Latest News
- Endangered whale entangled in fishing gear spotted again in Gulf of St. Lawrence
- US deports migrants from Afghanistan, Iran and other nations to Central African Republic
- Man accused of shaking newborn son to death after first night out as parents
- Sea lion rescued after becoming trapped by plastic ring on Sakhalin Island
- EU’s new migration pact takes effect, establishing new asylum rules
- Families seek answers one year on from Air India crash that killed 260
- Mother files lawsuit against OpenAI, alleging ChatGPT failed her daughter
- Supreme Court denies Alabama’s request to proceed with nitrogen gas execution
LIVE German 2025 Election Results as they come in and analysi on who will be the next German Chancellor.
Knowledge Hub
Global Reaction to DE Elections
Endangered whale entangled in fishing gear spotted again in Gulf of St. Lawrence
6:00 pm
Get you up to speed: Rare whale entangled in fishing gear spotted again in Gulf of St. Lawrence
A young endangered whale entangled in fishing gear was spotted in the Gulf of St. Lawrence for the second time this week. Authorities are monitoring the situation closely.
Authorities are monitoring the situation closely as the young endangered whale has been spotted in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, with teams ready to assess the entanglement’s severity. Investigations into the incident are ongoing, but officials have yet to determine the specific location of the entanglement or the fishing gear involved.
Officials have expressed concern following the sighting of a young endangered whale entangled in fishing gear for the second time this week in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. The Canadian government is reportedly planning additional measures to tackle fishing gear entanglements to protect marine life.
What remains unclear — It is unknown what measures are being taken to rescue the young endangered whale.
Endangered whale entangled in fishing gear spotted again in Gulf of St. Lawrence
A young endangered whale entangled in fishing gear has been spotted in the Gulf of St. Lawrence for the second time this week.
US deports migrants from Afghanistan, Iran and other nations to Central African Republic
5:00 pm
Get you up to speed: U.S. deports migrants from Afghanistan, Iran, other countries to violence-torn Central African Republic
The Trump administration deported approximately 20 migrants, including an Iranian pro-democracy activist, to the Central African Republic on Friday. This action occurred despite the U.S. government warning against travel to the country due to violence and unrest.
The U.S. government has not made official announcements regarding the recent deportations to the Central African Republic, leaving questions about the processing and treatment of deportees in that nation. The Trump administration’s policy has led to arrangements with multiple countries, including those in Africa and Latin America, to accept deportees who do not hold citizenship there.
The Trump administration has faced criticism following the deportation of around 20 migrants to the Central African Republic, with legal representatives highlighting the lack of connection these individuals have to the country. Concerns persist over the treatment of these deportees, particularly given the Central African Republic’s status as one of the poorest and most unstable nations globally, as the U.S. prepares to monitor the situation further.
What remains unclear — The U.S. government has not disclosed how the Central African Republic will process and treat the deportees.
US deports migrants from Afghanistan, Iran and other nations to Central African Republic
The Trump administration on Friday deported a group of roughly 20 migrants from Afghanistan, Iran and other nations to the Central African Republic, which the U.S. government warns Americans not to visit “for any reason” due to violence and unrest, a U.S. official told WTX US News.
The deportees included an Iranian pro-democracy activist who had fled to the U.S. and received legal protection from an American immigration court, according to her immigration lawyer.
One of the poorest countries in the world, the Central African Republic has been plagued by decades of armed conflict, human rights abuses and political instability. The country is one of several with a “Level 4” travel advisory from the State Department, which urges U.S. citizens not to travel there.
“Do not travel to Central African Republic for any reason. U.S. citizens are at risk due to unrest, crime, kidnapping, health, terrorism, and other” threats, the State Department says in its advisory.
The State Department even instructs Americans in the Central African Republic to draft a will, make “proof of life” protocols with loved ones and leave DNA samples with medical providers in case their families need them for identification purposes.
The U.S. official, who requested anonymity to discuss deportations that have not been officially announced, said migrants from Armenia and Iraq were also among those deported to the Central African Republic on Friday.
AP Photo/Sam Mednick, File 
WTX US News reached out to representatives for the Departments of Homeland Security and State requesting comment on the deportation flight to the Central African Republic. WTX US News also contacted the Central African Republic’s embassy in Washington, D.C.
