aviation safety Archives - Aviation Today

Fochville, South Africa: The preliminary accident report, released on 28 July 2026 by the Accident and Incident Investigations Division (AIID) of the South African Civil Aviation Authority (SACAA), found that the engine of a Bird Aviation Piper PA-28-180 registered ZS-ESZ was not producing power when the aircraft struck the ground near Fochville, Gauteng, on 27 June 2026. The report remains preliminary, with the investigation still ongoing and the AIID cautioning that its findings do not apportion blame or liability. According to the report, the operator was Bird Aviation, while the aircraft was being used under a hire-and-fly arrangement for hour-building. The operation was classified as Training under Part 91, and the aircraft belonged to the approved training organisation (ATO) from which it was hired. The accident involved two people, a 21-year-old Indian pilot and one passenger. Both were fatally injured and the aircraft was destroyed. The pilot held a valid Private Pilot Licence (PPL) and was building flight hours toward a Commercial Pilot Licence (CPL) through the ATO. The flight took place on the afternoon of 27 June 2026, when the pilot and passenger departed Lanseria International Airport (FALA) in Gauteng on an hour-building flight, intending to return to the same airport. The flight was conducted under visual meteorological conditions (VMC) and in accordance with Part 91 of the Civil Aviation Regulations. The flight had initially been planned for 0900Z, but departure was delayed because of persistent haze and low visibility. After conditions improved, the aircraft departed Runway 07 at 1325Z, as confirmed by an air traffic control officer at Lanseria. It then flew toward the Johannesburg General Flying Area (GFA), Flight Area Dangerous 182 (FAD 182). Multiple eyewitnesses later reported seeing the aircraft flying unusually low and performing unfamiliar manoeuvres. The aircraft subsequently flipped and began spinning to the left before impacting the ground. The crash occurred on a farm at Elandsfontein, south-east of Fochville, Gauteng, at coordinates 26° 35' 27.30" South, 27° 33' 41.24" East, with a field elevation of 5,124 feet. The accident was recorded at 1415Z. The pilot was a 21-year-old Indian national with a valid PPL. His licence was initially issued by the regulator on 25 May 2026 and was valid until 30 April 2027. His Class 2 aviation medical certificate was issued on 26 March 2025 and was valid until 31 March 2030. The report states that the aircraft type was endorsed on his licence and that he had no previous accidents recorded in relation to the investigation. The pilot had accumulated 132.2 total flight hours, including 19.4 hours in the previous seven days and 55.1 hours in the previous 90 days. He had flown 43.8 hours on the aircraft during the previous 90 days and had accumulated 122.7 hours on the Piper PA-28-180. The aircraft was a 1977-built Piper PA-28-180, a four-seat, single-engine, all-metal, low-wing aircraft with fixed tricycle landing gear. It was powered by a four-cylinder, naturally aspirated 180-horsepower Lycoming O-360-series engine. Its serial number was 28-3303, and it had accumulated 3,242.6 airframe hours by the time of the accident. The AIID found that the aircraft had valid registration and airworthiness documentation. Its current Certificate of Registration had been issued on 19 September 2025, while its latest Certificate of Airworthiness was valid until 31 October 2026. The aircraft underwent its mandatory periodic inspection on 13 March 2026 at 3,218.4 airframe hours, after which a Certificate of Release to Service was issued, valid until 12 March 2027 or 3,318.4 total airframe hours, whichever came first. The aircraft was maintained by an approved aircraft maintenance organisation whose certificate was valid until 30 June 2026. The organisation held Category A and Category C ratings for the aircraft's airframe and engine. The ATO's certificate had been renewed on 17 November 2025 and was valid until 28 February 2029. Fuel records showed that 111 litres of Avgas 100LL had been uplifted after the aircraft's flight on 26 June 2026, with the pilot refuelling the tanks before parking the aircraft. The Piper PA-28-180 has a fuel capacity of 189 litres, providing approximately six hours of endurance. The preliminary findings state that the aircraft departed Lanseria with full fuel tanks and no technical issues. However, fuel was found leaking from the aircraft after the accident. The report does not currently identify the fuel leak as the cause of the engine power loss. Weather conditions were favourable and were