Training aircraft in Kanpur crash identified as Tecnam P2006T; two pilots killed
The aircraft involved in the August 27 crash near Kanpur has been identified as a Tecnam P2006T, with two pilots dead and an investigation underway.
2 reports on this incident · first at Aug 27, 2026, 5:15 a.m. ET
Earlier reports
Aug 27, 2026, 5:15 a.m. ETFirst report
Two pilots killed in training aircraft crash in Kanpur
Two pilots were killed when a Tecnam training aircraft crashed in a field near Kanpur, India, on August 27, 2026, according to Mangalorean. The crash occurred around 11:50 a.m. local time. The aircraft, operated by Garg Aviation Training Centre, was a four-seater, twin-engine training aircraft with two people on board, both of whom died, the outlet reported.
The pilot, identified as Sachin, was a resident of Gujarat and had logged more than 3,000 flying hours. The co-pilot, Abhishek Pujari, was from Karnataka, according to Mangalorean.
The Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) is investigating. Police and rescue teams cordoned off the crash site and launched an investigation into the circumstances surrounding the accident, Mangalorean reported. The cause of the crash has not been determined.
Was this report accurate and useful?
Reference data
From aircraft and geographic registries, not from the news sources. Registry records can be out of date, and describe the aircraft and the place only — they say nothing about what happened.
- Terrain elevation
- 430 ft
- Nearest aerodrome
- 3.0 miles WNW of Kanpur Civil Airport (Old) (VIKA)
Sources
Revision history
- Version 127 Aug 2026, 11:16current
First published.
- Version 127 Aug 2026, 09:15current
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.