Emily Trostle, a lawyer representing the Iranian pro-democracy activist, told WTX US News an immigration judge granted her client a “withholding of removal” order — meaning the U.S. cannot send her back to Iran because it is “more likely than not” she would be persecuted there. Trostle declined to name her client.
Trostle confirmed her client had no connection to the Central African Republic and that she was not told where her client would be sent until the day before the deportation flight. She claims DHS ignored requests for her client to talk to a U.S. asylum officer about her fears of being deported.
“Despite being granted withholding of removal, these individuals are being removed from the United States and abandoned in a country where they have no status, no connection and no support network,” Trostle said. “We fear they will ultimately be forced to return to the countries they originally fled.”
Two more Iranian women were transported to Louisiana for deportation to the Central African Republic, but ultimately not put on the plane, according to Ali Rahnama, the interim legal director at the Iranian American Legal Defense Fund. Rahnama says the women were Christian converts and fled Iran due to religious persecution. One of the women claims she was targeted for her political beliefs as well.
While withholding of removal protections shield immigrants from being deported to the places they fled, usually their native countries, they technically still allow the U.S. government to deport them to any other country.
Historically, many of those granted withholding of removal were allowed to stay in the U.S. with work permits. But as part of his aggressive deportation crackdown, President Trump’s administration has targeted those who have received such protections, seeking to deport them to so-called “third countries” where they have no ties.
The deportations to the Central African Republic are the latest front in the Trump administration’s unprecedented efforts to deport thousands of migrants to third countries.
The administration has persuaded several dozen countries to take in deportees who are not their own citizens, including African countries plagued by armed conflict, civil unrest and political turmoil, like South Sudan and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Eswatini, Equatorial Guinea, Ghana, Rwanda and Uganda have also agreed to accept third-country deportees from the U.S.
Outside of Africa, the Trump administration has convinced some Latin American countries, including Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras, to receive deportees from other nations.
The U.S. has not formally announced the deportations to the Central African Republic, and it’s unclear how that country will process and treat the deportees. Some third countries that have brokered agreements with the U.S. have returned deportees to their homelands, even though some of them said they fled violence or persecution there.
Man accused of shaking newborn son to death after first night out as parents
4:00 pm
Get you up to speed: Man ‘shook newborn son to death after first night out with partner as parents’ | News UK
Tony Bartlett, 39, is on trial at Bristol Crown Court for allegedly murdering his four-week-old son, Atticus Bartlett, by violently shaking him at their family home in Chard, Somerset, on July 16, 2022. Atticus suffered severe brain and spinal injuries and was pronounced dead on July 23, 2022, after being taken to hospital.
The trial of Tony Bartlett is currently underway at Bristol Crown Court, where he denies charges of murder and manslaughter related to the death of his infant son, Atticus Bartlett. An extensive investigation by the Major Crime Investigation Team, lasting over two-and-a-half years, has been conducted leading up to the trial, with Atticus succumbing to his injuries on July 23, 2022.
Tony Bartlett’s trial continues at Bristol Crown Court, where he denies charges of murder and manslaughter in relation to the death of his four-week-old son, Atticus Bartlett. Detective Superintendent Lorett Spierenburg noted the case has prompted significant community distress, emphasising the need for respect towards the grieving family and urging the public to refrain from speculation that could impact legal proceedings.
What remains unclear — The court has not yet determined whether Bartlett’s claims of absolving responsibility for Atticus’s death are credible.
Man accused of shaking newborn son to death after first night out as parents
A postman murdered his four-week-old son by violently shaking him after being asked to watch the newborn for ‘a few moments’ while his partner went to get changed, a court heard.
Tony Bartlett, 39, had nine pints before attacking little Atticus Bartlett at the family home in Chard, Somerset, late on July 16, 2022, jurors were told.
He had not long arrived home with partner Evelyn Ballentyne from their first night out since their son’s birth, Bristol Crown Court heard.
Charles Row KC, prosecuting, said Bartlett ‘was left to look after and feed Atticus for just a few moments while Evelyn went upstairs to change and get ready for bed’.
‘In those few moments, Tony Bartlett violently shook his child so hard that he caused severe internal injuries to Atticus’s brain and he damaged his spinal cord,’ the prosecutor said.
Sign up for all of the latest stories
‘In doing so, he must have squeezed his child so hard that he cracked several ribs.’
