Latest News
-
What were the names of the two pilots that flew the Air India jet which crashed?
In a preliminary report, investigators investigating a fatal Air India crash stated that the aircraft's fuel switches had been briefly flipped into the off position. This caused confusion in the cockpit which focused attention on the Boeing 787 pilots. Here is a short profile of both pilots, based on media reports and the preliminary investigation report: CAPTAIN SUMEET SABHARWAL The 56-year old pilot had a valid airline transport pilot's license until May 14, 2026. He was cleared to fly in the role of pilot-in command on a number of aircraft, including the Boeing 787, 777 and Airbus A310. He has a total of 15,638 flying hours. Of these, 8,596 were spent on a Boeing 7. According to a report in the Times of India, Sabharwal called his family at the airport and assured them that he would call again once he landed in London. He was described as a gentleman by a pilot who briefly spoke with him. FIRST OFFICER CLIVE KUNDER The 32-year old had a commercial license that was issued in 2020, and it was valid until 26 September 2025. He was cleared to fly the Cessna 172, Piper PA-34 Seneca and Airbus A320 as well as Boeing 787 as a co-pilot. His total flying time was 3,403 hrs. One-hundred and twenty eight hours were spent as a copilot on a 787. Indian media, citing his family, reported that Kunder has been a passionate flyer since his school days. In 2012, he began working as a pilot. He joined Air India as a pilot in 2017. Reporting by Abhijith and Adityakalra, editing by Jamie Freed
-
Air India's Boeing Dreamliner crash: Inside the cockpit
The preliminary report on the Air India crash, which killed 260 people in the last month, showed that the fuel cutoff switches for the engines were almost simultaneously switched from run to shutoff. This deprived the engines of fuel. The sequence of events on June 12 is detailed in the preliminary report by Indian investigators, released on Saturday. Air India Dreamliner VTANB landed at Ahmedabad as AI423 at 05:47 GMT. 07:48 GMT - An aircraft was seen departing Bay 34 of the airport. The aircraft asked for taxi clearance which was granted to it by the air traffic control. A minute later, the aircraft taxied backwards and lined up in preparation for takeoff. 08:02 GMT - The aircraft has been transferred from tower to ground control. Take-off clearance has been issued at 08:07 GMT. The aircraft began rolling at 08:07 GMT. Aircraft lifted off at 08:08 GMT. The report stated that "the aircraft air/ground sensor switched to air mode in accordance with liftoff." Aircraft reached maximum airspeed of 180 knots at 08:08 GMT. "Immediately after, the Engine 1 fuel cutoff switch and Engine 2 fuel shutoff switch transitioned one by one from RUN to CUTOFF with a gap of 1 sec." The Engine N1 and N2 started to degrade from their takeoff values when the fuel supply was cut off. In the cockpit recording, one pilot is heard asking another why he cut off. The other pilot replied that he didn't do it The airport's CCTV footage shows Ram Air Turbines (RAT) being deployed immediately after take-off. The aircraft began to lose height before crossing the perimeter wall of the airport. The RAT hydraulic pump started supplying power at 08:08 GMT. Both engines "passed the minimum idle speed". The fuel cutoff switch for Engine 1 has been changed from CUTOFF (stop) to RUN (run). The fuel cutoff switch for Engine 2 also changes from CUTOFF (stop) to RUN at 08:08 PM GMT. When fuel control switches from CUTOFF are changed to RUN during flight, the full authority dual engine controls (FADECs) of each engine automatically manage a relighting and thrust recovery sequence. Engine 1's core speed deceleration halted, reversed, and began to recover. Engine 2 could relight, but it was unable to stop core speed deceleration. Fuel was repeatedly added to the engine to increase core acceleration and recovery. The pilot who sent "MAYDAY Mayday Mayday" at 08:09 GMT. 08:09 GMT - Data recording has stopped. (Reporting by Aditya Kalra; Editing by Jamie Freed) 08:14.44 GMT - Crash Fire tender leaves the airport premises to rescue and fight fires. (Reporting and editing by Jamie Freed; Aditya Klra)
-
What is the fuel switch at the heart of the Air India crash investigation?
