Air India flight to London aborts take-off due to technical issue weeks after fatal crash
Flight AI2017, which was scheduled to depart Delhi for London on Thursday (31 July) was brought to a halt after the cockpit crew decided to 'discontinue the take-off run'.
Passengers on board the Boeing 787-9 Dreamliner were asked to disembark as precautionary checks were carried out. Air India later deployed an alternative aircraft to complete the journey to London.
An Air India spokesperson said: 'Flight AI2017, operating from Delhi to London on 31 July, returned to the bay due to a suspected technical issue.
'The cockpit crew decided to discontinue the takeoff run following standard operating procedures and brought the aircraft back for precautionary checks.
'An alternative aircraft was deployed to fly the passengers to London.'
The incident comes just weeks after an Air India flight bound for London Gatwick struck a medical college hostel in Ahmedabad minutes after take-off, killing 241 people.
Indian aviation officials confirmed the pilot issued multiple distress calls before the Gatwick -bound flight crashed in Gujarat state on 12 June, killing 241 people on board and at least 29 more on the ground.
'Thrust not achieved... falling... Mayday! Mayday! Mayday!' the pilot is reported to have said moments before the aircraft lost height and erupted in flames.
There were 230 passengers and 12 crew members on board, including 169 Indian nationals, 53 Britons, seven Portuguese citizens and one Canadian, according to Air India.
Alongside the formal investigation, the Indian government has set up a high-level committee to examine the causes leading to the crash.
The committee will focus on formulating procedures to prevent and handle aircraft emergencies in the future, the Ministry of Civil Aviation said.
Air India and the government are looking at several aspects of the crash, including issues linked to its engine thrust, flaps, and why the landing gear remained open as the plane took off and then came down.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Times change, so do people. So why does the British Museum still think it's ok to display human remains?
I went to the British Museum with my youngest adult daughter and her partner recently – and we were all shocked. I'd been to the institution many times when I lived in London until two decades ago, and let's just say there had never been any shortage of imperial plunder to shock and anger me. But the notable thing about our shared reactions when visiting on a recent late spring day was that the collection that so disconcerted us had not greatly bothered me on my last visit in 2003. Times change. So, too, do people. Human sensitivities evolve with age and self-education and understanding. Unlike some institutions, however, which seem to remain largely intransigent. What shook us all on the recent visit were the collections relating to (in the BM's own words) 'Egyptian death and the afterlife: mummies''. Yep, the mummies. Dead people shrouded in cloth, some in open sarcophagi. The skulls, mandible, ribs and other body parts belonging to ancient people of the Nile valley were also on display. The mummy rooms, as they are known, were certainly popular. Perhaps the busiest rooms we visited, to judge from the hordes of mums, dads, kids and schoolchildren scrambling to get up close and personal to the glass cabinets for a better look – and photograph each other with – were those that contained the dead. 'Mum – get a picture of my head right next to his.'' The British Museum is among many institutions globally that still display human remains, although advances in museological ethics and approaches to how collections of the dead are curated (not to mention repatriation policies) mean the number is dwindling. It is clearly cognisant of the now rapid evolution in attitudes on institutional holdings and display of the dead as evidenced by its website which stresses 'the Museum ensures that the human remains held in its care are always treated and displayed with respect and dignity''. The mummy rooms, with all those people struggling for selfies with dead people, did not entirely exude respect and dignity. Call me old-fashioned. No wait – call me progressive. Actually, no – just call me a regular human with more than a passing unease at the dead ending up anonymised into collection items and how they might have felt about this when they were alive. I've written extensively about collections of human remains in Australian and overseas institutions, not least at the South Australian Museum where body parts belonging to some 4,600 individuals (most of them Aboriginal people) have at times been stored – though not recently displayed. As a kid my dad would take me to the Melbourne Museum. I remember the mummies on display there. I was ghoulishly fascinated – though not shocked. Today I find displays of dead people shocking – and not at all fascinating – even if museums still advance the purported scientific benefits of holding such specimens. As specious as that argument is (advanced, for example, in the explanatory note about the decay of the teeth on skulls from the Nile valley, on display in the BM mummy rooms) it remains to be seen how it is served by the public display of such body