not considered a contributing factor. The 1400Z METAR from Lanseria recorded winds from 300° at 7 knots, CAVOK visibility, a temperature of 16°C, scattered clouds at 4,500 feet, a dew point of 5°C and QNH of 1026 hPa. The aircraft's navigation and communication equipment had no recorded defects before the flight. It was not equipped with a flight data recorder (FDR) or cockpit voice recorder (CVR), and the report states that neither was required for this aircraft type. The wreckage examination showed that the aircraft hit the ground in a steep nose-down attitude at high speed with little forward momentum. The debris was concentrated around the impact point, with a crater being the only ground scar identified. The aircraft came to rest facing south-east. Investigators found that the ailerons could not be moved and were both in the down position, while the elevator and rudder moved freely. The landing gear had broken and collapsed rearwards. Both wings suffered severe leading-edge damage and accordion-like deformation that ruptured the fuel tanks. The damage was consistent with heavy compressive loading during the steep, rapid-impact sequence. The top engine cowling had separated from the aircraft and was found approximately 10 metres ahead of the main wreckage. The engine cradle was deformed and the engine was facing slightly to the right. The propeller showed asymmetric damage, with one blade bent rearwards and the other showing little or no deformation. Neither blade displayed S-curve bending. The AIID said the damage pattern was consistent with the propeller being non-rotating at impact. This evidence, together with eyewitness accounts of the pilot apparently attempting to restart the engine, led investigators to conclude that the engine was not producing power at the time of impact. However, the preliminary report does not yet establish the underlying reason for the loss of engine power. The instrument panel was broken into multiple pieces, with several indicators dislodged from their original positions. The report does not provide a final interpretation of the instrument evidence at this stage. There was no evidence of a pre- or post-impact fire. Investigators considered the accident not survivable because of the extent of cockpit damage. Emergency responders reported that the pilot-in-command was not wearing his seat belt and was consequently thrown from the aircraft. Medical and pathological information is reserved for the final report. The aircraft was operating in the Johannesburg GFA within FAD 182, outside the Terminal Control Area. FAD 182 extends from the ground to Flight Level 100, or 10,000 feet, except where it intersects the TMA. Bird Aviation also used the Safely Track Me application to monitor flights. The system relied on the pilot's mobile-phone GPS signal. Tracking was active when ZS-ESZ departed Lanseria, but shortly after the aircraft exited the Johannesburg Special Rules Area West TMA, the phone stopped transmitting its GPS position and the aircraft could no longer be tracked through the application. The AIID's preliminary findings confirm that the pilot was qualified and medically fit for the flight, the aircraft was being used under a valid hire-and-fly arrangement for hour-building, the operator/ATO held a valid certificate, the aircraft had valid registration and airworthiness documentation, and its maintenance records were up to date. The investigation therefore establishes several key facts but has not yet determined the precise cause of the accident. The aircraft left Lanseria with full fuel and no known technical issues; the engine was not producing power at impact; weather was not a factor; and the aircraft entered a steep, high-speed descent before striking the ground. The AIID is continuing to examine other aspects of the accident that could have safety implications. No safety recommendations have been issued at this stage. The AIID said these will be addressed in the final report. The investigation was classified as a Category 1 accident. The AIID appointed an investigator-in-charge and a co-investigator, dispatched investigators to the site and notified the relevant states and organisations under South African regulations and ICAO Annex 13. The AIID will lead the investigation and issue the final report. The AIID has warned that the preliminary report is based on evidence gathered during an ongoing investigation and that information may change if additional evidence emerges. Accordingly, the current finding should be described as the engine not producing power at impact, rather than stating that investigators have already determined the cause of the engine power loss.