Mr Row described how Ms Ballentyne came downstairs to hear her baby’s ‘last gasps’.
‘At that point, Atticus was lifeless, face down and across his father’s knees,’ Mr Row said.
The court heard neighbours and paramedics attended the property, with Atticus taken to hospital by ambulance.
‘The damage to Atticus’ brain was so severe that nothing could be done,’ Mr Row told the jury.
‘He never managed to breathe for himself again and he never regained consciousness.
‘Tragically, he died just before midnight on July 23, 2022.’
Mr Row told the jury that ‘something’ that night had caused Bartlett to become ‘frustrated’ with his young son.
He said the baby was a ‘difficult and messy feeder’ with a tendency to spit out his milk.
That evening, Atticus had been ‘grizzly and crying’ on and off.
Mr Row said: ‘Whatever happened, Tony Bartlett could not and did not tolerate it.
‘It is the Crown’s case that, in that moment, Tony Bartlett shook Atticus so hard that he must have intended to cause him really serious bodily harm.
‘If you shake a four-week-old baby with so much force that you break ribs and destroy his brain, what other intention is there?’
The court heard that on the night of July 16, Ms Ballentyne’s mother and her partner had come to babysit Atticus so his parents could go out.
They arrived at the family home at about 6pm, with Bartlett and Ms Ballentyne then heading to The Cerdic pub for food and drinks.
The couple then attended a comedy night at Chard Guildhall, returning to their home at about 10.45pm.
After Ms Ballentyne’s mother and her partner left, Ms Ballentyne went upstairs to get changed.
‘When Ms Ballentyne came back into the living room, she saw Atticus lying face down on Mr Bartlett’s lap,’ Mr Row said.
‘Mr Bartlett’s eyes were closed. She could tell something was seriously wrong.
‘As she walked in, Atticus made a couple of strange gasping sounds. She immediately shouted “he’s dead”.’
Bartlett, who was working as a postman at the time, allegedly moved Atticus onto his back – with the baby ‘floppy and lifeless’.
Mr Row said it was unclear whether Ms Ballentyne had taken Atticus and tried to revive him with ‘gentle shaking’.
The possibility this could have caused his fatal injuries has been ‘considered carefully by experts and ruled out’, he added.
Paramedics arrived at the family home at 11.29pm, with Atticus taken to Musgrove Park Hospital by ambulance, arriving there at 12.16am.
He was transferred to Bristol Royal Hospital for Children at 5am on July 17.
He died there on July 23.
In police interviews, Bartlett said he had been feeding Atticus when the baby started coughing and choking.
The postman told officers he was rubbing and patting his son before he ‘decided to put him on my knee and shake him a little bit on my knee’.
However, he now says this is not the case and any non-accidental injury must have been caused by Ms Ballentyne, Mr Row told jurors.
‘It is his case that he bears no responsibility for Atticus’ death whatsoever,’ he added.
Bartlett, of Axminster, Devon, denies the two charges against him and the trial continues.
Sea lion rescued after becoming trapped by plastic ring on Sakhalin Island
3:01 pm
Get you up to speed: Sea lion found tangled up and trapped by plastic ring digging deep into its neck | News World
A female Steller’s sea lion, entangled in a plastic ring, was rescued near the port town of Nevelsk on Russia’s Sakhalin Island. The rescue involved the group “Friends of the Ocean,” who used remote anaesthesia to subdue the animal before removing the ring.
Rescue efforts were carried out by the group “Friends of the Ocean,” who employed remote anaesthesia provided by the regional Ministry of Health to subdue the sea lion. Following the successful removal of the plastic ring, the animal’s wound was monitored closely until she regained consciousness.
Environmentalists, notably the rescue group “Friends of the Ocean,” received permission from the regional Ministry of Health to use remote anesthesia for the first time in their operation to save the sea lion. The successful rescue highlights ongoing concerns about increasing pollution from marine debris in Nevelsk, which poses significant risks to the local Steller sea lion population.
What remains unclear — It is unknown whether further measures will be taken to address the increasing pollution from plastic debris in Nevelsk.
Sea lion rescued after becoming trapped by plastic ring on Sakhalin Island
The sea lion was tangled up near Nevelsk on Russia’s Sakhalin Island (Picture: Yuri Smityuk/Cover Images)
A sea lion with a dangerous plastic ring wrapped around its neck has been rescued in a dramatic operation.