parts. Like the SA Museum, which no longer displays remains and has gone to lengths to repatriate and re-bury the dead from its collections where provenance can be determined, a growing number of institutions globally are choosing to no longer display human remains at all. In the UK, an all-party parliamentary group has proposed that the public display of human remains, including the mummies in the BM, be stopped. The chair of the parliamentary group Bell Ribeiro-Addy made the argument succinctly: 'I would like people to imagine taking the remains of our monarchs to another country and putting them on display. Even if they kept them in their coffins, would we think that was acceptable?'' Good question. Many remains (perhaps thousands) belonging to Australian Indigenous people are still in overseas collecting institutions. Anthropologists from across the globe sought them in the 19th century to advance their perverse racially scientific theories (not least the pseudo-science of phrenology, which fallaciously proposed that racial characteristics, intelligence and personality might be determined by skull shape). Some were the victims of colonial massacres. Others were stolen from morgues and hospitals. Even one of the world's most confronting public collections of human remains, the Mütter Museum at the College of Physicians of Philadelphia, is facing a long-overdue reckoning about the future of its gruesome collection (including at one time the skull of an Australian soldier to which I brought global attention in 2017). Times have changed, even if some globally revered organisations haven't. It's beyond time for public collecting institutions, which claim to operate ethically and respectfully, to remove all human remains, including Egyptian mummies, from public display and, where possible, to repatriate them. It is never OK to have them on public view as objects of entertainment. Paul Daley is a Guardian Australia columnist
The Independent
10 hours ago
- The Independent
Mapped: Worst areas for rat infestations in the UK as over half a million reported
More than half a million rat infestations have been reported across the UK in less than three years, new data has revealed. Drainage specialists have said the problem is only getting worse, with the issue now increasingly starting underground – as they issued a warning over potentially fatal health dangers linked to the rodents. Analysis of Freedom of Information (FOI) responses from UK councils showed the country saw 518,240 reported rat infestations from 2023 to mid-2025. Nearly a quarter of these were found to be in London alone, closely followed by the north west of England and Scotland, which recorded almost 95,000 and 70,000 infestations respectively. Stuart McGinn, drainage expert at Drain Detectives, which produced the research, told The Independent there is no single cause behind the regional differences in rat infestations, but he outlined several key factors that do create the perfect conditions in certain areas. He said: 'Urban density is one of the biggest drivers, as is the case in London, which has a complex underground network of drains and older infrastructure that rats can easily exploit. More people also equals more food waste, bin storage, and ample conditions for rats and rodents to thrive. 'Aside from just populated cities, some regions with higher infestation numbers, like parts of the north west or Scotland, also have large numbers of aging buildings with outdated drainage systems. Once cracks or disused pipes appear, rats only need the smallest access points, and they will then follow the scent of food and warmth straight into homes and the inside of commercial spaces. 'It could also be argued that the regional variations in rat infestations could be down to warmer, wetter weather patterns in certain parts of the UK. Milder seasons mean rats are breeding for longer periods of the year, pushing up numbers. Without proactive maintenance, especially underground, infestations can take hold fast.' The drainage company conducted the analysis using the 195 useable responses from the 251 FOIs it submitted, specifically requesting data on council-owned buildings. The Independent has mapped the research above, showing the regions with the highest and lowest numbers of rat infestations. The West Midlands, with 44,762 infestations, and Wales, with 44,388 infestations, came fourth and fifth in the rankings. Meanwhile, councils across less densely populated regions like the East Midlands and south west England still reported more than 10,000 cases each, suggesting the issue is nationwide rather than just an urban one. The fresh figures come as a supersized rat thought to be the UK's biggest has been captured by pest controllers in a home in the north of England. The giant animal, which measured 22 inches long, was found in the Normanby area of Redcar and Cleveland after a resident called in exterminators. Writing in The Independent, veteran catcher David Parnell admitted that even he was taken aback when he saw images of the rodent, described as 'almost the size of a small cat' by councillors. However, he warned Britons to brace themselves for a worsening vermin problem, saying: 'It's not just a one-off – the rats are getting bigger, bolder and harder to deal with. 