VIDEO: Rescuers pull out one survivor from Air India crashed jet in Ahmedabad
According to reports, a 40-year-old Vishwash Kumar Ramesh, a British national, reported to have survived the Air India crash.
He was seated away from his brother, who remains missing.
Ramesh said, 'There was a huge bang just seconds after takeoff. I ran through smoke and fire.'
He is one of the only confirmed survivors so far.
Crumbled air ticket belonging to Vishwash Kumar Ramesh.
Media reports said police found one survivor on flight, another found in the hospital and under treatment
On the other hand, Tata Group, which owns Air India, says it will give 1 crore rupees – the equivalent of around $117,000 – to the families of each person who was killed in the crash.
It will also cover the medical expenses of those injured and provide support for rebuilding the medical hostel that was hit.
"No words can adequately express the grief we feel at this moment," it says in a statement posted on X.
The passenger plane bound for London with more than 242 people on board crashed Thursday in India's northwestern city of Ahmedabad, and there were no known survivors, officials said.
It was not immediately clear why the plane crashed shortly after takeoff. The aircraft was a Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner, a widebody, twin-engine plane. This is the first crash ever of Dreamliner since it went into service in 2009, according to the Aviation Safety Network database.
Air India said there were 169 Indians, 53 Britons, seven Portuguese and one Canadian on the flight bound for London Gatwick Airport. Part of the plane fell on top of a medical college in Ahmedabad, killing at least five medical students and injuring nearly 50, according to a medical association.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Arabian Post
6 days ago
- Arabian Post
Titan sub tragedy: Dubai businessman's death deemed avoidable
Arabian Post Staff -Dubai The tragic death of a Dubai-based businessman aboard the Titan submersible could have been prevented, according to a detailed report. The incident, which occurred during a voyage to the wreck of the Titanic, saw all five passengers on board perish when the submersible suffered a catastrophic implosion in the North Atlantic. Among the victims was Shahzada Dawood, a well-known Pakistani-British businessman with deep ties to the Middle East. The new findings from investigations suggest critical lapses in the safety measures that led to the fateful disaster. The Titan submersible, operated by the OceanGate company, was designed for deep-sea exploration and had made several successful expeditions before its ill-fated journey. On June 18, 2023, the vessel, with five people onboard, embarked on a mission to survey the wreck of the Titanic, located approximately 3,800 metres beneath the surface. However, less than two hours into the descent, the submersible lost communication, prompting immediate search and rescue operations. Tragically, the submersible was confirmed to have imploded, likely due to the immense pressure at that depth. No survivors were found. ADVERTISEMENT In the aftermath of the incident, a comprehensive investigation was launched by the US Coast Guard, with the support of OceanGate and other stakeholders. The report issued highlights several disturbing safety concerns that may have contributed to the loss of life. One of the key findings revealed that the design of the submersible was flawed, especially in terms of its pressure resistance. Titan's hull, made of carbon fibre and titanium, was found to be particularly vulnerable to the crushing pressures encountered at the extreme depths of the ocean. The report also raises alarms over the lack of sufficient safety protocols. Despite previous warnings from experts and engineers about the potential risks of operating the submersible at such depths, OceanGate proceeded without addressing these concerns adequately. Furthermore, it was discovered that the company had a limited track record of using its submersible for commercial passenger voyages to the Titanic wreck, with only a few successful trips before the disaster. This limited experience, paired with a lack of comprehensive safety testing, created a dangerous combination. Family members of those who perished in the incident have demanded accountability from OceanGate. Dawood's family, in particular, expressed deep anguish, questioning whether the submersible was subjected to the rigorous safety checks expected of high-risk deep-sea vehicles. They have since called for more stringent regulations surrounding private submersible expeditions, pointing to the inadequacies in the oversight of such ventures. OceanGate, in its defence, has acknowledged the tragic outcome of the mission, yet maintained that its technology was sound. However, the company's CEO, Stockton Rush, who also perished in the implosion, had been previously warned about the unorthodox approach to safety that the firm followed. Rush reportedly ignored concerns from industry professionals and regulators, focusing instead on meeting the growing demand for expeditions to the Titanic wreck. This pursuit of speed and innovation, while admirable, ultimately cost lives. The findings have sparked wider conversations about the regulation of private deep-sea expeditions. While the ocean exploration industry continues to grow, the Titan tragedy has underscored the need for a more robust framework to ensure the safety of passengers and crew alike. Calls for stricter regulatory oversight, including the requirement of more frequent and detailed safety checks, have gained momentum. There is growing consensus among marine engineers and experts that submersibles should undergo rigorous independent inspections before embarking on any mission.