The female Steller’s sea lion, a protected species, was spotted tangled up in the plastic loop near the port town of Nevelsk on Russia’s Sakhalin Island.
Photos show the animal resting on a breakwater rock alongside other sea lions as a rescue boat carrying a team of specialists approaches.
Nevelsk in the Sakhalin Region, Russia.(Picture: Yuri Smityuk/Cover Images)
For the first time, environmentalists were allowed to use remote anesthesia to subdue the sea lion, using medication provided by the regional Ministry of Health.
Rescuers subdued the sea lion with anesthesia.(Picture: Yuri Smityuk/Cover Images)
Sign up for all of the latest stories
Rescue group “Friends of the Ocean” approached the breakwater and fired a dart at the animal.
The rescuers then carefully made their way across the rocks before removing the plastic ring, ending the sea lion’s ordeal.
Nevelsk is a popular gathering place for the sea lions. (Picture: Yuri Smityuk/Cover Images)
The ring had cut deeply into the sea lion’s flesh, leaving a severe wound that rescuers feared would worsen if it was not removed.
Rescuers administered a second medication to reverse the anesthesia, and monitored her until she regained consciousness.
The successful rescue took place on a breakwater near Nevelsk, on the southwest coast of Sakhalin Island.
Nevelsk is facing increasing pollution from plastic debris (Picture: Yuri Smityuk/Cover Images)
It’s one of the only places in the world where Steller sea lions gather directly in a town port, with hundreds of the animals often packed together.
But the area has become polluted by marine debris which can pose a serious risk to the animals’ safety.
Comment now
Comments
Add WTX as a Preferred Source on Google
EU’s new migration pact takes effect, establishing new asylum rules
1:00 pm
EU’s new migration pact takes effect, establishing new asylum rules
New migration pact
The European Union‘s Pact on Migration now includes a border procedure that shortens asylum request assessments to 12 weeks for specific applicant categories.
The European Union‘s Pact on Migration now includes a border procedure that shortens asylum request assessments to 12 weeks for specific applicant categories.
Funding Shortfall
Less than €76 million will be contributed by less affected EU member states for migration management against a projected minimum of €600 million, undermining the pact’s efficacy.
Less than €76 million will be contributed by less affected EU member states for migration management against a projected minimum of €600 million, undermining the pact’s efficacy.
Political Critique
“The predicted contributions for this year are ridiculous,” stated Juan Fernando López Aguilar, a Socialist MEP involved in negotiating the solidarity mechanism.
“The predicted contributions for this year are ridiculous,” stated Juan Fernando López Aguilar, a Socialist MEP involved in negotiating the solidarity mechanism.
How EU countries watered down ‘solidarity’ plans to relocate asylum seekers
The European Union‘s new Pact on Migration enters into force on Friday, meaning the bloc finally has a set of clear-cut rules to manage migration that applies to all EU member states – at least, on paper.
The pact includes eight legislative acts, which together are meant to improve member states’ cooperation on migration management, hold frontline states to stricter standards for minimising irregular entries into the EU, and speed up asylum procedures.
The new law introduces a border procedure which shortens the period to assess an asylum request for certain categories of applicants to 12 weeks, with 12 additional weeks to carry out returns for those who are not granted the protection.
It does not change the basic principle that any third national should ask for asylum only to the EU country of first arrival, but envisages a system of “mandatory solidarity” that offers countries three different options to manage migration flows:host a number of asylum seekers in its territory, pay a financial contribution to frontline member states, or help finance personnel, equipment, surveillance systems at the border and other operational costs.
But the so-called “mandatory solidarity” the pact binds EU countries to participate in is not actually mandatory – at least, not in the terms originally foreseen. Instead, EU countries have used a variety of tactics to reduce their commitments to helping frontline states and take in as few migrants as possible.
The outcome is that the 2026 figures fall far below the pact’s minimum annual threshold for member states’ contributions. Fewer than 9,000 asylum seekers will be relocated, even though some 669,000 individuals asked for asylum in the EU last year, with around 800,000 people already in the asylum system. Meanwhile, less affected member states will make only €76 million of financial contributions to support EU countries under migratory pressure.
Juan Fernando López Aguilar, a Socialist MEP who negotiated the solidarity mechanism in the previous parliamentary session, told EU News the predicted contributions for this year are “ridiculous”.
