sep 30th 2026, fight in the cockpit, first officer under investigation for suspected suicide attempt' (Aviation Herald, 30 September 2026) https://avherald.com/h?article=5423fa17 accessed 21 October 2026

^[2] Convention on International Civil Aviation. Signed at Chicago, on 7 December 1944 (‘Chicago Convention 1944’)

^[3] Annex 13 to the Chicago Convention 1944 – Aircraft Accident and Incident Investigation

^[4] Chapter 1 of Annex 13 of the Chicago Convention 1944

^[5] Paragraph 3.1 of Annex 13 of the Chicago Convention 1944

^[6] Flightradar24, ‘Flydubai flight to Tel Aviv diverts to Tabuk amid onboard incident’ www.flightradar24.com/blog/flight-tracking-news/major-incident/flydubai-flight-to-tel-aviv-diverts-to-tabuk-amid-onboard-incident accessed 17 October 2026; Ahmed Yussuf, ‘Inside flydubai cockpit before co-pilot’s alleged “terror” plans were thwarted’ (ABC News, 19 October 2026) www.abc.net.au/news/2026-10-19/inside-flydubai-cockpit-copilot-alleged-terror-plot/107281782 accessed 21 October 2026

^[7] Convention on offences and certain other acts committed on board aircraft. Signed at Tokyo on 14 September 1963 (‘Tokyo Convention 1963’)

^[8] Article 3 of the Tokyo Convention 1963

^[9] Protocol to Amend the Convention on Offences and Certain Other Acts Committed on Board Aircraft, done at Montréal on 4 April 2014 (‘Montreal Protocol 2014’)

^[10] Article V of the Montreal Protocol 2014

^[11] Convention for the suppression of unlawful acts against the safety of civil aviation (with Final Act of the International Conference on Air Law held under the auspices of the International Civil Aviation Organization at Montreal in September 1971). Concluded at Montreal on 23 September 1971 (‘Montreal Convention 1971’)

^[12] Convention on the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Relating to International Civil Aviation, done at Beijing on 10 September 2010 (‘Beijing Convention 2010’)

^[13] Article 24 of the Beijing Convention 2010

^[14] Article 5 of the Beijing Convention 2010

^[15] Article 8 of the Beijing Convention 2010

^[16] Convention for the suppression of unlawful seizure of aircraft. Signed at The Hague on 16 December 1970 (‘The Hague Convention 1970’)

^[17] Article 1 of The Hague Convention 1970

^[18] Article 3 of The Hague Convention 1970

^[19] Article 4 of The Hague Convention 1970

^[20] Protocol supplementary to the Convention for the suppression of unlawful seizure of aircraft, done at Beijing on 10 September 2010 (‘Beijing Protocol 2010’)

^[21] Article 4 of the Beijing Protocol 2010

^[22] Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air (‘Montreal Convention 1999’)

^[23] Chapter III of the Montreal Convention 1999

^[24] Article 33 of the Montreal Convention 1999