How did a plane breach China’s most protected airspace?

At 5:55 pm on 26 June, at the peak of rush hour in Beijing’s East 3rd Ring Road Central Business District, the glass facade of the 528-metre CITIC Tower — Beijing’s tallest building, also known as China Zun — was bathed in the golden rays of the setting sun. With a deafening roar and a violent crash, a single-engine, two-seater light sport aircraft hit the financial landmark, as the plane wreckage fell and thick smoke billowed at the scene.

This shocking scene quickly spread across social media, only to be erased very quickly. It was not until the following day that the authorities issued a brief statement of just over 100 words, confirming that the accident had caused the death of the pilot on board and left 13 people injured on the ground.

How did it happen?

That a manned light aircraft could brazenly fly into the core urban area in China’s capital — a military and political red zone where even drones are heavily restricted — and crash into the most iconic financial landmark goes far beyond the scope of a standard aviation accident.

The Beijing Municipal Regulations on the Management of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, which kicked in on 1 May this year, stipulates that the entire administrative area of the city is controlled airspace and all outdoor flights must be applied for in advance without exception. This clearly reflects the sensitivity of Beijing’s low-altitude security control, much less the tightness of the air defence network around the East 3rd Ring Road where China Zun is located as the core of the capital’s defence.

Yet, Reuters cited flight data from Flightradar24 which indicated that after taking off from northeast of Beijing, the light aircraft flew in a wide circle before heading towards the core city centre, where its tracking signal was lost shortly after.

Under Beijing’s stringent airspace controls, this incident close to the political heart of the country has raised serious security concerns and elicited a host of sharp questions: when did the air traffic control system detect the anomaly? Is there a coordinated response and interception mechanism between ground air defence and public security systems? If flying from a training airspace into the core urban area takes only tens of minutes, at what point did the Beijing Garrison District’s tight, multidimensional interception network fail?

Authorities’ follow-up action

However, China’s robust governance system has always relied on prior approvals, verifications across several levels, information control and post-incident accountability to manage social instability. Consequently, following the incident, the relevant authorities in Beijing swiftly cordoned off the scene, restricted the dissemination of videos and deleted online discussions.

Nevertheless, in the internet age, vague announcements regarding events which received high public concern tend to create an impression of a cover-up, allowing rumours to circulate through covert channels and spread overseas.

The cause of the incident remains under investigation, and at this stage there is simply no way to determine whether it was an accident caused by factors beyond human control or a carefully orchestrated attack. 

While public opinion should not pre-empt the findings of the investigation, if the authorities continue to withhold the flight communications records and other key details of the inquiry, conspiracy theories will inevitably proliferate, and the public will also be inclined to interpret the incident through the lens of the spate of “revenge against society” attacks seen in recent years.

Social disorder?

These cases have led many observers to link the rise in social violence in China to the economic downturn, rising unemployment, marital and property disputes, mounting pressure on grassroots workers, and deteriorating mental health. 

Social risks have consequently come to be framed largely as a form of “grassroots social disorder” associated with the unemployed and other marginalised groups, with governance efforts centred chiefly on dispute mediation by grassroots neighbourhood grid managers and local police stations.

Yet piloting a light aircraft involves costly flight training, substantial financial resources, extensive regulatory approvals, recognised flight school qualifications, filing of flight plans and proficiency in flying.

If the investigation ultimately establishes that the incident involved deliberate intent, Beijing will be confronting far more than a pilot who lost control. It will be facing a far more elusive and potentially disruptive form of social risk, rooted in the prospect of “disorder among highly skilled, well-resourced individuals”. 

Once the sources of social risk extend to those with access to high-technology systems such as aviation, the reliability and effectiveness of the governance apparatus designed to detect, contain and absorb such risks will inevitably have to be reassessed.

Investigation required

That said, if the crash was indeed the result of a long-planned, suicidal attempt by an individual to fly a light aircraft into a building, it would be reasonable to ask whether the aircraft had been loaded in advance with flammable or explosive materials. 

Judging from videos of the crash circulating online, however, the aircraft did not appear to catch fire before impact, and the damage caused by the collision itself does not appear to have been extensive. This question should be weighed carefully alongside the hypothesis of deliberate intent. In other words, the possibility that the incident was an accident should not be immediately ruled out.

Ultimately, the truth behind this rare incident can only be established through a thorough investigation based on the available evidence. The authorities have already issued an initial statement, and it is reasonable to expect that more facts will emerge as the investigation progresses. 

Until then, however, online speculation and premature judgements are inevitable. The sooner the authorities provide a full and transparent account of what happened, the more effectively they can dispel rumours and allay public doubt.

This article was first published in Lianhe Zaobao as “一架小飞机撞出的风险”.

Related: Chinese public questions transparency over delays in deadly accident reports | [Big read] A ‘cyst’ in society: The mental health crisis behind random attacks in China