Quick summary
NTSB data released under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act shows that the engine fuel switches on China Eastern Airlines Flight MU5735 were moved to the “cut-off” position while the Boeing 737-800 was cruising at approximately 29,000 feet on March 21, 2022. Engine speeds dropped immediately after. All 132 people on board died when the aircraft entered a near-vertical descent and struck terrain in Guangxi province. The finding adds significant weight to longstanding speculation that the crash was intentional.
China’s Civil Aviation Administration of China (CAAC) has led the investigation since 2022 and has not issued a final report, despite ICAO requirements. No mechanical faults have been identified in the aircraft’s systems.
Four years after 132 people died in the deadliest aviation disaster in China in decades, newly disclosed U.S. safety data has fundamentally reframed what investigators believe happened aboard China Eastern Airlines Flight MU5735.
NTSB analysis of the aircraft’s flight recorder — examined at the agency’s Washington laboratory — shows the fuel switches on both engines were moved to the “cut-off” position at cruise altitude. Engine speeds fell in direct response. The aircraft then entered a catastrophic nosedive from which it never recovered.
Fuel switches of this type are guarded levers on the Boeing 737 flight deck. They are not moved accidentally. Their function is to stop fuel flowing to the engines — a procedure used during engine start-up and shutdown on the ground, not at 29,000 feet over southern China.
The CAAC, which holds primary jurisdiction over the investigation as the state of the operator and registry, has not released a final report. That silence has drawn sustained international criticism. ICAO Annex 13 requires final accident reports within 12 months. This investigation has now been open for more than four years.
What the flight recorder data actually shows
Flight MU5735 departed Kunming bound for Guangzhou on the afternoon of March 21, 2022. The aircraft had been airborne for over an hour and was approaching its destination when tracking data recorded a sudden, violent descent. FlightRadar24 logged the aircraft at approximately 29,100 feet before it dropped to just over 9,000 feet in two minutes and fifteen seconds. The final signal came at 14:22 local time at an altitude of 3,225 feet. The aircraft struck terrain at speeds exceeding 1,126 km/h — close to the speed of sound.
The descent rate exceeded 30,000 feet per minute. The aircraft briefly climbed before the final plunge, a detail consistent with a last-second control input, then hit the ground near vertically. Wreckage recovery operations identified 49,117 pieces across the Guangxi crash site.
Air traffic controllers attempted to contact the crew repeatedly during the descent. No response was received.
In the immediate aftermath, Chinese aviation officials stated the crew held valid licences, were properly rested, and had passed required health checks on the day of the flight. CAAC also stated no faults had been found in the aircraft’s systems — a finding that, combined with the NTSB fuel switch data, narrows the field of explanations considerably.
| Event | Detail | Significance |
|---|---|---|
| Cruise altitude | ~29,100 ft, en route Kunming–Guangzhou | Normal cruise phase; no mechanical alerts reported |
| Fuel switches moved to cut-off | Both engines, ~29,000 ft | Engine speeds dropped immediately; NTSB FOIA data |
| Descent begins | Over 30,000 ft/min rate | Exceeds structural limits of 737-800 airframe |
| Brief climb recorded | Altitude partially recovered mid-descent | Consistent with late control input; cause unclear |
| Final radar contact | 3,225 ft at 14:22 local time | Impact seconds later; no distress call received |
| Ground impact | Speed exceeding 1,126 km/h, near-vertical | All 132 on board killed; 49,117 wreckage pieces recovered |
Flight deals
most people never see
Our AI monitors 150+ airlines for pricing anomalies that traditional search engines miss. Air Traveler Club members save $650 per trip per person on average: see how it works.
Each deal saves 40–80% vs. regular fares:
Why the CAAC’s silence matters more than the NTSB data
The NTSB’s role here is technically advisory. Under ICAO Annex 13, the state of manufacture — in this case the United States, as Boeing built the aircraft — provides technical assistance, but the state of the operator holds investigative authority. CAAC runs this inquiry. The NTSB cannot compel a finding, issue a directive, or publish conclusions. What it can do is release its own data under U.S. law, which is precisely what happened.