Investigators' preliminary report on the Air India crash, which killed 260 people, revealed that the Boeing 787 aircraft's fuel control switches had been briefly turned off seconds after takeoff. This deprived the engines of fuel. Here are some facts about switches, their function in the aircraft, and their movement on an Air India flight. What are fuel switches? These switches regulate the fuel flow to a plane's engine. Pilots use them to shut down or start engines manually on the ground, or to shut down or restart an engine if it fails during flight. Experts in aviation say that a pilot could not accidentally move fuel switches feeding the engines. If moved, however, it would immediately cut off the engine's power. According to John Cox, an aviation safety expert from the United States, there are separate power systems and wirings for the fuel shutoff switches and fuel valves that they control. Where are the fuel switches located? The fuel control switches are located under the thrust levers on a 787. In Air India's example, they were equipped with two GE engine. The switches have a spring loaded mechanism that keeps them in place. The pilot must first lift the switch and then change it from cutoff to run. There are two different modes: 'CUTOFF" and "RUN". What happened on the fatal AIR INDIA flight? According to the flight recording, after takeoff switches for both engines were switched from "RUN" to "CUTOFF", one after the other, with a gap of one sec. The engines started to lose power as a result. On the cockpit voice recording, one pilot is heard asking the other pilot why he has cut off the fuel. The report stated that "the other pilot replied that he had not done so." The flight's first officer and captain did not make any specific remarks. The preliminary report states that the switches were flipped back into 'RUN" seconds later. The report said that both fuel control switches had been found in the "RUN" position on the crash site. The report stated that when fuel control switches from 'CUTOFF to RUN' are changed while an aircraft is flying, the control system of each engine automatically manages the relighting and thrust recovery sequences for ignition and fuel injection. John Nance, an aviation safety expert from the United States, said that "no sane person would turn off those switches in flight," particularly as the plane was just beginning to climb. (Reporting from Abhijith Gaapavaram, New Delhi; Dan Catchpole, Seattle; editing by Jamie Freed).
-
Air India's Boeing Dreamliner crash: Inside the cockpit
The preliminary report on the Air India crash, which killed 260 people in the last month, showed that the fuel cutoff switches for the plane's engine were almost simultaneously switched from run to shutoff. This deprived the engines of fuel. The sequence of events on June 12 is detailed in the preliminary report by Indian investigators, released on Saturday. Air India Dreamliner VTANB landed at Ahmedabad as AI423 at 05:47 GMT. 07:48 GMT - An aircraft was seen departing Bay 34 of the airport. 07:55 GMT - Air traffic control granted the taxi clearance to the aircraft. A minute later, the aircraft took Taxiway R4 from the bay and proceeded on the Runway 23. 08:02 GMT - The aircraft has been transferred from tower to ground control. Take-off clearance has been issued at 08:07 GMT. The aircraft began rolling at 08:07 GMT. Aircraft lifted off at 08:08 GMT. The report stated that "the aircraft air/ground sensor switched to air mode in accordance with liftoff." Aircraft reached maximum airspeed of 180 knots at 08:08 GMT. "Immediately thereafter, Engine 1 and Engine 2 Fuel Cutoff Switches transitioned one by one from RUN to the CUTOFF position with a time interval of 1 sec." The Engine N1 and N2 started to degrade from their takeoff values when the fuel supply was cut off. In the cockpit recording, a pilot is heard asking another why he cut off. The other pilot replied that he didn't do it The airport's CCTV footage shows Ram Air Turbines (RAT) being deployed immediately after take-off. The aircraft began to lose height before crossing the perimeter wall of the airport. The RAT hydraulic pump started supplying power at 08:08 GMT. Both engines "passed the minimum idle speed". The fuel cutoff switch for Engine 1 has been changed from CUTOFF (stop) to RUN (run). The fuel cutoff switch for Engine 2 also changes from CUTOFF (stop) to RUN at 08:08 PM GMT. When fuel control switches from CUTOFF are changed to RUN during flight, the full authority dual engine controls (FADECs) of each engine automatically manage a relighting and thrust recovery sequence. Engine 1's core speed deceleration stopped and reversed. It then started to recover. Engine 2 could relight, but it was unable to stop core speed deceleration. Fuel was repeatedly added to the engine to increase core acceleration and recovery. The pilot who sent "MAYDAY Mayday Mayday" at 08:09 GMT. 08:09 GMT - Data recording has stopped. (Reporting by Aditya Kalra; Editing by Jamie Freed) 08:14.44 GMT - Crash Fire tender leaves the airport premises to rescue and fight fires. (Reporting and editing by Jamie Freed; Aditya Klra)
-
Firefly, a space and defense company, filed its US IPO in 2024. Revenue growth is projected to be at least 20%.