'What used to be a couple of callouts a month for rats inside homes has now surged to eight to 10 a week. The vast majority of these infestations trace back to our neglected drainage systems.' Drain Detectives explained that rats often exploit damaged or aging drainage systems to gain access to buildings, especially via unsealed joints, disused pipework, or toilet backflow in properties lacking rat blockers. Once inside, they can nest in cavity walls or lofts, chew through wiring, and contaminate insulation leading to fire hazards and severe hygiene risks, according to the company. Alongside poor sewer management, Mr Parnell also blamed genetics and careless humans for the growing problem. Mr McGinn warned: 'Rats are more than just a nuisance, they're a threat to public health and infrastructure. 'We're seeing growing numbers of infestations entering homes via the drains, a route that's largely hidden from view until it's too late. Rats are incredibly resourceful. They can travel through underground pipes, bypassing typical surface-level pest control measures. Most people don't realise that a cracked drain beneath their home can be an open invitation to a full-blown infestation.' Among the health hazards associated with the rodents is leptospirosis (Weil's Disease) – a potentially fatal bacterial infection, primarily spread through the urine of infected animals, especially rats – and the deadly hantavirus, which can be caught from breathing in rats' contaminated waste particles. Others include salmonella, which is spread via contaminated food, and allergies triggered by rat dander and urine. Mr McGinn said prevention starts below the ground and is urging UK homeowners and property managers to take proactive steps. 'If you're hearing scratching in the walls or noticing unexplained smells, don't ignore it,' he advised.
Telegraph
13 hours ago
- Telegraph
‘I was sunbathing topless when I heard a male voice': The trans row over women-only swimming
Janice Williams was first taken to the Kenwood Ladies' Pond on Hampstead Heath in the 1990s by a group of single mothers from a community project. 'Many were survivors of domestic violence, prostitution, trafficking etc and, for these women particularly, the single-sex status of the pond meant that it was not just a sanctuary, it was the only sanctuary, a place of freedom, healing and community,' says Janice, 69, a former training consultant who lives near the ponds in North London. 'We could picnic on the meadow, remove bra tops and – for the few who had learnt to swim – dip in the water while another mum watched our kids. There were women from all different backgrounds – Muslim, Jewish, Afro-Caribbean – it was pure and beautiful to be immersed in nature.' Today, the sign on the iron gate at the pond – the only natural women-only bathing pond in Europe – still reads: 'Women Only. Men not allowed beyond this point'. And for almost a century, since it opened in 1925, this rule was respected by the large majority of visitors. But recently, another sign appeared which reads: 'Those who identify as women are welcome to swim at the Kenwood Ladies' Bathing Pond.' The Ladies Pond is open to biological women and trans women with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment under the Equality Act 2010. The City of London Corporation is preparing a public consultation on the future admissions policy at the Ladies' Pond.' It seems that The City of London Corporation – the multi-billion-pound local authority that manages the site, and governs the Square Mile – is doubling down on its 2018 decision to update its 'Women Only' policy to include trans women (men who self-identify as women). When that update became public, protests ensued. One grassroots women's group took to wearing fake moustaches and went to the nearby men-only pond to raise awareness of the hypocrisy of the policy (they were thrown out). But in April, when the Supreme Court ruled that 'sex' in the Equality Act 2010 meant biological sex and that even men with a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) could be excluded from women-only services, the protesters hoped their fight was over. They were wrong. The City of London Corporation says it is 'currently reviewing its access policies'. It means that for now at least, it will still allow men who identify as women to swim at the women's pond. Campaign group Sex Matters is planning to make a £50,000 legal claim over the Corporation's failure to comply with the Supreme Court ruling. 'The Corporation has said this is not a single-sex service because it already lets trans women in,' says Maya Forstater, executive director of Sex Matters. 'They're basically saying that although the Supreme Court defined what 'man' and 'woman' means in the Equality Act, the words 'man' and 'woman' mean something completely different on their sign and therefore they don't need to use the Equality Act rules at all – which is extraordinary. 'We suspect that's what all other councils who are saying 'it is complex' are thinking as well. They're all biding their time while sticking 'to the pack' because they don't want to be sued. 'We've heard a lot from women who say they don't swim in the pond any more. They're self-excluding or changing their behaviour, such as going first thing in the morning when they believe fewer 'trans women' go because they feel it's safer. 