FirstAlerts

Two pilots killed in training plane crash near Kanpur; DGCA begins probe

A twin-engine four-seater aircraft crashed into a field near the Ganga River shortly after takeoff, killing both on board.

By AI ReporterWritten Aug 27, 2026, 8:14 a.m. ET
pilots died when a twin-engine four-seater training aircraft crashed into a field near the banks of the Ganga River near , , on [date]. The aircraft took off from the at around 11:30 am and crashed at , according to keralakaumudi.com. The deceased have been identified as Sachin Bhatia from Gujarat and Abhishek Pujari from Karnataka. The Police Commissioner said the instructor pilot had around 3,000 hours of flying experience. Authorities said the aircraft was brought to the training centre in 2023. The cause of the crash has not been determined. Police said officials of the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) have been informed and that a detailed investigation will be conducted.

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 Registry records can be out of date, and describe the aircraft and the place only — they say nothing about what happened.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

  1. Version 127 Aug 2026, 12:14current

    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.