Firefly Aerospace, a space and defense technology firm backed by AE Industrial Partners, disclosed on Friday a 10% increase in revenue for 2024 in its filing to go public in the United States. Firefly reported a revenue of $60,8 million in 2024 compared to $55.2 millions the previous year. Investors are returning to the U.S. IPO Market after months of sluggishness earlier this year, triggered by policy changes and tariff uncertainty under Donald Trump. "There's a window of opportunities' in space-related IPOs", said IPOX CEO Josef Schuster. He added that there is a strong appetite from investors for space-related offerings. This is due to the enthusiasm for the growth prospects in the space sector. When Voyager Technologies, a space firm, and Karman Holdings debuted their listings in the first quarter of this year, they received warm welcomes. Firefly, based in Texas, designs and manufactures small- and medium-lift launch vehicles as well as lunar landers and orbital transfer vehicle. First Moon landing In March, the Blue Ghost spacecraft will join a few private companies in the global race to the moon. Firefly Secured a Value of $2 Billion In a funding round in November 2024. It plans to list on Nasdaq with the symbol "FLY". Goldman Sachs is the lead underwriter for this offering. JPMorgan, Jefferies, and Wells Fargo will also be involved. (Reporting and editing by Pooja Deai in Bengaluru, with Prakhar Srivastava from Bengaluru)
-
The key events of the Air India crash investigation
The preliminary report on the Air India crash, which killed 260 people, revealed that the fuel cutoff switches for the engines were switched from run to off almost simultaneously seconds after takeoff. This deprived the engines of fuel. The timeline below shows the key events of the investigation so far: JUNE 12 Air India Boeing 787 Dreamliner headed for London crashed shortly after takeoff in Ahmedabad, killing all 242 passengers on board except one. JUNE 13 India's Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau launches an investigation in the deadliest aircraft crash of the past decade. The team includes a representative from the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board, a flight traffic controller, and an aviation medicine specialist. Boeing 787 jets are equipped with two GE recorders. One is installed in the front of the jet and the other at the back. Both aircraft have a cockpit data recorder as well as a voice recorder. A black box is recovered on the roof of a nearby building. JUNE 16 The second blackbox unit was recovered from the debris on the crash site. JUNE 24 Indian Air Force aircraft transported the two black boxes separately from Ahmedabad, India to a lab at AAIB in Delhi. The team, led by the AAIB Director General and technical members of AAIB as well as the NTSB, began the data extraction in the evening. JUNE 25 The data from the memory module of the black box unit at the front end of the aircraft was successfully downloaded. In a report from 2014, the NTSB stated that the forward recorder has an independent power supply which provides backup power for the device for approximately 10 minutes in the event of a plane's loss of power. JULY 12 The preliminary report indicated that no action was recommended to Boeing or GE, indicating that a fault with the aircraft or engine is unlikely. The report said that one pilot could be heard asking the other pilot on the cockpit recording why he had cut off the gas. The report stated that "the other pilot replied that he had not done so." The crash report did not specify which flight captain made the remarks and which first officer. Nor did it identify which pilot sent out "Mayday Mayday Mayday" before the crash. The final report should be ready within one year after the accident. Reporting by Abhijith Gaapavaram, New Delhi. Editing by Jamie Freed
-
India discovers engine switch movement during fatal Air India crash; Boeing and GE do not take immediate action
The preliminary report on the Air India crash, which killed 260 people, revealed that three seconds after takeoff, the aircraft's fuel cutoff switches switched from run to off almost simultaneously, depriving the engine of fuel. According to the report published on Saturday by Indian aviation investigators, the Boeing 787 Dreamliner immediately started to lose thrust and sank down. On the cockpit voice recording, one pilot is heard asking the other pilot why he stopped the fuel. The report stated that "the other pilot replied that he had not done so." The crash report did not specify which flight captain made the remarks and which first officer. Nor did it identify which pilot sent out "Mayday Mayday Mayday" before the crash. The preliminary report does not mention how the switch on the flight to London from Ahmedabad, India, could have been flipped. John Cox, an aviation safety expert from the United States, said that a pilot could not accidentally move fuel switches feeding the engines. He said that a pilot would not be able to accidentally move the fuel switches that feed engines. The engines are cut off almost instantly by pressing the switch. Most often, it is used to shut down the engines once an aircraft has reached its gate at the airport or in emergency situations such as a fire. The report did not mention any emergency that would have required an engine cutoff. India's Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau stated that "at this stage of the investigation, there are currently no recommended actions for Boeing 787-8 engine operators or manufacturers and/or GE GEnx-1B engines" Air India, Boeing, and GE Aviation didn't immediately respond to requests for comments. The investigation is being led by the agency under the Indian civil aviation ministry. Reporting by Hritam Mukerjee in Bengaluru and Gursimran Khur in New Delhi. Additional reporting by Allison Lampert and David Shepardson, in Washington, and Rajesh Kumar Singh, in Chicago. Writing and editing by Jamie Freed.
