Illustration: The Touch & Go
Pilot's personal motives confirmed in Beijing Aurora SA60L crash into CITIC Tower
A light sport aircraft crash into Beijing's CITIC Tower was intentional, driven by the 66-year-old pilot's struggle with insomnia and suicidal thoughts, officials say.
The gist
Chinese authorities state the Beijing light aircraft crash into the capital's tallest building was caused by pilot's personal suicidal intent.
Continuing coverage
All Beijing →On June 26, 2026, at approximately 17:55 local time, a single-engine Aurora SA60L light sport aircraft crashed into the CITIC Tower—Beijing's tallest skyscraper in the Chaoyang district. The incident resulted in the death of the sole occupant, the 66-year-old pilot identified by surname Liu, and injuries to 13 people on the ground, none reported as life-threatening after treatment.
Chinese officials subsequently revealed that the crash was deliberate, attributing it to the pilot's personal reasons. According to statements, Liu had long suffered from insomnia and anxiety. Authorities confirmed that in a diary found after the accident, Liu repeatedly referenced suicide, suggesting a premeditated action leading to the crash.
The Aurora SA60L involved is a two-seat light sport aircraft, a type commonly used for recreational flying. The circumstances of the crash prompted immediate safety concerns across China, resulting in a nationwide ban on all light-aircraft flights. This precautionary measure aims to prevent further similar incidents while investigations continue.
The CITIC Tower, colloquially called China Zun, holds significance as Beijing's tallest building, making it a notable urban landmark. The aircraft struck the high-rise late in the afternoon, with videos shared across social media depicting debris falling near the base of the tower after impact. Emergency responders quickly mobilized to aid those injured and secure the crash site.
Beijing authorities have shared limited information about Liu, highlighting his solitary living situation and the mental health challenges he faced over an extended period. The intersection of mental health and aviation safety has surfaced prominently in official remarks, underscoring complexity in addressing pilot wellness in the sector.
The aftermath has also involved local hospitals treating the thirteen injured people on the ground, who suffered injuries serious enough to require medical attention but were stable post-treatment. The event has sparked widespread discussion on improving mental health support measures for aviators and enforcing robust risk assessments for private and light aircraft operators.
This crash marks a rare but grave incident involving a light sport aircraft in an urban environment. Authorities and safety regulators are reviewing flight permissions and monitoring mechanisms for such aircraft, focusing on prevention strategies that incorporate psychological evaluations and flight authorizations.
The Beijing incident raises critical questions about civil aviation safety regulations in China concerning general aviation pilots. It also highlights the need for enhanced protocols to detect and intervene when pilots exhibit signs of distress or suicidal tendencies.
As investigations proceed, Chinese officials are expected to analyze flight data, pilot history, and regulatory implications in detail. The grounding of light aircraft nationally awaits reassessment based on findings. This case serves as a somber reminder of mental health considerations in aviation, with potential repercussions for policy and training standards globally.
Read more
All Aviation Safety →
China grounds private light fixed-wing aircraft after fatal crash into Beijing skyscraper
The pilot was killed and 13 people were injured after a light sport aircraft hit CITIC Tower in Beijing's central business district.