SACAA Preliminary Findings Show No Engine Power At Impact In Fatal South Africa Crash

Aviation Today News Desk / August 15, 2026

Fochville, South Africa: The preliminary accident report, released on 28 July 2026 by the Accident and Incident Investigations Division (AIID) […]

Boeing

FAA Orders 471 Boeing 737 MAX Jets To Undergo Crack Inspections Over Structural Risks

Aviation Today News Desk / August 14, 2026

Washington, United States: The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration has ordered operators of 471 Boeing 737 MAX aircraft to inspect structural

Airlines

Air India Group Mandates Substance Screening For All Pilots Following A320neo Incident

Aviation Today News Desk / August 14, 2026

New Delhi, India: Air India and Air India Express have begun mandatory substance screening for more than 5,000 pilots, with

Airlines

Nova Scotia Court Approves C$18.075 Million Settlement Over 2015 Air Canada AC624 Crash

Aviation Today News Desk / August 12, 2026

Halifax, Canada: A Nova Scotia court has approved an C$18.075 million class-action settlement involving passengers of Air Canada Flight AC624,

Chennai, India: An IndiGo Airbus A321neo operating flight 6E-723 from Kolkata to Chennai made a precautionary emergency landing at Chennai International Airport late Tuesday night, August 11, after its left engine became inoperative shortly before landing. The aircraft was carrying 224 passengers and crew members. A full emergency was declared at Chennai Airport at 11:29 p.m. IST, with emergency response teams placed on standby. The aircraft subsequently landed safely on Runway 25 at 11:37 p.m., with all 224 people on board safe and no injuries reported. The flight was scheduled to arrive at 11:30 p.m., making the actual landing seven minutes later than scheduled. According to officials from the Airports Authority of India (AAI), the aircraft reported the technical problem while approaching Chennai. The pilot noticed that the left engine had failed while preparing for landing and alerted air traffic control. Following the alert, airport authorities activated the emergency response arrangements to facilitate the aircraft's safe arrival. The emergency was formally withdrawn at 11:47 p.m., around 10 minutes after the aircraft touched down. Chennai airport authorities said normal operations continued following the incident, with no disruption to airport operations reported. The declaration of a full emergency was a precautionary measure that allowed airport fire, rescue and other emergency services to remain ready for the aircraft's arrival. The aircraft landed without an accident, and there was no reported evacuation, casualty or injury among the 224 people on board. At present, the specific technical cause of the left-engine failure has not been publicly established. The available reports describe the condition as a left-engine failure or a “left engine inoperative condition” and do not provide details about the nature of the malfunction, engine damage or whether a particular component failed. Further technical examination of the aircraft is expected to establish the cause.

Incidents

IndiGo Airbus A321neo Makes Emergency Landing In Chennai After Left-Engine Failure

Aviation Today News Desk / August 12, 2026

Chennai, India: An IndiGo Airbus A321neo operating flight 6E-723 from Kolkata to Chennai made a precautionary emergency landing at Chennai

