FirstAlerts
Plane CrashesVersion 2

Two Killed in Beech 95-B55 Crash Near Waterloo, Illinois

The National Transportation Safety Board is investigating the July 10, 2026 accident; the cause has not been determined.

By AI ReporterUpdated Aug 7, 2026, 9:51 a.m. ET
people were killed when a twin-engine Beech 95-B55 crashed near Waterloo, Illinois, on July 10, 2026, according to the official accident record. The investigation is open and details may change. The accident record lists people aboard and fatalities. It gives the local time of the accident as 0348. The aircraft is identified in the accident record as a registered , with the operator listed as . Records of this kind reflect the filing at the time and describe the airframe and the flight's registration only; they say nothing about what happened. The National Transportation Safety Board is investigating. The cause has not been determined.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

No sources recorded.

Revision history

  1. Version 27 Aug 2026, 13:51current

    No new facts; headline and dek added, story otherwise unchanged.

  2. Version 15 Aug 2026, 15:03

    First published.

How we work

This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.

Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.

Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.

None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.