Guide for Airports on Unleaded Avgas Transition Released Ahead of FAA Final Plan
The June publication of a new Airport Cooperative Research Program guide arrives during a very much unresolved stage of the federal unleaded avgas process. The FAA's comment period on its draft Transition Plan to Unleaded Aviation Gasoline closed earlier this year, and as of this writing, the final plan has not been published, nor has the agency released the public comments it received. "Our priority is releasing the Transition Plan," the FAA said in response to an AVweb status inquiry. "We will do that first and then release the comment summary in late 2026." That leaves airports and aircraft owners preparing for a transition whose direction is established while many of its key governing details remain pending. The National Academies Press published Transitioning to Unleaded Aviation Gasoline, A Guide and Tools in June, along with a companion primer . The documents were developed under ACRP Project 03-73, sponsored by the FAA and administered by the Transportation Research Board. It is important to mention that they do not attempt to replace the FAA transition plan. They instead serve a different purpose of bringing the national effort down to the airport level to address some of the practical issues they will face as the transition moves forward. Federal Policy Meets Airport Operations Most who have any skin in the game when it comes to the upcoming unleaded avgas transition are probably well aware of the history, but a bit of background before we dive in. In 2023, the Environmental Protection Agency issued its finding that lead emissions from aircraft engines operating on leaded fuel endanger public health and welfare. The ACRP primer says leaded aviation gasoline is now the largest current source of airborne lead emissions in the United States, after the phaseout of leaded automotive gasoline and reductions from other sources. "Lead emissions from aircraft are an important and urgent public health issue," the EPA said. "Lead exposure can have harmful effects on cognitive function, including reduced IQ, decreased academic performance, as well as increased risk for additional health concerns. There is no evidence of a threshold below which there are no harmful effects on cognition from lead exposure." Congress has also defined part of the airport problem. The FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024 requires airports that offered leaded avgas in 2022 or earlier to keep it available until Dec. 31, 2030, unless an FAA-authorized unleaded avgas replacement for nearly all piston-engine aircraft and engines is available and meets a standard the agency considers acceptable for safe use, production and distribution. That requirement preserves 100LL access for aircraft that still need it, at least for the moment. It also creates the transitional period that airport operators now have to manage. Some fields have the tankage, staff and fuel volume to add an unleaded avgas option before leaded fuel disappears. Others have a single avgas tank, a small based fleet and little operational room for parallel fuels. The ACRP guide’s starting point is that difficulty. Its recommended process begins with fuel suppliers and FBOs, then moves through local fleet compatibility, demand estimates, infrastructure review, funding options, financial analysis, unleaded avgas selection, implementation, safety procedures, training and continued monitoring. The sequence treats fuel choice as the product of airport-specific information and decisions. The Fuel Snapshot Needs A Date Stamp The report is a June publication, but its fuel-status discussion reflects information available when the guide was being prepared in January 2025. At that point, it identified non-oxygenated mogas, Swift Fuels UL94, GAMI G100UL and Swift Fuels 100R as unleaded avgas options that were commercially available or moving toward commercial availability. UL100E from LyondellBasell and VP Racing Fuels remained in FAA testing. Of course, unleaded avgas availability is not the same as universal usability. Mogas, UL94, G100UL and 100R depend on STCs unless the aircraft's type certificate already allows the fuel. The guide acknowledges this, and also describes the FAA's fleet authorization process, which depends on testing and standards work. For an airport, the relevant unit is not the national fleet, but the aircraft it actually services. A traffic count does not answer how many based airplanes can use UL94, how many still need a particular fuel, how many owners will obtain an STC, or how transient pilots will know which pump is appropriate. Those answers, the guide says, will have to come from aircraft surveys, N-number checks, engine information, STC status and fuel-use estimates. The guide also puts attention on unleaded avgas standards and compatibility. Mogas and UL94 are covered by ASTM standards. G100UL had no ASTM standard at the time covered by the report. Swift 100R had an ASTM standard in development. Those details may affect how airports, fuel providers, insurers and aircraft owners evaluate misfueling risk, product acceptance and infrastructure decisions. The Checklist Is The Work The National Academies material includes five tools for airports as they make the unleaded avgas transition. These include a transition