The historical parallel is uncomfortable. Germanwings Flight 9525 in March 2015 saw a co-pilot lock the captain out of the cockpit and deliberately fly an Airbus A320 into the French Alps, killing all 150 on board. The aftermath was swift and structural: EASA mandated a two-person cockpit rule across European carriers within weeks, and annual psychological evaluations became standard. The EgyptAir 990 crash in 1999 — where investigators concluded a pilot deliberately dove the aircraft into the Atlantic, killing 217 — produced FAA pilot monitoring rule changes. Both cases required a confirmed finding before systemic reform followed. MU5735 has no confirmed finding yet.
If CAAC issues a final report incorporating the NTSB fuel switch data, the downstream effects are real: ICAO-mandated pilot mental health screening updates under Annex 1, potential expansion of two-person cockpit rules to Chinese carriers, and possible retrofits to fuel switch guards. For travelers, that means longer security processing at Chinese airports and adjustments to boarding procedures — not a reason to avoid flying, but a reason to watch what regulators do next.
For broader context on how Chinese carriers are assessed against international safety benchmarks, ATC’s analysis of Chinese airline safety and what it means for your booking decision covers the regulatory landscape in detail.
What travelers with China Eastern bookings should do now
No regulatory action has been taken against China Eastern Airlines as a result of the NTSB disclosure — but the investigation remains open, and the next development could move quickly.
- Monitor CAAC and ICAO communications directly. The CAAC’s official English-language site at caac.gov.cn/en/ publishes safety directives and investigation updates. This is the authoritative source — not airline marketing materials or social media speculation.
- Check EASA and FAA travel advisories before departure. Neither body has issued a ban or advisory on China Eastern. If that changes, it will appear on official FAA and EASA safety pages before it reaches the news cycle. For current safety information, refer to these official aviation authority websites directly.
- Understand your cancellation and rebooking rights. If a regulatory action does emerge — a fleet grounding, a route suspension — your rights depend on where you booked and which carrier issued the ticket. Tickets booked through a codeshare partner may have different flexibility terms than tickets issued directly by China Eastern. Check your fare conditions now, not after an announcement.
- Do not conflate investigation scrutiny with current operational risk. China Eastern is flying normally. The NTSB data concerns a 2022 event. Tour operator reassurances and airline marketing do not override government intelligence — but neither does media speculation override the absence of a formal finding.
Watch: A CAAC final report incorporating NTSB data, or an ICAO audit directive, is the next significant development. If EASA moves toward a ban on China Eastern before a final report is issued, that would signal a breakdown in international investigative cooperation — and would have immediate consequences for European travelers on China routes.
Questions? Answers.
Is China Eastern Airlines currently safe to fly?
No regulatory body — including the FAA, EASA, or CAAC — has issued a ban, suspension, or advisory against China Eastern Airlines following the NTSB disclosure. The airline passed its most recent CAAC safety audit with no major findings and continues to operate normally. The NTSB data concerns a 2022 crash under active investigation; it does not constitute a finding of systemic fleet or operational risk.
What does “fuel cut-off at 29,000 feet” actually mean?
The Boeing 737’s engine fuel switches are guarded levers that stop fuel flowing to the engines when moved to the cut-off position. This procedure is used during engine start-up and shutdown on the ground. Moving both switches to cut-off at cruise altitude would cause both engines to lose power simultaneously. The NTSB data shows engine speeds dropped immediately after the switches were moved — a sequence that does not occur in mechanical failure scenarios and is consistent with deliberate action.
Why hasn’t China issued a final accident report after four years?
ICAO Annex 13 requires states to publish a final accident report within 12 months. CAAC has not met that deadline for MU5735. The investigation remains officially open. Chinese authorities have previously rejected characterizations of the crash as pilot suicide, and no formal cause has been declared. The absence of a final report is itself a point of international criticism and is one reason the NTSB’s FOIA data release carries significance.
Could this lead to China Eastern being banned in Europe or the U.S.?
Not immediately. EASA and FAA bans require formal findings of systemic safety deficiencies, not open investigations. However, if CAAC fails to issue a credible final report and ICAO initiates an audit directive — a possibility if the investigation remains unresolved into 2027 — European regulatory action becomes more plausible. ATC’s analysis of how EU airline bans actually work explains the threshold regulators apply before taking that step.