'There are other women who say they have had bad experiences when trans women are there – one told us of an elderly transsexual asking young girls to do his bikini up for him and whether he could go naked into the female showers.' Forstater, who has campaigned for clarity on sex in law and policy since winning her own discrimination case in 2021, says that the law is clear and that the City of London is breaching the Equality Act 2010. 'We feel we have a clear-cut case,' she says. 'The ponds are already using sex discrimination because a mother can't take her five-year-old son to the Women's Pond yet a man claiming to be a woman is being allowed access. 'The City of London is a public body providing a public service and so we are bringing this as a public law case to show that here is an organisation breaching sex-based rules. It's irrational and we think it puts women at risk of harm. 'The ponds are an iconic space and the only outdoor women-only amenity in the country. But there's also a male pond and a mixed pond so there's no sense that anyone is not allowed to swim and between those three options, everyone is included.' In a statement, a spokesman for the City of London Corporation said: 'In line with other service providers, we are reviewing our access policies, including those at Hampstead Heath's Bathing Ponds. 'In doing so, we must consider the impact of current and potential future arrangements on all visitors, while ensuring we meet our legal duties and provide appropriate access. 'This summer we will engage with our service users and other stakeholders to ensure we understand their needs and can take properly informed decisions. 'In considering the way forward, we have taken, and will continue to take, specialist legal advice. The current arrangements remain in place during the review. 'Our priority is to provide a safe and respectful environment for everyone.' Hairy bodies in bikinis The reaction to the news that biological males are still allowed in the Ladies' Pond is mixed. One woman who asked not to be named says she has felt as though her privacy has been breached since the rules changed. 'I was sunbathing as usual, topless,' she says. 'I suddenly heard this male voice next to me and he said: 'Do you know what time the pond closes?' Even though I consider myself a broad-minded person, it really freaked me out because I heard a male voice. The idea that someone was there when I was not being modest or protected by any clothing felt wrong. Even though I thought I was a liberated person, I realised I'm not.' The whole experience made her 'very uncomfortable' she admits. Coming out of the pond, another woman wearing a linen shirt and carrying a swimming bag over her arms says that she once saw two men using the pond which made her 'despair'. 'At the time I was very distressed because I thought: 'Oh that's the end of women-only spaces then,' she reflects. The guys I saw were very much a provocation. They had big hairy bodies and were wearing bikinis. It was very aggressive, very much an attack. I felt it was sad… I felt angry. 'The beauty of women-only spaces is that you don't have to think about what your body looks like in a costume or whether you want to take your top off when you sunbathe,' she says. 'There's a lovely freedom there and I think it's instantly contaminated, even if you're liberal-minded about the trans issue.' But not all bathers today are concerned. Alba Hernandez, 28, a theatre usher from north-west London is more accepting. 'I feel very safe and I don't think I would feel threatened,' she says. 'If anything happened that would endanger somebody, the pond is a very strong community and it would be stopped very quickly.' Barbara Massey, 76, another regular, holds a similar view. 'There was one person who was a man and became a woman, she was always coming here,' she says. 'But she sat with us up on that bench and everyone accepted her as a woman. As long as they don't feel you up or chat you up. 'But if it's a guy who's sneaking in here, saying: 'I identify as a woman' and he's actually eyeing women up, we wouldn't like that.' Yet other women point out that erasing women-only spaces excludes certain religions. 'It's very important for some people to have space for women-only,' says 75-year-old Daphne Grey. 'Certain religions would not be allowed to swim at all if they had to go mixed, so I think it's important. They've got mixed ponds and men-only ponds, so why not women-only?' Protesters against the recent policy claim that one of the main figures driving the charge to allow trans-identifying men into the ponds is Edward Lord, an elected member of the City of London Corporation since 2001. Lord identifies as non-binary and goes by they/them pronouns. It was Lord who, in 2018, oversaw a consultation by the City of London Corporation about its trans policy, including in relation to women's and men's ponds and changing rooms on Hampstead Heath. Promoted mostly on his Twitter account, Lord launched the consultation, saying: 'It shouldn't be controversial. It shouldn't be a debate. Trans women are women, trans men are men.' Yet when Forstater polled her Twitter followers in 2019 to see how many people said they had been blocked by Lord in the past – and therefore would have been less likely to see the survey he was promoting – it appeared that 83 per cent of the 1,821 blocked were women. However, some women on the online forum Mumnset did see the survey and sensed problems straight away. 