So how did the pact’s minimum threshold fall apart?
Shrunken solidarity
According to the EU’s Asylum and Migration Management Regulation, which makes up the bulk of the pact, each year the Commission should propose a “solidarity pool” that defines the help member states need to offer each other for the following year.
The pool has two main elements: one, a quota of relocations of asylum seekers from countries considered “under migratory pressure”, and two, financial contributions from other member states, including via the financing of “alternative solidarity measures” such as construction and hardware procurement.
The solidarity pool has a minimum contribution threshold of 30,000 relocations and €600 million in financial contributions. The pool assigns a “fair share” to each member state based on population and GDP, and each government can then decide in what form to contribute.
The European Commission‘s mantra has been that “solidarity is mandatory but flexible,” a phrase repeated many times by EU Internal Affairs and Migration Commissioner Magnus Brunner.
For 2026, Spain, Italy, Greece and Cyprus were considered under migratory pressure and therefore meant to benefit from the solidarity. Czechia, Croatia, Austria and Poland were granted a total exemption from their quotas, for being classified as “facing a significant migratory situation.” The remaining 19 countries have to contribute by paying or relocating migrants.
According to MEPs who saw the full proposal for the solidarity pool, which was not made public, the Commission set the minimum number of relocations and size of financial contributions as low as possible to accommodate member states’ low ambitions. Despite this, national governments have found ways to further reduce the number.
During the process that set the contributions for 2026, member states argued that the first round solidarity contributions should be prorated, as the new migration rules will only cover the second half of 2026 rather than a full year. Despite this rule not being explicitly provided for in the law, it was agreed to reduce the size of the solidarity pool.
In a meeting held in Brussels on 8 December 2025, EU Interior Ministers agreed to 21,000 relocations “or other solidarity efforts,” and €420 million in financial contributions, specifying the contributions expected from each member state.
The minimum threshold has come under pressure from other angles too. According to several EU officials, the question of where the threshold should sit and whether there should be one at all is legally fraught, with the Commission and some member states taking different views.
The legal text of the agreement specifies that the solidarity pool “shall be at least” 30,000 relocations and €600 million, but that it should also be set “on the basis of the needs identified by the Commission.”
This phrasing has been interpreted by the Council’s legal service as meaning the minimum threshold could potentially be reduced further – that while the European Commission will maintain the baseline in its proposals and encourage member states to stick to it, it cannot legally oblige the member states to comply.
Reluctant members
Meanwhile, during the negotiations that established the pool, Hungary and Slovakia deliberately decided not to make any contributions, neither in relocations nor in money – a clear violation of the “mandatory solidarity” principle that so far has met with no sanction from the Commission.
The dialogue between Brussels, Bratislava and Budapest is ongoing, and an EU official told EU News that the new Hungarian Prime Minister, Péter Magyar, is more keen to cooperate than his predecessor Viktor Orbán.
But Magyar has also clearly stated his country will not take any asylum seekers from the others, and it does not provide any financial contribution to the pool by the end of 2026, it could face a Commission infringement procedure.
According to people familiar with the matter, the system can still function without Hungary’s and Slovakia’s contributions. But declining to participate in the solidarity pool could set a disruptive political example, encouraging other countries to do the same.
While Hungary and Slovakia refuse to contribute in any way, other governments are simply reluctant to take in migrants. Of the 19 EU countries obliged to contribute, only seven have chosen to accept relocations, and nine are making financial contributions only.
And even where relocations are being accepted and payments made, the real number of people transferred from one country to another and the amounts of money contributed will be even smaller than the figures on paper – thanks to another legal trick.
The Council’s allocation of quotas also includes the fair shares of countries under pressure, which contribute to the total calculation but not to real solidarity on the ground. The Spanish government, for example, has pledged €42 million to the pool, but will in fact pay nothing as Spain is classified as under migratory pressure and will thus be a net beneficiary of this year’s cycle.
Considering only the “real” pledges made by countries effectively obliged to offer solidarity – that is, those deemed not under pressure – the total numbers stand at 8,878 relocations and €76.3 million.
Solidarity in jeopardy
The upshot of this is that solidarity payouts to Spain, Italy, Greece, and Cyprus for the first cycle have been significantly reduced. This is why Spain and Cyprus abstained in last December’s vote to set up the solidarity pool, which was approved by a large majority of EU countries.