-
US port operators try to reduce the expected high tariffs on Chinese-built cranes
The U.S. Seaport Operators are requesting extra time for the implementation of pending tariffs against towering ship to shore cranes. They expect that President Donald Trump’s administration will follow through with a promise to ban this vital cargo handling equipment. In early this year, the United States Trade Representative proposed tariffs up to 100 percent on these cranes. This was after China sucked up market share to gain commercial and military dominance in the oceans. China, through its state-owned Shanghai Zhenhua Heavy Industries(ZMPC), has now dominated the global market. It has also supplied 80% of ship-to shore cranes to the United States. ZPMC operates more than 200 cranes across two dozen U.S. port locations, including Houston Los Angeles, and New York. Each crane costs between $10 million and $20 million. The Trump administration has made it a priority to stop this trend. In meetings, officials said they would put an end to these purchases. Carl Bentzel is the president of the National Association of Waterfront Employers, which represents terminal operators, and other groups. Bentzel responded, "I have been operating on the assumption that this is the minimum." When asked if he anticipated the tariff rate would be around 100%, Bentzel replied, "I have been operating under that position. This is basically a ban on using Chinese-made cargo equipment." USTR and White House didn't immediately comment. Trump isn't the first U.S. president to pressure ports to purchase cranes at higher prices from manufacturers who have ties with U.S. Allies. These include Konecranes in Finland, Mitsui E&S in Japan, and Liebherr, based out of Switzerland. Joe Biden placed 25% tariffs in 2024 on cranes that connect ship to shore from China after the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the National Security Agency and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency all publicly announced that China had sought to preposition vulnerabilities in American critical infrastructure including port equipment. Officials from the United States also warned that software, modems and other technologies in this equipment could be used to spy on military operations or as kill switches for port operations. Ports and terminal operators continue to buy Chinese cranes despite their lower cost. The inaction of the port operators is based on the desire to save money in the short term. However, they are underestimating the cost in the long run. William Henagan was the director for critical infrastructure in the National Security Council during Biden's tenure. In May, U.S. port operator and ZMPC representatives wrote to USTR to say that security concerns related to cranes were out-of-proportion to the risks. In May, USTR received letters from U.S. port operators and representatives of ZMPC stating that security concerns related to the cranes were out of proportion with the risk. NAWE, an industry organization that represents terminal operators, has been working hard to reduce the impact of new tariffs. They are asking for exemptions on previously ordered cranes, and for a transitional period before the new duties take effect. Bentzel stated, "We have chosen to work together."
Shipping companies pull out of Hong Kong to avoid US-China risks
Some shipping companies move their operations discreetly out of Hong Kong, and remove vessels from its registry. Some shipping companies are making contingency planning to do this.
Six shipping executives have said that these low-profile actions are motivated by a fear that their vessels could be seized by Chinese authorities, or face U.S. sanction in the event of a clash between Beijing and Washington. The people said that the growing U.S. scrutiny over the importance of China’s commercial fleet to a potential military conflict, such as one over Taiwan, and Beijing's emphasis of Hong Kong's role in serving Chinese interests is causing concern in the shipping industry. Last month, the U.S. Trade Representative proposed imposing steep U.S. fees on Chinese shipping firms and other companies that operate Chinese-built ships to counter China's "targeted dominant" in shipbuilding and maritime logistic. Washington warned American companies in September about the growing risks associated with operating in Hong Kong. The U.S. has already imposed sanctions on officials who are involved in a crackdown.
Hong Kong has been the hub of shipowners for over a century, as well as brokers, financiers underwriters, and lawyers who support them. Official data shows that its maritime and port industries accounted for 4,2% of the GDP in 2022.
VesselsValue - a subsidiary company of Veson Nautical, a maritime data group - reports that the city's flag was flown on eight out of ten ships in the world.
Interviews with two dozen people familiar with Hong Kong including shipping executives and lawyers revealed a growing concern about the possibility that commercial maritime operations in Hong Kong could be caught up by forces outside their control if a U.S. - China military conflict occurs.