Muan, South Korea: South Korean police on August 11 raided the state-run Korea Airports Corporation (KAC), the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport and the Busan Regional Office of Aviation as investigators widened their probe into the Jeju Air crash at Muan International Airport that killed 179 people in December 2024. The searches were carried out by a special police investigation team seeking additional evidence over suspected professional negligence resulting in death or injury and possible failures by government agencies and other bodies responsible for airport safety and operations. Police said the investigation is examining both the cause of the December 29, 2024 crash and whether relevant authorities properly performed their duties. A police official said 45 people are currently facing suspicions of professional negligence resulting in death or injury, while investigators are also considering whether charges linked to causing a serious public disaster could be applied. The latest searches targeted KAC, which operates most of South Korea’s major airports except Incheon International Airport, along with the Transport Ministry and the Busan Regional Office of Aviation. The action marks another major phase in a criminal investigation that has continued for more than a year as investigators examine decisions surrounding Muan Airport’s construction, safety oversight, airport infrastructure and the response to the crash. The crash involved Jeju Air Flight 7C2216, a Boeing 737-800 operating from Bangkok to Muan. The aircraft was carrying 181 people when it attempted an emergency landing at Muan International Airport on December 29, 2024. After a bird-strike-related emergency, the aircraft landed without its landing gear deployed, slid along the runway and struck a concrete structure supporting a localizer antenna before breaking apart and catching fire. Only two crew members survived, while 179 passengers and crew members were killed. The criminal investigation has increasingly expanded beyond the aircraft itself to possible institutional and infrastructure failures. Police have been examining events dating back to the construction of Muan Airport in 1999 to determine whether decisions made during the airport’s development created conditions that contributed to the disaster. In February 2026, the special investigation team raided the Busan Regional Office of Aviation and a company involved in construction at Muan Airport, seeking evidence connected to possible contributing factors. At that stage, police had booked 45 people on suspicion of occupational negligence and were examining whether the Serious Accidents Punishment Act’s provisions concerning a serious public disaster could apply. The investigation was further expanded in March, when police raided the Transport Ministry to obtain additional material concerning the crash and the conduct of government agencies. Investigators specifically examined whether officials responsible for aviation navigation and airport operations had properly carried out their duties. Police said the probe was looking for factors dating back to the beginning of Muan Airport’s construction. A major development came in March 2026 when South Korea’s Board of Audit and Inspection identified serious shortcomings in the approval and management of airport safety infrastructure. The state auditor found that the Transport Ministry had approved 14 non-compliant localizer installations at eight airports, including Muan, and that some installations had been certified as meeting frangibility requirements despite not doing so. The audit identified 30 cases of wrongdoing or procedural failure, including shortcomings in bird-strike prevention and aviation safety management. At Muan, investigators found that a 2.4-metre-high concrete embankment supporting the localizer had been built partly to reduce construction costs because the terrain around the runway and Runway End Safety Area was sloped. The Board of Audit and Inspection said the structure had been approved by the Transport Ministry in 2003 without an adequate vulnerability assessment. Korea Airports Corporation later requested a review of the structure in 2007, but no changes were made. The structure was subsequently reinforced during a modernization project between 2019 and 2024. International aviation standards call for localizer installations in areas exposed to aircraft impact to be designed so that they can break apart rather than present a rigid obstacle. The state audit found that the ministry had continued to certify such installations and approve inspections that incorrectly indicated compliance for periods extending as long as 22 years. The Transport Ministry said it “humbly accepted” the audit findings and said it would take strict follow-up measures, including improvements to localizer structures and stronger bird-strike prevention. Korea Airports Corporation also said it was implementing improvements recommended in the audit. The infrastructure findings have become particularly significant because a separate government-commissioned simulation examined what might have happened had the concrete embankment not been present at the end of the runway. The simulation, cited in January 2026 reporting, suggested the outcome could have been substantially different without the rigid structure. The findings intensified scrutiny of how the localizer installation was designed and approved. The criminal probe is also unfolding alongside a renewed examination of the accident investigation itself. In May 2026, President Lee Jae Myung visited Muan International Airport after additional human remains were discovered during renewed recovery operations more than a year after the crash. He called for a thorough reinvestigation and criticised shortcomings in the original recovery process. “Given the size and condition (of the additional remains), they should not have been overlooked,” Lee said, adding that “the lax handling of the scene was clearly a problem.” He also instructed officials to consider using outside experts for the reinvestigation. The renewed investigation followed concerns that the original recovery operation had not fully recovered victims’ remains and that officials lacked adequate procedures and oversight. The discovery of additional remains prompted the government to revisit not only the recovery process but also the wider handling of the disaster. The technical investigation into the crash had earlier established evidence of a bird strike. A preliminary accident report released in January 2025 found feathers and blood stains in both engines of the Boeing 737-800. DNA testing identified the remains as Baikal teals, migratory ducks that winter in South Korea. The report, however, did not establish that the bird strike alone caused the crash. It also noted that the flight data recorder and cockpit voice recorder stopped recording about four minutes before impact, leaving critical portions of the final sequence unavailable. The preliminary investigation said authorities would conduct further examinations of the engines, recorders, air traffic control data, bird-strike evidence and the localizer structure. Subsequent reporting in July 2025 cited a source familiar with the investigation as saying there was “clear evidence” that the pilots shut down the less-damaged engine after the bird strike. However, that finding was part of the continuing technical investigation and was disputed by victims’ families, who questioned aspects of the investigation and its transparency. The crash therefore remains under examination on several fronts: the bird strike and resulting aircraft systems problems, the sequence of cockpit decisions, the loss of recorder data, the runway and airport infrastructure, the approval and maintenance of the localizer structure, bird-strike prevention, regulatory oversight and the actions of government agencies before and after the accident. The August 11 raids represent the latest step in the separate criminal investigation into potential responsibility and negligence. Police are now seeking additional records from the organisations responsible for airport operation, aviation oversight and infrastructure, while considering whether the conduct of officials and other responsible parties could amount to professional negligence or a serious public disaster offence. The full accident investigation has yet to provide a final public account resolving all outstanding questions surrounding the crash. The latest police action, coming after the state audit findings and the government's renewed examination of the crash site, places greater focus on whether failures in airport design, regulatory approval, safety oversight or emergency response contributed to the scale of the tragedy.

