When Captain Smit Machchhar appeared at a ceremony in Abu Dhabi on October 27, the scars on his head showed part of what he had survived. But a photograph cannot tell doctors, or the public, everything about his injuries. On November 11, Rambam Health Care Campus in Israel published an explanation from neurosurgeon Professor Rachel Grossman about why the location of the wounds matters.

The hospital’s report is an expert explanation based on images and earlier news coverage. It is not a new examination of Machchhar, not his private medical record and not proof of what surgery he received. The analysis was also discussed in earlier Ynet reporting.

The attack and the injuries already reported

On September 30, Flight FZ1073 was traveling from Dubai to Tel Aviv when the first officer allegedly attacked the captain with a cockpit emergency axe. Machchhar was badly injured but managed to open the cockpit door. Passengers and crew subdued the attacker, and two pilots traveling aboard landed the plane in Tabuk, Saudi Arabia.

Afterward, Machchhar described bleeding, trouble seeing clearly and losing consciousness during the attack. At the October 27 UAE awards ceremony, photographs showed wounds and healing marks on the back of his head. The crew received the First Class Order of Zayed II for their response to the emergency.

Why the back of the head is a delicate area

Professor Grossman explained that a large channel carrying blood away from the brain runs near the middle of the back of the skull. If an injury reaches that area, an operation can be unusually difficult. Moving a broken piece of skull may sometimes damage a blood vessel or cause serious bleeding.

That is why surgeons need to know exactly where an injury lies before deciding how to treat it. Some injuries need wound cleaning and closure. Others may need more extensive work on the skull. The right decision depends on the person’s actual injuries and what the medical team finds.

What cannot be learned from photographs

Grossman cautioned that pictures of scars do not establish the full extent of surgery. Even visible marks from a serious injury do not prove that a particular operation took place. The published explanation does not give readers access to Machchhar’s scans, operative report or treatment plan.

It would also be wrong to claim that the photographs prove a lasting disability or a full recovery. Machchhar spoke about vision problems after the attack, and an injury near the back of the brain can raise questions about eyesight and other functions. Whether those problems will continue for him is not settled by this public expert commentary.

A recovery that is still personal

In his October hospital interview, Machchhar said he hoped to return to flying. The November 11 medical article does not announce that he has been cleared to fly or give a confirmed return date. It also does not replace the findings of his own medical team.

Public interest in a brave pilot should not turn into an excuse to guess about his private health. His own account, official statements, and clearly labeled outside medical commentary all have different roles in the case record.

Why It Matters

Head injuries can be complicated in ways a camera cannot show. This new explanation helps readers understand the medical uncertainty without making an unsupported diagnosis. It also helps protect Machchhar’s privacy while honoring what he and the people aboard the flight endured.

What Happens Next

Only Machchhar and his treating clinicians can confirm his care and recovery milestones. We will add a verified public statement if he chooses to share one. The medical discussion does not change the status of the separate criminal and aviation investigations.