'No mention of sex, no mention of impact on any stakeholders, all leading questions, and horrible clear intention to filter,' wrote one. The survey found that 60 per cent of respondents appeared to support the inclusion of trans-identifying men in the ponds. Yet critics argued that it was 'a sham'. Alice Sullivan, professor of sociology at University College London's Social Research Institute and author of a recent independent review assessing how sex and gender identity are recorded in public data, statistics, and research commented at the time. She said the consultation had been handled in an 'oddly discreet way'. Today, her views are even more robust. 'This is a strong contender for the worst questionnaire I have ever seen,' she says. 'Instead of asking users of local services concrete questions about whether males should be allowed into women's spaces, the City of London asked pure gobbledygook questions such as: 'Do you agree or disagree that: 1/ a person may come to feel that their gender is different from that assigned to them at birth. 2/ A person who consistently identifies in a gender which is different to the one they were assigned at birth should be accepted by society in their stated gender identity etc. 'To add insult to injury, there were 39,650 responses, but half of these responses were deemed invalid, with analysis only carried out on the remaining 21,191 cases. The exercise was a sham from start to finish.' However, the trans-inclusive policy was adopted, leading to women's rights campaigners to lead several protests. 'The moment a man was allowed in, [the atmosphere at the women-only pond] changed at a stroke in a short-sighted move designed to bolster the already overinflated ego of Edward Lord,' says Janice Williams. 'I later joined the committee of the Kenwood Ladies Pond Association (KLPA) hoping to explain all this to them but to no avail. They refused to even discuss it. I proposed the AGM motion to return the pond to women-only but a lot of young students appeared to have been drafted in at the last moment to vote against it and the meeting was abandoned in chaos because speakers in favour were refused a hearing. This was pre-Supreme Court clarification.' A spokesman for the City of London Corporation said: 'Edward Lord has had no direct involvement in shaping the City Corporation's response to the Supreme Court decision. Our position is guided solely by our legal obligations under the Equality Act and our interpretation of the Court's judgment.' Supporters of the trans-inclusive policy cite the positive vote to include trans women from members of the KLPA as a reason why Sex Matters should drop any case. But Sex Matters dismiss this. 'You can't vote to discriminate and obviously if you've caused lots of women to self-exclude and then you take a vote amongst those who didn't self-exclude, the answer will be: 'We think it's fine,'' says Forstater. 'But it's not up to them to vote, it's up to the City of London to provide a service that is lawful. 'People still have freedom of association to vote to live their life in a particular way and if there is a group of women who want to swim with trans women then they are free to do that. 'But they need to do that in the mixed pond. What they can't do is vote that a public service that is spending public money and is required to comply with the Equality Act doesn't do that.' Venice Allan is another supporter of Sex Matters' legal action and will be a witness for their case. She has taken part in several protests since 2018 to keep the pond women-only. 'In a women-only pond you're free to be semi-naked in the pool and naked in the shower, but there's a joy and physical peace to being there because there are no men or boys splashing around,' says Allan, 50. 'I have two sons myself and there's nothing wrong with that kind of swimming but to have a peaceful space like this was wonderful.' Venice says she has encountered men claiming to be women swimming in the pond on at least two occasions. 'There were two men who were clearly 'transitioning' because they had little 'moobs' and several years later there was a man with a woman who was on some kind of hormonal treatment. They were sitting there topless just watching the women. 'Some elderly lesbians I was with actually complained to the lifeguard and at the time I was quite timid and felt: 'Was this the right thing to do?' 'But now I feel completely differently. The men who go now, particularly after all the publicity with the Supreme Court judgment, are deliberately violating our boundaries. When one man comes into a space with lots of women the atmosphere completely changes. 'I was absolutely thrilled when Sex Matters said they were going to take this action. There are three ponds where these men could swim – it's literally the most progressive, inclusive and welcoming space in London – and there is no reason on Earth as to why these men can't use the mixed pond. For me it's the perfect court case.'