Investigation

Jeju Air Crash Probe Widens As South Korean Police Raid KAC, Transport Ministry

Aviation Today News Desk / August 11, 2026

Muan, South Korea: South Korean police on August 11 raided the state-run Korea Airports Corporation (KAC), the Ministry of Land,

New Delhi, India: Air India’s A320neo operating flight AI2379 from Phuket to Delhi suffered multiple technical and mechanical glitches, including three hydraulic-system failures, an autopilot disconnect and a flight-control stall warning before suddenly losing around 300 feet in altitude, according to information reported by PTI, citing sources. The aircraft encountered turbulence during the August 4 incident, which left 17 people injured. The aircraft, an Airbus A320neo registered VT-EXO, was cruising from Phuket, Thailand, to Delhi when the sudden altitude loss occurred. According to PTI, the autopilot disconnected during the flight, after which the co-pilot manually regained control. A flight-control stall warning then appeared, while several indicator switches briefly went off. Sources also told PTI that the aircraft experienced multiple other technical and mechanical glitches alongside the turbulence. The latest information indicates that the aircraft experienced three separate hydraulic failures. Hydraulic systems use pressurised fluid to operate critical aircraft components, including flight-control systems, making the reported failures a significant part of the ongoing investigation. The crew managed to stabilise the aircraft and subsequently continued the flight to Delhi, where it landed safely. Air India said the aircraft experienced a sudden loss of altitude during cruise before stabilising and continuing normally to Delhi. The flight carried 137 passengers, including three infants, and eight crew members. At least 17 people, 13 passengers and four crew members were reported injured and taken for medical evaluation. The Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) is investigating the occurrence as a serious incident under ICAO Annex 13, which governs aircraft accident and incident investigations. The aircraft’s flight data recorder and cockpit voice recorder have been secured for examination as investigators work to establish what triggered the altitude loss and the reported technical problems. Airbus has confirmed that it is sending specialists to India to provide technical assistance to the investigation. The manufacturer said it was supporting the relevant investigating authorities in accordance with ICAO Annex 13. France’s Bureau of Enquiry and Analysis for Civil Aviation Safety (BEA) is also joining the investigation because the A320 is manufactured in France. Teams from Airbus and BEA are expected to assist the AAIB as investigators examine the aircraft and recorded flight data. The latest technical findings remain preliminary and have not been established as the final cause of the incident. The reported triple hydraulic failures and other malfunctions are based on sources cited by PTI; they are not yet findings formally released by the AAIB. The investigation is continuing, with technical specialists expected to examine the aircraft’s systems and recorded data before any conclusions are reached. A separate line of investigation concerns the pilot-in-command’s post-flight psychoactive-substance screening. The Civil Aviation Ministry said an initial screening result was “not negative” and required confirmatory laboratory testing. The pilot’s sample was subsequently sent for further analysis, and the final confirmatory result was still awaited in the latest reports. The ministry has not disclosed what substance, if any, was indicated by the initial screening. The distinction is important because an initial “not negative” screening result does not by itself establish drug use. The pilots’ body, ALPA India, has said that commonly used over-the-counter medicines can also produce a non-negative result in psychoactive-substance screening. The confirmatory laboratory test is therefore expected to determine whether the initial result was caused by a prohibited substance or another factor. Both pilots have been taken off flying duties pending the investigation, according to reporting on the ministry’s action. Air India has said it was aware that post-flight screening had been conducted under applicable procedures but had not initially been informed of the results. The final laboratory findings remain an important part of determining whether the screening result has any connection to the August 4 occurrence. The incident was initially widely described as a severe-turbulence event after passengers and crew were thrown from their seats during the sudden altitude change. The newer information from PTI, however, adds a series of reported technical malfunctions including autopilot disconnection, a flight-control stall warning, briefly extinguished indicators and three hydraulic failures to the investigation. Whether these issues caused, contributed to or merely coincided with the altitude loss remains to be established by the AAIB probe. For now, the cause remains officially undetermined. Investigators are examining the aircraft’s systems, flight-recorded data, cockpit recordings and other evidence, with Airbus and France’s BEA assisting the AAIB. The outcome of the pilot’s confirmatory psychoactive-substance test is also awaited. Until those investigations are completed, the reported technical failures and the initial screening result should not be treated as established causes of the incident.

