Ajit Pawar’s flight narrowly missed crucial safety upgrade deadline
The tragic crash of the chartered aircraft carrying Maharashtra Deputy Chief Minister Ajit Pawar has cast a harsh light on a narrow regulatory gap—one measured not in years, but in just 28 days—that may have had life-or-death consequences.
Preliminary scrutiny of the aircraft’s registration records suggests the 16-year-old Learjet may not have been equipped with India’s satellite-based approach guidance system, GAGAN, because it was registered weeks before a mandate requiring such technology came into force. In aviation terms, the aircraft was legally compliant. In practical terms, it may have been flying with yesterday’s safety tools in today’s demanding conditions.
On Wednesday morning, Pawar, 66, and four others lost their lives when the aircraft crashed near Baramati airport in Pune district. The jet went down nearly 100 metres short of the tabletop runway and burst into flames during what officials say was a second landing attempt in poor visibility. The news sent shockwaves through Maharashtra’s political landscape, leaving the BJP-led coalition stunned and the future of the Nationalist Congress Party, which Pawar led, suddenly uncertain.
His uncle and NCP founder Sharad Pawar urged restraint in the aftermath, describing the crash as an accident and warning against politicising a human tragedy.
Beyond politics, however, aviation experts are asking difficult questions about technology, regulation, and timing.
At major airports, pilots rely on the Instrument Landing System, or ILS—a ground-based technology that creates what is often called an “invisible glide path.” Even in fog or heavy rain, ILS guides aircraft down a steady, predictable descent. But installing and maintaining ILS is costly, and many smaller regional airports, including Baramati, do not have it.
To address this gap, India developed GAGAN (GPS Aided Geo Augmented Navigation), a satellite-based system that offers similar precision guidance without the need for expensive ground infrastructure. It is especially valuable at airports without ILS, helping pilots maintain a stabilised approach when visibility deteriorates.
There is, however, a crucial caveat: the aircraft itself must be fitted with compatible avionics to receive and use GAGAN signals. Without that hardware, the satellite guidance simply does not exist for the crew.
Just 28 days later, a new regulation came into force requiring all newly registered aircraft to be equipped with satellite-based navigation and approach systems like GAGAN. Because the jet beat that deadline, it was exempt. Aviation specialists believe this exemption likely meant the aircraft lacked the advanced guidance that could have helped during the low-visibility approach.
The aircraft, operated by VSR Ventures Pvt Ltd, was around 16 years old—hardly unusual in business aviation, but potentially vulnerable when operating into challenging airfields with limited infrastructure.
Baramati airport is an uncontrolled airfield, meaning it does not have full-time air traffic controllers managing arrivals and departures. Instead, traffic information is shared by instructors and pilots from nearby flying training organisations. In such environments, and without ILS or satellite-based procedures, pilots rely on traditional “step-down” approaches.
Unlike modern continuous descents, step-down approaches require pilots to descend in stages, visually confirming their position at each level. In clear weather, this is routine. In fog or haze, it becomes a high-stakes exercise. Safety experts liken it to walking down a dark staircase—miss one step, and the consequences can be unforgiving.
According to the Civil Aviation Ministry, the aircraft contacted Baramati at 8:18 am after being released by Pune approach, about 30 nautical miles away. The crew was told winds were calm and visibility stood at roughly 3,000 metres.
On final approach, the pilots reported they could not see the runway and initiated a go-around—a standard safety manoeuvre. Moments later, they again struggled with visibility. Then came the chilling final transmission: “Runway in sight.”
At 8:43 am, the aircraft was cleared to land. One minute later, flames were seen near the runway threshold. The wreckage was later found to the left of the runway.
Investigators will determine the exact cause. But for many, the tragedy underscores a painful reality: sometimes, safety is decided not by sweeping policy failures, but by a calendar—and a deadline missed by just a few weeks.