“The extraordinary discrepancy between the identified needs and the legal obligations and the final content of the decision does not ensure effective solidarity […] nor does it guarantee compliance with the obligation of all countries to contribute,” reads a Spanish statement included in the meeting minutes.
Madrid considers the help from the other countries “very insufficient” and fears that this year’s cycle could also set a precedent. Various observers agree with that diagnosis.
“Numbers are deliberately at the lower end and have come down in the process,” Lukas Gehrke, director of the Brussels office of the International Organization for Migration, told EU News.
Others think that the focus should be on the mechanism functioning effectively and that the numbers can be assessed over time. Brunner, for one, believes the level of solidarity could be sufficient for the current situation.
“The member states tell us that for the moment it is enough, but of course we don’t know how the situation will evolve,” he told EU News on Thursday.
Swedish MEP Tomas Tobé, who is the Parliament’s rapporteur for the regulation, answered EU News’s question at a press conference by saying the current numbers are an “acceptable beginning” but that “there is room for improvement.”
Even fewer ‘real relocations’ expected
Beyond the general reduction, member states also have another legal tool at their disposal to avoid taking part in real relocations of asylum seekers from other EU countries.
This is the so-called “responsibility offset”, another form of granting solidarity support considered equivalent to physical transfers. Under this system, an EU country can take care of a specific number of “secondary movement” asylum seekers – individuals who are currently in its territory, but who should have asked for asylum in their first EU country of arrival.
This quota would then be deducted from the relocations the given member state has to accept, reducing the actual transfers under the pool’s requirements.
Germany in particular is expected to invoke the offset, having struck bilateral agreements with Greece and Italy. According to another diplomat, the same pattern is being followed by multiple other countries, among them France, as it is easier to put into practice and more convenient for domestic public opinion than accepting new arrivals.
As a result, fewer than 1,000 asylum seekers will be physically transferred in 2026 from one country to another.
“We will see very few flights or buses carrying asylum seekers across Europe,” the diplomat told EU News.
The tens of thousands of annual relocations supposedly mandated by the pool’s “minimum threshold” will have to wait.
Families seek answers one year on from Air India crash that killed 260
12:00 pm
Get you up to speed: A year after Air India crash killed 260: Do we know what happened?
An Air India Boeing 787 Dreamliner, flight AI171, crashed shortly after takeoff from Ahmedabad, India, into a medical college hostel, killing 260 people, including 242 on board and 19 on the ground. Families of the victims gathered at the site on the anniversary of the disaster, still awaiting a final report from Indian authorities, which is expected to provide interim findings soon.
Indian authorities expect to issue an interim report within days, while the final report may be available in three months, pending engine analysis. Investigators are pursuing additional technical data from Boeing and Air India to address the speculation surrounding pilot error linked to the crash.
Indian authorities are anticipated to release an interim report on the Air India crash in the coming days, amid frustration from victims’ families who have been waiting for a conclusive finding. The Federation of Indian Pilots is urging a thorough investigation into technical aspects of the aircraft, while reports indicate that a final report may be issued within three months, pending the completion of engine examinations.
What remains unclear — It is uncertain whether the final report into the Air India crash will support theories of pilot error or deliberate action.
Families seek answers one year on from Air India crash that killed 260
EXPLAINERNews|AviationA year after Air India crash killed 260: Do we know what happened?
Families of victims still await a final report about the Boeing 787 Dreamliner that crashed in Ahmedabad last year.
By Sarah Shamim, Agence France Presse and ReutersPublished On 12 Jun 202612 Jun 2026
Friday marks one year since a deadly Air India Boeing crash, which killed 260 people in a densely populated suburb of the city of Ahmedabad in India’s western state of Gujarat.
Families of those killed gathered at the site on Friday to mark the anniversary of the disaster, but they are still waiting for answers about what caused the plane to come down shortly after takeoff from the nearby airport.
Indian authorities are expected to issue an interim report in the coming days, another source of frustration for the victims’ relatives, who had been hoping for a definitive finding and a final disclosure. Media reports, citing unnamed sources, suggest that Indian investigators will delay issuing a final report into the crash, citing the need to complete an analysis of the plane’s engines.