Airlines

Air India A320neo Reportedly Suffered Three Hydraulic Failures During Phuket-Delhi Flight

Aviation Today News Desk / August 11, 2026

New Delhi, India: Air India’s A320neo operating flight AI2379 from Phuket to Delhi suffered multiple technical and mechanical glitches, including

Baramati, India: A Cessna 172S training aircraft operated by Academy of Carver Aviation Pvt. Ltd. veered off the runway during a training exercise at Baramati Airfield in Maharashtra’s Pune district on Sunday, August 9, 2026. The aircraft, registered VT-SEX, had two people onboard flight instructor Captain Chirag Shashikant Doifode and cadet Abhijeet Jundre. Both escaped unharmed. The incident occurred at about 12:30 pm. The four-seat aircraft was conducting a Circuit and Landing Emergencies training exercise, during which the trainee was required to practise landing following an emergency scenario. Police and aviation authorities said the aircraft was involved in rejected-take-off exercises as part of the training sequence. According to the Ministry of Civil Aviation, the DGCA-approved Academy of Carver Aviation aircraft “suffered a runway excursion at Baramati Airfield.” The ministry said the aircraft “was involved in a Circuit and Landing Emergencies (CL Emergencies) training exercise” and was unable to stop within the paved runway surface before veering onto the extended paved area beyond the runway threshold. A DGCA Air Safety team was sent to the site to conduct a preliminary investigation. Police said the aircraft initially entered the runway through Link Bravo and lined up at the threshold of Runway 29, where it carried out a rejected take-off exercise. It was subsequently positioned at the threshold of Runway 11 for another rejected take-off exercise. During the sequence, the aircraft could not be brought to a complete stop and continued beyond the runway before veering onto the grassy area. Police said the aircraft travelled roughly 20 feet beyond the runway end before entering the grass. Inspector Narayan Pawar said, “The brakes of the aircraft seem to have not worked,” while adding that the situation was under control. Pune Rural Deputy Superintendent of Police Chaitanya Kadam confirmed that both occupants were safe. The aircraft sustained damage during the runway excursion. The Ministry of Civil Aviation said, prima facie, damage was found to the propeller, engine cowling and nose landing gear, with a detailed assessment to be conducted by the competent authorities. The cause of the incident has not yet been established. Police said investigators were examining whether the aircraft developed a technical problem or whether another factor contributed to the runway excursion. A senior police official said, “It is too early to comment on anything,” as the investigation was still at an early stage. Pune Rural Superintendent of Police Sandip Singh Gill said the aircraft skidded while landing. In a statement reported by Economic Times, Gill said: “An aircraft VT-SEX was involved in a runway excursion incident at Baramati Airfield during a training exercise, with Capt Chirag Shashikant Doifode and Cadet Abhijeet Jundre on board. No injuries have been reported.” The aircraft involved was a Cessna 172S, a four-seat single-engine trainer. The DGCA’s list of approved flying training organisations as of March 30, 2026, lists VT-SEX as a Cessna 172S operated by Academy of Carver Aviation Pvt. Ltd., whose flying base is near Baramati Airport. Carver Aviation’s own fleet information also lists VT-SEX among its training aircraft. There was therefore no injury to the cadet, no injury to the instructor and no fatality in the August 9 incident. The aircraft was not carrying passengers beyond the two flight-training occupants, and the incident occurred during a scheduled training exercise rather than a passenger operation. The incident has nevertheless renewed scrutiny of safety conditions at Baramati. Hindustan Times described it as the seventh aircraft accident or incident linked to Baramati’s aviation and flight-training operations since 2022, prompting calls for a broader review of infrastructure, operational systems and oversight. Aviation expert Dhairyashil Vandekar said the latest incident should trigger a comprehensive review of the airfield. “It is important that the safety and confidence of trainee pilots must be paramount,” Vandekar said, adding that Baramati’s infrastructure and operational systems need to keep pace with the volume of flying activity. He called for appropriate air traffic services, modern navigation and communication systems and stronger emergency-response infrastructure. The DGCA is now examining the circumstances and contributing factors behind the August 9 runway excursion. At present, authorities have not attributed the incident to a confirmed brake failure, mechanical defect, pilot error or any other specific cause. The investigation is expected to establish what led the Cessna 172S to leave the paved runway during the training exercise.

