Ajit Pawar Plane Crash: 'No Crew Would Crash A Plane'

'In any aviation emergency, the first rule is aviate -- fly the aircraft.'
'The fact that the commander's voice is not on the recording simply means he was focused entirely on flying. It does not imply anything more than that.'

When a chartered Learjet 45 carrying Maharashtra Deputy Chief Minister Ajit Pawar crashed at Baramati airport in Maharashtra on January 28, 2026, it did not take long for the conspiracy theories to take flight.

Rohit Pawar, Pawar's nephew and Nationalist Congress Party (Sharad Pawar) MLA, alleged hidden fuel tanks to tampered black boxes and manipulated engine logs -- hinting, without quite saying so, at political sabotage.

Pawar's younger son Jay too has demanded a probe into the plane crash.

Prasanna D Zore/Rediff spoke with Captain Sanjay Karve -- former chief pilot and accountable manager with the government of Maharashtra, and a member of both the International Society of Air Safety Investigators and the Flight Safety Foundation -- to separate fact from speculation.

Captain Karve is a veteran aviator with 45 years' experience, a retired Indian Navy officer, specialising in flight safety, operations, resource management, and command roles in sensitive environments and training leadership.

Given the specifications of a Learjet 45, is it technically feasible to install hidden or illegal fuel tanks without affecting the weight and balance of the aircraft -- without the DGCA knowing about it, and without it showing up during a standard pre-flight inspection?

It is really not possible to install an additional fuel tank without a major alteration to the airframe or aircraft structure.

And if at all it were done, it would be easily detectable -- not only during the pre-flight but during DGCA inspections as well, because it changes a great deal about the aircraft's configuration.

So it is simply not feasible. What may have happened, at best, is that some fuel was carried in cans.

'The separate explosion could be because of...'

If fuel was carried in cans, how would you actually refuel an aircraft using them? Say the plane had landed at Baramati and there was a need for refuelling -- how would cans work in practice?

It depends on where the fuelling inlet is positioned. Some aircraft have it under the wing; others have it over the wing. Refuelling from a can is only practicable if you have an over-wing inlet.

But for a fixed-wing jet, no one would take chances with a can inside the aircraft. And irrespective of what filtration system you use, you simply cannot match the quality of filtration that a fuel bowser provides.

If I remember correctly the fuelling inlet is on the underside of the wing on a Learjet. This would require pressure refuelling which is feasible only from a bowser.

The separate explosion (which according to Rohit Pawar's allegations could have happened due to the fuel can that was allegedly aboard the aircraft) could be because of the wing tanks and fuselage tanks exploding separately.

Is carrying fuel in cans a recognised practice? Does the DGCA permit it?

The DGCA does permit refuelling from approved containers -- there are 200 litre fuel-grade tanks available for this purpose. But there are strict checks and balances: The type of container to be used, how long the fuel may be stored, and so on.

One requirement is that the fuel must remain static for at least 8 to 12 hours before it can be used for refuelling, and the fuel occupying the bottom 20 per cent of the container cannot be used at all.

Is it a common practice on charter flights to carry additional fuel in DGCA-approved tanks?

No, because the moment you carry a tank, you are compromising on a passenger. The maximum all-up weight of the aircraft stays fixed. So the choice is yours -- fuel, cargo, or passengers.

That is why, in the summer months, you often read news about airlines leaving baggage behind at Mumbai or at smaller airports. It happens because the permissible max all-up weight reduces as the outside temperature rises and altitude increases.

The operations department must decide: Full fuel and fewer passengers, or a full passenger load with less fuel. It is a trade-off that varies from sector to sector. On long-distance flights, naturally, nobody wants to compromise on fuel.

'No electronic item is entirely failproof or failsafe'

How common is CVR silence due to technical failure, as opposed to manual intervention?
And could a fire fuelled by an alleged extra tank generate heat sufficient to damage a black box -- given the protection threshold is rated at 1,100°C?

I don't think that threshold would have been breached here (after Ajit Pawar's plane crash). According to news reports, the fire tenders arrived at the site reasonably quickly -- so the fire was not burning for an hour or more. I don't think that scenario holds.

Under what conditions could the black box have been damaged or rendered unreadable for investigators?

