On the night of 3 February 2026, under calm seas and a waning moon just past full, an inflatable boat carrying nearly 40 people approached the Greek island of Chios. Within minutes, 15 people were dead.
What happened in those final seconds before impact is now at the center of sharply conflicting accounts — and mounting evidence suggests the official narrative is far from settled.
Two Versions of the Same Night
The Greek Coast Guard maintains that the inflatable boat, operated by a smuggler, failed to comply with light and sound warnings, abruptly changed course, and collided with the patrol vessel PLS 1077.
The offical statement can be found on the Greek coast guard website
Survivors tell a different story.
Across sworn testimonies given to judicial authorities, survivors consistently describe calm sea conditions, no audible warnings, no siren, no loudspeaker commands, and no visible blue emergency beacon.
Instead, they describe a sudden, blinding white light — followed almost immediately by violent impact.
“Nobody alerted us to anything,” one survivor told investigators. “Suddenly, one big boat just came and crashed into us.”
Multiple survivors testified that the inflatable was moving straight ahead and did not turn. Several stated that had they heard warnings, they would have told the driver to stop. Many were traveling with children.
The Coast Guard captain testified that warnings were issued and that the inflatable made a sharp left turn before striking the patrol boat. A chief petty officer gave a similar account.
The discrepancy is stark.
Forensic Evidence: Not Drowning
Early public communication suggested the victims had drowned after falling into the sea.
Autopsy reports reviewed by independent investigators now show otherwise.
Fourteen of the fifteen victims died from severe cranial and brain injuries. Many had additional thoracic trauma. Only one death listed drowning as the primary cause.
The concentration of head injuries is consistent with severe blunt-force trauma during a high-impact collision.
This shifts the core question.
If the majority did not drown, what delivered the fatal force?
The Damage and the Physical Impossibility Question
An official damage assessment of PLS 1077 documented surface scratches along the starboard side, a crack running nearly the length of the port side, and deformation of interior control components.
A former senior Coast Guard official stated that the claim that a heavily loaded inflatable carrying nearly 40 people could execute a sharp left maneuver at 30 knots and ram a 900-horsepower patrol vessel strains credibility.
Another maritime expert publicly compared it to a bicycle trying to ram a truck.
A currently serving officer described interception tactics that rely on close proximity, wave generation, and sudden positioning designed to force small boats to turn back.
At 30 knots, margin for error approaches zero.
The Missing Boat
The inflatable boat itself — the single most critical piece of physical evidence — has not been recovered.
Although the vessel was reported to have remained semi-submerged for hours after the collision, no immediate recovery was secured.
On 19 February, a formal search was conducted in the presence of judicial authorities and defense counsel. The boat was not found.
Photographs taken after the incident suggest that significant air remained in the tubes. A boat in that condition could remain afloat for extended periods, drifting with wind and currents.
Without drift modeling and expanded search grids, locating such an object days later becomes exponentially difficult.
But the failure to secure it immediately remains one of the most troubling aspects of the case.
If the boat was not recovered when clearly visible, why?
And if it later disappeared, under whose responsibility did that occur?
Cameras, Logs, and Data Gaps
The patrol vessel’s onboard camera was reportedly not recording. The captain testified that no memory card had been provided.
There is no collision entry in the ship’s official log. The captain stated that an injury to his hand prevented him from recording the event.
The patrol vessel does not appear in civilian AIS tracking records.
Requests for radar, GPS, and communication data have not produced public disclosure.
In any maritime collision involving fatalities, contemporaneous logs and recordings are primary evidence.
Their absence leaves a vacuum.
The Arrest and Identification Concerns
A 31-year-old Moroccan passenger was arrested and charged with smuggling and causing the shipwreck. He denies operating the boat.
Survivor testimonies indicate that witnesses were shown a single photograph during identification, rather than a proper lineup procedure involving multiple images.
Several witnesses stated they did not recognize him or were unsure.
Defense attorneys have requested independent examination of the inflatable, communications data, and further technical review.
Survivor Isolation
In the immediate aftermath, survivors reported phone confiscation and restricted communication.
Witnesses were isolated under what officials described as protective measures due to their role in ongoing investigations.
NGO access was reportedly limited.
Political Framing
Within hours of the incident, political leaders publicly framed the event as another example of “murderous traffickers.”
This framing occurred before forensic results were known and before judicial investigations progressed.
Pattern Recognition
The Chios case does not stand in isolation.
Previous maritime incidents in the Aegean, including the 2023 Pylos disaster, have involved allegations of aggressive interception, missing or unavailable footage, prosecution of survivors as alleged smugglers, and prolonged evidentiary gaps.
The Central Questions
Fifteen people are dead.
The core questions remain unresolved:
Were warnings issued?
Did the inflatable turn, or was it struck?
Why were cameras not recording?
Why is there no immediate log entry?
Why was the inflatable not secured?
Where is the physical evidence?
Were interception tactics used instead of rescue measures?
Under international maritime law, the duty to rescue at sea is absolute.
If an interception maneuver created avoidable risk, legal implications extend beyond negligence.
Conclusion
The available evidence does not conclusively determine what happened in the final seconds before impact.
But it does establish one fact clearly:
The official narrative is contested by consistent survivor testimony, supported by forensic findings and expert analysis.
The disappearance of critical evidence and absence of recorded data deepen, rather than resolve, the uncertainty.
In a case involving 15 deaths — including minors — transparency is not optional.
Without independent oversight, full disclosure of communications and tracking data, and recovery of physical evidence, confidence in the investigation will remain fragile.
The truth of what happened off Chios on 3 February 2026 remains incomplete.
Further developments are expected.