Al Etihad
6 days ago
- Al Etihad
German city Dresden cleared for WWII bomb defusal
6 Aug 2025 21:53 BERLIN (AFP)Large parts of Dresden's old town were briefly evacuated on Wednesday as experts sought to defuse an unexploded World War II bomb found during clearance work for a collapsed 17,000 people were asked to leave their homes in the eastern German city, authorities affected area included the famous Frauenkirche, a church which was rebuilt brick-for-brick after being destroyed in the war, as well as several bomb was found on Tuesday during clearance work at the site of the Carola Bridge, one of Dresden's main crossings over the Elbe river, which partly collapsed in the middle of the night in September entire structure is due to be demolished by bomb was successfully defused early in the afternoon and the evacuation order was subsequently lifted by 80 years after the war, Germany remains littered with unexploded ordnance, often uncovered during construction than 20,000 people were evacuated from central Cologne in June after three unexploded World War II bombs were found, the biggest such operation in the city since the end of the heart of the city was left deserted, with a hospital, two old people's homes, nine schools and a TV studio evacuated. The bomb found in Dresden was British-made and weighed 250 kilograms, according to city authorities.
Gulf Today
27-07-2025
- Gulf Today
‘Sorry' is one word, why are we so bad at apologising?
Olivia Petter, The Independent Saying 'sorry' is easy. It's just one word, two syllables. You can say it faster than you can sneeze. Meaning it, however, is a lot harder. According to research commissioned by the language-learning platform Babbel, Britons have 15 uses for the word, with just one of them meaning regret. So seemingly sorry are we all the time that we don't even know what it means any more. Here are some of the ways we're using 'sorry' incorrectly: to ask someone to move out of the way. To ask someone to repeat themselves. To show empathy. To express disbelief. To disagree. To mock. And, if we're British, to preface literally any sentence ever. 'In British English, 'sorry' has evolved beyond its original role as an expression of remorse,' explains Noël Wolf, cultural and linguistic expert at Babbel, whose research also found that we use the word 'sorry' an average of nine times a day. 'It now serves as a social lubricant and a flexible tool of communication used in all sorts of everyday interactions.' It also reflects our nationwide desire to avoid conflict by way of old-fashioned, sturdy politeness. We keep calm and carry on, as is the British way. 'In a culture where directness can feel impolite, and personal space, both emotional and physical, is protected, 'sorry' can smooth over moments of friction, no matter how minor,' says Wolf. The problem with such an overuse of the word is that it has become diluted beyond recognition, and now we're unsure how to apologise properly for something that actually warrants remorse. How can any of us truly be sorry if we don't know how to say it? If we're saying it too much, does the word even mean anything any more? And why do so many of us resort to insipid platitudes when apologising? Few sentences are more grating to hear than 'Sorry if I upset you...' These are some of the questions asked by Marjorie Ingall and Susan McCarthy in their book Getting to Sorry: The Art of Apology at Work and at Home, which examines the reasons why we might be wired to apologise badly, in both our professional and our personal lives, and why it's holding us back from having meaningful relationships with others – and with ourselves. A central tenet of their argument relates to the rise of celebrity apologies: public statements made via social media, or representatives, that are designed to enshrine the celebrity's reputation by minimising bad behaviour. Or occasionally denying it altogether. We've seen this play out countless times in the public eye, with everyone from Drew Barrymore and Lena Dunham to Ashton Kutcher and Mila Kunis issuing statements to address allegations against them. Not to mention Britain's endless list of terribly sorry politicians. Often, the apologies are long-winded, PR-executed masterpieces. Occasionally, they're laughably weak and serve as the jumping-off point for an entirely new genre of meme; there are, in fact, several lists compiling the 'worst celebrity apologies'. 'They tend to centre the person apologising rather than the people receiving the apology,' says Ingall. 'Rarely do they say exactly what they're apologising for, making them sound fake and like clear attempts to squirm out of trouble rather than a legitimate attempt to make amends.' The result, Ingall posits, is that they set a precedent for apologising badly; for finding every excuse possible to shift the blame and avoid taking accountability, in a bid to protect our reputation – as if we, too, have a globally recognised public image to consider. 'This is because our brains are designed to protect us, to help us see ourselves as the hero of our own story,' explains Ingall. 'If we didn't think we were decent people, it would be hard to get through the day. This means that when we're faced with the cognitive dissonance of 'I'm a good person but I did a bad thing', we tend to fix that uncomfortable dissonance by telling ourselves what we did wasn't really that awful, that we don't really have to apologise, and that the other person always overreacts.'