There are two primary causes -- a high-G impact, or extremely high temperature. But looking at the photographs circulated on social media, the tail cone section appears reasonably intact. The black box is generally positioned in the tail cone, so if that section is intact, the recorder should be perfectly readable.

The aircraft crashed approximately 200 feet from the runway at a speed of roughly 140-150 knots -- that is about 300 kilometres per hour. These boxes are designed to handle precisely that kind of impact and temperature.

The AAIB (Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau) has stated that the CVR is damaged. Should we take that at face value?

I would not like to believe it is damaged. When a manufacturer specifies a temperature limit -- say, 1,600°C -- they would have tested the device to 1,700 or even 1,750°C before publishing that figure. That said, it is an electronic item, and no electronic item is entirely failproof or failsafe.

Even a brand-new television you bring home can develop an internal spike and stop working without any external cause whatsoever. The probability of that happening with critical flight safety equipment is one in a million -- perhaps one in a trillion. But it cannot be ruled out altogether.

But the moment you say something works on power supply or something works on an electrical impulse, there are so many factors which can affect it, that anything can happen at any time.

'On a critical approach, it is more important to land the aircraft'

ATC records show the aircraft missed its first landing, initiated a go-around, and was cleared for a second approach at 8.43 am -- but never gave a readback to that clearance before crashing a minute later.
In aviation protocol, what does a missing readback in the final 60 seconds usually indicate?

Standard procedure is that when ATC issues an instruction, you read it back to confirm you have understood it. But a missing readback in those final seconds could mean any of three things -- a sudden cockpit distraction, a total electrical failure, or the crew already struggling with a loss-of-control situation.

On a critical approach, it is more important to land the aircraft than to do a readback. So by itself, the absence of a readback does not tell you very much.

Reports suggest the co-pilot's voice was heard on the CVR, but not the commander's in the final moments. Does the absence of one pilot's voice suggest anything suspicious about the cockpit environment?

No, because there is no system on a CVR that can selectively record one crew member's voice and not the other's. It records everyone or no one. The pilot in command was most likely too busy flying the aircraft to speak.

In any aviation emergency, the first rule is aviate -- fly the aircraft. The fact that his voice is not on the recording simply means he was focused entirely on flying. It does not imply anything more than that.

''Target fixation' is a very harsh and strong statement'

If a pilot is under severe stress -- as is being alleged in this case -- could that cause 'target fixation', explaining why he attempted a second landing?

Attempting a second landing and using the phrase 'target fixation' is a very harsh and strong statement.

Let me give you a simple example, though not corelated -- when you are trying to park your vehicle in a tight spot and you don't make it on the first attempt, do you abandon that parking spot? No. You pull back and make one more attempt. Nobody calls that target fixation.

Of all the allegations levelled by Rohit Pawar, do any of them have aviation logic to them -- particularly the technical claims about the crash?

He has produced documents that appear genuine -- documents from manufacturers. But producing documents alone cannot lead you to a conclusion.

On the question of engine hours and maintenance logs, neither I nor anyone else without specialist expertise is competent to assess that. The engine manufacturer is the only party with the technology and authority to determine what condition the engine was in. They can figure it out.

Based on the video footage circulating -- showing the aircraft flipping before impact -- does the aerodynamics of the crash look plausible to you?

On a final approach, aircraft speeds are low and the risk of a stall is very real. The aircraft requires a minimum speed to generate sufficient lift to stay airborne, and in a landing configuration you are already on the lower end of that speed range.

So theoretically and aerodynamically, if the bank angle increases beyond a certain point, there is a very real possibility the aircraft stalled and lost control.

Whether the footage itself is genuine is a separate question -- with today's AI, I really would not like to make any commitment on that.

Do you find anything genuinely suspicious about the CVR being damaged?

Honestly, we don't know. The AAIB has confirmed the flight data recorder has been downloaded successfully. The CVR is a separate piece of equipment, and like any electronic device, it can fail without warning.

What I would urge is that we allow the investigation authorities to do their job. Premature assumptions cloud everyone's mind -- including the families who have lost people, and also the reputation of the crew.

No self-respecting crew would like to kill himself by crashing an aeroplane.