Under international aviation rules, a final report is due “if possible” within a year of an accident. If an investigation goes on for longer, an interim statement should be issued on each anniversary.
What happened to the Air India plane?
Flight AI171, an Air India Boeing 787 Dreamliner plane which had taken off only moments before, en route to London Gatwick, crashed into a medical college hostel in the residential area of Meghani Nagar, close to the international airport on the edge of India’s western city of Ahmedabad.
According to flight tracking website Flightradar24, the plane’s final signal was received seconds after takeoff at 1:38pm local time (08:08 GMT). It had reached an altitude of 625 feet (190 metres) before crashing back to the ground outside the airport.
The plane had issued a mayday alert to air traffic control just before all communications from the aircraft ceased.
(WTX News)
How many people died in the crash?
Of the 242 people on board, all except one passenger were killed. These included 169 Indian nationals and 52 British nationals. A total of 260 people died, as 19 people on the ground close to the crash site were also killed. Another 67 people near the site were injured.
The sole survivor on board the plane, Vishwash Kumar Ramesh, is a British national whose brother was killed in the crash.
On Thursday, Ramesh’s representative, Sanjiv Patel, told the UK’s Guardian newspaper that Air India had paid £21,500 ($28,800) in compensation to Ramesh to help support his wife and their five-year-old son. It is not clear whether similar payments have been made to other families.
Relatives of the victims are meeting on Friday at a conference organised by lawyers, along with aviation and air safety experts, in Ahmedabad. They are due to hold a candlelight vigil after sunset.
Officials inspect the site of the crash near Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel International Airport in Ahmedabad, Gujarat, western India, on June 13, 2025. Air India flight AI171, bound for London, carrying 242 passengers and crew members, crashed minutes after takeoff in the Meghani Nagar area of Ahmedabad [Rajat Gupta/EPA]
What have preliminary reports shown?
This was the world’s first airliner crash involving a 787 Dreamliner, a Boeing model that has been in service since 2011.
In accordance with international aviation law, India’s Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) published a preliminary report one month after the disaster.
That 15-page document said the fuel supply to the jet’s engines had been cut off moments before the crash, raising questions about possible pilot error.
It also published a conversation between the captain and his copilot about the fuel supply being cut off – two brief sentences that prompted theories of pilot suicide.
The report was met with strong criticism.
It did not state why the fuel switches were turned off – whether it was the fault of a pilot, or a result of a malfunction.
The preliminary report did not make any safety recommendations to Boeing or engine maker GE Aerospace, suggesting no technical issues had been discovered.
The crash also hit Air India at a sensitive stage of its post-privatisation turnaround, which has been slowed by supply-chain snags, an airspace ban imposed by Pakistan on Indian carriers and, more recently, the US-Israeli war on Iran.
What’s the latest on the investigation?
Under international rules, a final report is due “if possible” within a year of an accident, but sometimes investigations take longer. If it cannot be completed, therefore, an interim statement should be issued on each anniversary. With investigations continuing, the AAIB is expected to issue only an interim report at this stage.
The Federation of Indian Pilots union has been pushing for investigators to seek more technical data about the plane from Boeing and Air India to allow for a “rebuttal of the pilot suicide theory being explored by the AAIB”.
“It [an interim report only] will cause more speculation and more misunderstanding,” Charanvir Randhawa, the union’s president, told reporters at a packed news conference in Ahmedabad ahead of the anniversary of the crash.
“We have requested the Indian government and India’s Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) not to come out with any interim report.”
A cockpit recording of dialogue between the two pilots of the Air India 787 before it crashed supported the view that the captain cut the flow of fuel to its engines, according to US officials’ early assessment reported by Reuters last year.
But the AAIB said at the time it was “too early to reach any definite conclusions”.
Investigators conducted engine testing in April and visited France last month as part of their analysis of the engine management unit, a source told Reuters on the condition of anonymity, as the information is not public.
On Thursday, Bloomberg also reported that the final report into the crash can be expected within three months, once studies of the engines, which had been sent to the US for examination, are concluded.
The captain’s father has asked India’s top court to order an independent investigation that examines possible causes other than deliberate pilot action – a cause that has been suspected in some other fatal crashes and was confirmed in the case of Germanwings Flight 9525, which crashed into the French Alps in 2015, killing all 150 people on board.
Local insights
Related Election News
© 2026 WTX News.