checklist, separate survey forms for individual-aircraft owners and multi-aircraft operators, a fleet inventory spreadsheet and a fuel cost evaluation tool. Together, they are intended to give airports a way to track the process, estimate which aircraft can use available unleaded fuels, evaluate demand and compare the costs of possible transition paths. The guide draws on case studies from seven airports that had begun , or were preparing for, unleaded avgas service while continuing to offer 100LL. It also includes material related to Alaska, where seasonal fuel delivery, storage limits, remote communities and reliance on piston aircraft create a different transition problem from the one faced by many airports in the lower 48. Aircraft owners will face their own set of questions around unleaded avgas that the guide addresses only in part. It discusses fuel approval paths, STC requirements, compatibility, standards, price differences and some cost considerations, mainly as they affect airport planning. It does not settle what pilots will encounter in daily use, including long-term fuel availability, final pricing, warranty and insurance treatment, resale effects, or the fate of aircraft that may be legal to convert but difficult to justify economically. The FAA's draft plan raised many of those issues without closing them, and since the final plan has not yet been released, we still do not have a final, authoritative answer on how these will be addressed. The ACRP guide is strongest where it stays on airport work. It gives operators a way to survey the local fleet, evaluate tankage, train line staff and reduce misfueling risk. Those steps are necessary, although the guide has limited answers for airports with one avgas tank, uncertain transient demand, competing unleaded avgas products, unresolved production capacity or local economics that do not support adding another fuel grade. Its tools can help an airport organize the problem, but they cannot remove the market and regulatory gaps that will determine whether a local plan is workable. The final FAA transition plan will still matter greatly, and so will the comments the agency received and plans to summarize later this year. Production capacity, price, distribution, fuel standards and aircraft eligibility will shape the pace of change. The ACRP publications do not answer every national question, but of course, they do not claim to. Rather, they describe the work that airports can begin while those questions remain open. And that is where the unleaded avgas transition now sits. The policy deadline remains 2030 and the final federal plan is still pending as quite a few very practical questions remain unanswered. Even so, the burden is al
Wreckage of K2 Airways Boeing 737-400 Freighter Found in Arabian Sea After Disappearance
Search teams have recovered wreckage from a K2 Airways Boeing 737 freighter that disappeared over the Arabian Sea while flying from Sharjah in the United Arab Emirates to Karachi, Pakistan. The Pakistan Airports Authority said the wreckage was found 53 nautical miles south of Ormara after a 12-hour search and rescue operation involving the Pakistan Navy and Pakistan Maritime Security Agency. The five crew members on board remained missing. K2 Airways said the aircraft was operating from Sharjah International Airport to Jinnah International Airport when it lost contact with air traffic control at about 21:21 local time on July 7, 2026. The airline identified the aircraft as a Boeing 737-400 freighter, registration AP-BOI. According to the Pakistan Airports Authority, the crew reported a navigation system issue at about 21:18 local time while en route to Karachi. About three minutes later, radar showed the aircraft rapidly descending and making a sharp heading change. Radar and radio contact were then lost approximately 155 nautical miles west of Karachi. The Pakistan Airports Authority activated a rescue coordination center and launched a multi-agency search at sea. K2 Airways said five people were on board: the captain, first officer, load master and two engineers. The airline said it was working with Pakistan's aviation authorities and other government agencies as the search continued. "We continue to pray earnestly for the safety of our colleagues," K2 Airways said in a statement. Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif directed authorities to use all available resources in the search and rescue effort, according to Pakistani government statements. Search crews have recovered debris from the aircraft, but authorities have not announced the recovery of any of the main wreckage or the flight recorders. The water near the suspected crash area is about 3,000 meters deep, and officials have cautioned that floating debris may not mark the exact impact location because currents, wind and waves can move wreckage after a crash. The cause of the crash has not been determined. Flight-tracking data reviewed after the aircraft disappeared showed large altitude changes before the final loss of contact. The aircraft was a 27-year-old Boeing 737-400 converted to freighter duty. The 737-400 is part of Boeing's classic 737 family and is two generations older than the 737 MAX. K2 Airways is a Karachi-based private cargo airline. The aircraft involved in the crash was reported to be the carrier's only aircraft.
