Trainer aircraft ran off Baramati runway during training exercise; both on board reported safe
Reports place the runway excursion at the Baramati airstrip in Pune district on 9 August 2026; the cause has not been determined and the DGCA is to conduct the initial investigation.
More on this incident
Was this report accurate and useful?
Sources
- बारामती एयरफील्ड पर ट्रेनर प्लेन रनवे से उतरा: 2 लोग सवार थे, कोई घायल नहीं; डिप्टी CM सुनेत्रा बोलीं- विमान का पहिया फंस गया थाbhaskar.com
- पुणे के बारामती एयरपोर्ट पर ट्रेनिंग एयरक्राफ्ट क्रैश, 8 महीने में तीसरी घटना से मचा हड़कंप | baramati-airport-training-aircraft-crash-pune-pilot-safedeshbandhu.co.in
- महाराष्ट्र: बारामती एयरपोर्ट पर ट्रेनी एयरक्राफ्ट क्रैश, हादसे में कोई हताहत नहींkhaskhabar.com
- बारामती एयरक्राफ्ट एक्सीडेंट की होगी जांच, DGCA इंडिया की एयर सेफ्टी टीम को मिली हरी झंडीpunjabkesari.in
- बारामती में जिस रनवे पर हुआ था अजित पवार का प्लेन क्रैश, वहीं एक और ट्रेनी एयरक्राफ्ट फिसला, बड़ा हादसा टलाnavbharattimes.indiatimes.com
Revision history
- Version 211 Aug 2026, 00:39current
Added Khaskhabar's differing takeoff phase and ~12 pm time, two occupants reported safe, Ministry of Civil Aviation damage details, 6.39 UTC departure and two rejected take-offs, Bhaskar's account of the DGCA and police posture, and Sunetra Pawar's rejection of crash reports.
- Version 111 Aug 2026, 00:34
First published.
- Version 111 Aug 2026, 00:29current
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.