Many pointed out China's increased focus on national security goals, trade frictions, and Hong Kong's leader's broad powers to take control of shipping if necessary, as he is accountable to Beijing.
One executive who, like many others, was allowed to remain anonymous to discuss this sensitive subject said: "We do not want to be in the position where China is knocking on our door, requesting our ships, while the U.S. targets us from the other side."
Previously, the concerns of shipowners as well as their efforts to limit exposure to Hong Kong were not reported. In recent years the perception of risk has increased, in line with the tightening security environment in the Chinese-ruled area and the tensions between two of the largest economies in the world.
Turning Tide
To comply with safety and environment rules, commercial ships must be registered or flagged with a specific country or jurisdiction.
VesselsValue, an independent research firm, found that despite the influx of Chinese ships on Hong Kong's register, the number oceangoing vessels registered in the city dropped by more than 8% in January, from 2,580 in January 2004. Government data show a similar drop.
In 2023 and 2024 74 ships, mostly dry-bulk carriers, were re-flagged for Singapore and Marshall Islands. These vessels transport commodities like coal, iron ore, and grain. VesselsValue reports that 15 tankers and 7 container ships left Hong Kong's registry to fly these flags.
Hong Kong's ship registry has seen a dramatic decline in the last two years. Official data shows that it grew by 400% over the past 20 years.
Hong Kong's Government responded to questions by saying that it is normal for shipping companies, given the changing geopolitical, trade and economic circumstances, to review their operations. It is also normal for the numbers of ships registered to fluctuate over the short-term.
A spokesperson stated that Hong Kong will "continue to excel" as an international shipping center, highlighting a variety of incentives, such as profits tax breaks and environmental subsidies, for shipowners.
The spokesperson stated that neither the laws governing registry nor the emergency provisions empower Hong Kong's leader in commandeering ships to serve as part of a Chinese merchant navy.
When asked to comment on the concerns of industry players about how emergency powers from colonial times might be used during a conflict between the U.S. and China, the spokesperson declined. The provisions give the leader of the city "any regulation whatsoever", which includes taking control over vessels and property.
China's commerce and defence ministries did not respond to questions regarding the role of the merchant fleet in Beijing’s warfighting plan, the possible involvement of Hong Kong flagged vessels, or the concerns of commercial shipowners.
The U.S. Treasury declined to comment on potential sanctions, concerns of shipping executives, or the role played by Hong Kong-registered ships in a Chinese commercial fleet.
Lawyers and executives agree that ships can be reflagged in a variety of ways, including through the sale, chartering or redeployment on different routes.
Basil Karatzas of Karatzas Marine Advisors & Co in the U.S. said that Singapore was becoming the preferred domicile for businesses with less exposure to Chinese shipping or cargo trade. It offered many efficiencies including its legal system but also a lower risk than Hong Kong.
Singapore's Maritime and Port Authority stated that decisions regarding domiciles and flags were based on business considerations. The Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore said it had not noticed any "significant changes" in the number Hong Kong shipping companies moving operations or reflagging vessels to Singapore.
MERCHANT FLEEET
Executives and lawyers agree that Hong Kong's registry for shipping is highly regarded by the industry because of its high safety and regulatory standards. This allows its ships to easily pass through foreign ports. Many of China's international state-owned vessels now fly Hong Kong's banner.
According to PLA military studies and four security analysts, in a conflict these tankers and bulk carriers would be the backbone of the merchant fleet that supplies China's oil and food needs.
The U.S., on the other hand, has a very small shipbuilding industry. It also has far fewer vessels under its flag. Three analysts say that while China's growing state-owned fleet would be a target of the U.S. during a military conflict, Beijing would need other vessels in order to supply its needs, given its reliance on international shipping lanes and vast needs.
Donald Trump has been keeping a close eye on strategic maritime operations. Trump said in his January inauguration address that he would "take back" control of the Panama Canal from China. Trump did not provide specifics but his remarks focused on two Panama port operated by a Hong Kong conglomerate CK Hutchison Holdings subsidiary. The group did not respond to any questions regarding Trump's remarks, but agreed to sell the majority of the subsidiary's shares to a consortium led by BlackRock this week, giving U.S. interest control over the port. Trump said to Congress that his administration would create a shipbuilding office in the White House, and provide new tax incentives.