Trump Flies Older Air Force One to U.K., Sidelines New VC-25B Bridge Aircraft Temporarily
President Donald Trump's decision to fly from Turkey to the U.K. on Wednesday in an older aircraft designated Air Force One has renewed scrutiny around the VC-25B "Bridge" aircraft—a modified Boeing 747-8 donated last year by the Qatari government—that is intended to replace it. Trump in a post on Truth Social on Wednesday said he would send the Bridge Air Force One, which this month made its first flight with the president on board, to the U.K.'s Mildenhall Air Force Base (EGUN), so that U.S. service members could be among the first to tour it. Trump said that, "for old time's sake," he would fly an older aircraft from Turkey—where he attended a NATO summit this week—to the U.K. Trump described it as a "short trip that is totally worth doing in order to give our Great Military Heroes a chance to appreciate our beautiful new addition to the Air Force Fleet!" In June, two top White House officials shared tributes to the old aircraft that were designated Air Force One, implying they had flown the president for the last time. The U.S. Air Force has said they will remain part of the presidential airlift fleet. The trip to Turkey was the Bridge Air Force One's first international flight, following Trump's flight from Joint Base Andrews in Maryland to Medora, North Dakota, on July 1. The aircraft on Saturday led a flyover of the National Mall in celebration of America's 250th anniversary. The Wall Street Journal earlier this year reported that the jet could be ready for Trump by the summer after the Air Force reportedly skipped some planned modifications to speed its delivery. Scrutiny on Air Force One For close to four decades, two Boeing VC-25A aircraft—a modified version of the 747—have been flying as Air Force One, serving every president since George H.W. Bush. Boeing since 2015 has been developing two VC-25B aircraft as replacements. But the program has been long delayed. Per Reuters , their delivery is not expected until mid-2028, and Boeing has spent more than $5 billion on the project despite its fixed-price contract being valued at $3.9 billion. Trump has not shied away from criticizing Boeing and has cited the delays as the impetus for acquiring the Qatari jet, which he plans to use until the VC-25Bs arrive. The plane was built for the Qatari royal family in 2013 and is larger than previous aircraft designated Air Force One, with a reported value of $400 million. Air Force Secretary Troy Meink in 2025 estimated that modifications to the jet by contractor L3Harris would cost no more than $400 million. However, Democratic lawmakers and some aviation experts believe it could cost more than $1 billion and take years. Some officials and experts have expressed concern that the pace of the retrofit could make the Bridge aircraft less secure than the VC-25As. "No risk was taken in security, safety, or mission communications, but the collective team made trades on some of the less commonly used mission sets that Boeing must deliver to support the next 40 years," the Air Force said in June. The Qatari jet had to be dismantled and reassembled to check its structural integrity, swept for listening devices, and equipped with top-secret communications, cyber defense, and anti-missile systems, as well as in-air refueling capability. Trump has said that unlike the VC-25As, it has SpaceX Starlink-enabled communications. Among the most striking changes is a red, white, and blue livery that stands in stark contrast to the VC-25A's robin egg blue and white color scheme. Inside, news outlets have reported that the jet looks similar to how it did when it served the Qatari prime minister and royal family, which the Air Force acknowledged is due to time constraints. "Nobody's ever seen anything like it," Trump told reporters ahead of his first flight on the jet last week. On Tuesday, members of the U.S. Senate Committee on Appropriations sent a letter to Meink and L3Harris CEO Christopher Kubasik, criticizing the lack of transparency around the "rushed" Bridge retrofit. The members said the White House for more than a year has refused to provide Congress with details about the project's costs and potential national security risks. They said that public reporting indicates up to $1 billion was spent on the modifications prior to July 4. Citing a June interview with Breaking Defense, the lawmakers said L3Harris executive Jason Lambert was told by the White House to complete the modifications by July 4. Members said this prompted the contractor to "scale back" certain upgrades and force 400 employees to work around the clock. They said the project further required a 3D mock-up of the plane's interior and the acquisition of additional 747s for training purposes, adding to costs. The members asked Meink and Kubasik to respond to a set of questions by July 27 and expand on their answers during a joint classified briefing before the full Senate, no later than August 6.
The Daily Touch & Go
The day's best aviation news in your inbox. Free, no spam.