Incidents

Cessna 172S Suffers Runway Excursion At Baramati During Training, 2 Escape Unhurt

Aviation Today News Desk / August 10, 2026

Baramati, India: A Cessna 172S training aircraft operated by Academy of Carver Aviation Pvt. Ltd. veered off the runway during

Aircraft Crashes

Tourist Helicopter Crashes In Rio’s Tijuca National Park, Killing All Four Onboard

Aviation Today News Desk / August 10, 2026

Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: A tourist helicopter crashed in Rio de Janeiro’s Tijuca National Park on Saturday, August 8, killing

Airlines

Malaysia Aviation Group Mandates Pilot Drug Tests After Alleged Drug-Trafficking Case

Aviation Today News Desk / August 8, 2026

Sepang, Malaysia: Malaysia Aviation Group (MAG) has begun mandatory drug screening for all Malaysia Airlines pilots and is expanding fitness-for-duty

aviation safety

SACAA Preliminary Findings Show No Engine Power At Impact In Fatal South Africa Crash

FAA Orders 471 Boeing 737 MAX Jets To Undergo Crack Inspections Over Structural Risks

Air India Group Mandates Substance Screening For All Pilots Following A320neo Incident

Nova Scotia Court Approves C$18.075 Million Settlement Over 2015 Air Canada AC624 Crash

IndiGo Airbus A321neo Makes Emergency Landing In Chennai After Left-Engine Failure

Jeju Air Crash Probe Widens As South Korean Police Raid KAC, Transport Ministry

Air India A320neo Reportedly Suffered Three Hydraulic Failures During Phuket-Delhi Flight

Cessna 172S Suffers Runway Excursion At Baramati During Training, 2 Escape Unhurt

Tourist Helicopter Crashes In Rio’s Tijuca National Park, Killing All Four Onboard

Malaysia Aviation Group Mandates Pilot Drug Tests After Alleged Drug-Trafficking Case

Follow Us

Quick Links

Navigate

General Support

News Desk Support

Follow Us