Ajit Pawar plane crash: Preliminary report says Learjet 45 attempted to land in lower-than-prescribed visibility at Baramati

Preliminary reports, which are usually expected within a month of an aircraft accident, are limited to laying down the facts about the aircraft and crew, establishing the series of events leading to the accident, providing some basic analysis of the aircraft accident debris and site, and listing the steps taken so far in the investigation. The AAIB’s investigation into the crash will continue; the prescribed timeline for final probe reports on air crashes is one year. The preliminary report comes at a time when Ajit Pawar’s nephew and Nationalist Congress Party (SP) MLA Rohit Pawar has alleged the possibility of a conspiracy and sabotage in the crash. He has also been levelling allegations of negligence, and regulatory failures, and of operational and crew irregularities against VSR Ventures.

The Baramati airport is a regional and uncontrolled airstrip used primarily for pilot training and private plane operations, and does not have navigational aids to help pilots operate during low visibility. Only VFR operations—flying using outside visual references instead of relying on navigational instruments—can be carried out at this airport. VFR operations require very good visibility conditions. Moreover, air traffic control at Baramati is managed by the instructors or under-training pilots from the flying schools there. The Baramati airport also doesn’t have a metrological facility to transmit accurate weather data to pilots. The report also noted that the last runway re-carpeting was carried out in March 2016, highlighting that the runway markings have since faded and there is loose gravel on the runway surface.

“The crew of VT-SSK asked for visibility while approaching Baramati for which the tower replied as 3000 meters by looking at the visibility markers. Further, while giving the landing clearance, the tower informed winds as calm. Hence, the visibility reported at Baramati at the time of landing of aircraft was well below the minima required for VFR flight which is 5000 meters (5 Km),” the preliminary report noted. Satellite imagery from the time of the accident indicated the presence of very shallow fog in patches around Baramati, and meteorological reports from nearby Pune also showed visibility as low as 2,000 meters due to mist, as per the initial report. However, the information provided in the preliminary report doesn’t seem to indicate that the Baramati airport ATC cautioned the pilots about the visibility being sub-minima.

The jet—a 15-year-old Learjet 45 bearing registration VT-SSK and operated by Delhi-based charter flight operator VSR Ventures—took off from Mumbai’s Chhatrapati Shivaji International Airport on January 28 at around 8:10 am and disappeared from the radar at about 8:45 am, as per the flight tracking data from Flightradar24. According to preliminary information provided by the government, the plane had crashed at around 8:44 am. The flight path shows the aircraft making a loop to line up with the runway as it prepared to land at the Baramati airport, before disappearing from the flight tracker. Along with Pawar, there were four others on board the ill-fated aircraft—Pawar’s personal security officer, one attendant, and two pilots.

According to the preliminary report, pre-flight breath analyser tests –to check for alcohol levels—of both pilots were negative. It also noted that as per the crew that operated the flight before the ill-fated one, no abnormality was observed in the aircraft. The technician who inspected the aircraft after its previous flight also did not observe any problem with the plane. The captain of the doomed flight was 61-year-old Sumit Kapur, a highly experienced pilot with nearly 19,000 hours of flying under his belt. The first officer—25-year-old Shambhavi Pathak—had a total flying experience of almost 2,500 hours.

The report said that as they approached Baramati, the pilots enquired about the wind and visibility conditions from the person managing the air traffic operations at the airport, and were informed that the winds were calm and visibility was around 3,000 metres. According to the details of the communication between the pilots and the ATC at Baramati, the flight crew initially approached Runway 11, then requested Runway 29—the opposite end of the same runway—before switching back to Runway 11 for the landing; they then performed a go-around as the runway was not in sight. Runways usually have two numbers—one for each end. On the second approach, the ATC asked the pilots to confirm if they had the runway in sight, to which they responded that they will inform the ATC once they see the runway. After 28 seconds, the pilots told the ATC that they had spotted the runway, and were cleared to land at around 8:44 am. But around 14 seconds later, the aircraft was heard transmitting “oh s**t oh s**t” before crashing on the left side of the runway.

“It is recommended that DGCA may issue necessary directions to all operators operating VFR flights to uncontrolled airfields to strictly adhere to the laid down standard operating procedures. Further, necessary directions may also be issued to all the aerodrome operators/organizations responsible for handling the aerodrome services at the uncontrolled airfields to ensure that the flying operations (including Non-scheduled/Private/Charter operations) in the airfield is allowed only when the prevailing MET (meteorological) conditions are within the criteria laid down in the relevant DGCA regulations,” the report said.

“It is recommended that DGCA may take necessary measures to enhance the landing aids along with basic MET facility at these airports to cater for large number of Non-Scheduled/chartered flying (including VIP flights) being carried out at these airports apart from flying training activities…It is recommended that DGCA may check the feasibility of licensing these aerodromes for conduct of safe and regulated flying operations,” the report added.

The report also emphasised that the sole objective of the investigation of an aircraft accident is prevention of accidents in future and “not to apportion blame or liability”, while adding that the information in this report is preliminary and subject to change.

According to the AAIB, the investigation is progressing and the data from the flight data recorder (FDR) has been downloaded at the AAIB lab in Delhi and is being analysed. As for the cockpit voice recorder (CVR), given that it suffered significant thermal damage, its data will be downloaded with the assistance of the US National Transport Safety Board (NTSB). The CVR was manufactured by US-based Honeywell.

“Initial statements of the operator personnel and other relevant individual have been collected and is being scrutinized with other available evidence. The evidence collected are being analysed for further course of action. The aircraft wreckage has been shifted to a secured space for further detailed examination. Onsite wreckage examination was carried out, and the findings have been recorded for further analysis. The documents pertaining to airworthiness, operations, flight safety and aircraft related have been seized for further scrutiny and analysis,” the preliminary report said.

“Records/information obtained from other stakeholders are currently being scrutinized. All the aspects of the accident will be examined and investigated to bring out the facts, root cause(s) and contributory factor(s) leading to the accident,” it added.