In a study conducted by the U.S. Congress in November 2023, it was stated that "cargo vessels typically transport 90% of military equipment required in overseas conflicts". The report noted that Chinese shipyards ordered 1,794 ocean-going large ships in 2022 compared to five in the U.S.
Merchant vessels played a crucial role in Britain's 1982 long-range operation to retake Argentina's Falkland Islands. Declassified CIA files show that UK-flagged ships operated out of Hong Kong, many of which were owned or controlled by Chinese firms, supplied communist Hanoi in the Vietnam War.
In 2013, President Xi Jinping outlined the need for a Chinese merchant fleet that would help to build China's maritime strength in a Politburo session.
In the past decade, Chinese military and government documents and studies have emphasized the dual-use value of China’s merchant ships.
According to state media, regulations enacted in 2014 required Chinese builders to build five types of commercial ships, including tankers and container ships, to be able to serve military requirements.
Since then, COSCO has seen a significant increase in its line.
Documents from COSCO show that China places political commissars, officers who make sure Communist Party goals are served, on nominally civil ships.
The U.S. banned COSCO subsidiaries in January for what they said were links with the Chinese military.
COSCO has not responded to any questions regarding its deployment of commissars, U.S. restrictions, or what role COSCO's ships -- including those with Hong Kong flags -- might play in wartime.
'REALLY DE-RISKED'
Hong Kong is still an important shipowners' base, despite geopolitical issues. Some shipowners are quietly hedging.
Taylor Maritime (London-listed) a company that was founded in Hong Kong, in 2014, has a much smaller presence in Hong Kong now after several strategic moves in the last few years.
It has been flagging its ships in Singapore and the Marshall Islands since 2021. The company has offices in London, Guernsey and Singapore.
A person with knowledge of the matter said that the firm "really reduced the risk of Hong Kong". This was due to investors' fears of a Chinese invasion in Taiwan and the Communist Party taking control of Hong Kong.
Taylor Maritime's spokesperson stated that the company initially moved its Asia-based teams from Hong Kong to Singapore to be closer to their clients.
Taylor Maritime, after acquiring Grindrod, a shipping company with an Asia office in Singapore and expanding its operations there, relocated certain functions from Hong Kong to Singapore, where it became the primary Asia hub.
Two people with knowledge of the situation said that Pacific Basin Shipping, a Hong Kong listed company, has always flagged its 110 bulk carrier fleet in Hong Kong. However, it is now preparing contingency plans for them to be registered elsewhere while it assesses possible risks.
Pacific Basin's spokesperson stated that the company constantly evaluated geopolitical risk but its fleet still flew the Hong Kong flag "which, at least for the moment, outweighs the challenges".
The spokesperson stated that "Being located in Hong Kong places us near China's 40% share of the global dry bulk export/import activity as well as close to Asia's strong industrial and economic growth regions."
Angad Banga said that shipping firms adjust contingency plans based upon risk assessments, but he has not heard of concerns regarding the commandeering vessels.
Banga said that although some organizations may be re-evaluating their operational strategies, they do not see a widespread exodus from Hong Kong or a loss of confidence. The city, he added, remained attractive to maritime commerce.
Some industry figures have described a general unease in Hong Kong, which has affected their planning.
Three lawyers have said that, until recently, contracts for the increasing number of ships constructed in China that are financed by Chinese banks stipulated that the ship must fly the Hong Kong Flag.
Lawyers said that in the past two years some companies have added a disclaimer to their contracts, stating that they are willing to consider other flags as an alternative. Could not independently verify these changes. Beijing officials have stressed that Hong Kong is important in achieving national security goals. They also referred to China's modernisation of its military and refusal to abandon the use of force against Taiwan.
Three executives and lawyers said that the sweeping security laws, which were first implemented in Hong Kong in July 2021 and then strengthened in March 2020, have increased dangers.
Lawyers said that any attempt by Hong Kong’s leader to commandeer ships in an emergency could prove difficult, since locally registered vessels often travel routes far away from Hong Kong. They said that such powers, which have been in place for a long time, now needed to be seen through the lens of national security.
One lawyer stated that some shipowners would not object to a request from the government to hand over their vessels. This could be due to patriotism, or because they might profit by a crisis.
Another veteran lawyer said that it is "better to avoid being in a situation where you could be asked".
It was not an issue a few short years ago. The national security map has been redrawn. (Reporting and editing by David Crawshaw; Additional reporting by Andrea Shalal, Idrees, and Idrees in Washington and Beijing, Shanghai, and Hong Kong;
(source: Reuters)