Friday, 31 October 2025

Flying Safely with Lithium Batteries: Understanding IATA Guidelines and Best Practices

 Aviation safety, passenger convenience, and the growing prevalence of portable electronics converge in the regulation of lithium batteries. This article examines IATA’s current and emerging guidelines, the underlying science of lithium battery hazards, and practical steps to ensure the safe carriage and shipment of lithium batteries by air.

1. Introduction: The Ubiquity and Risk of Lithium Batteries

From smartphones and laptops to drones, e-bikes, and smart luggage, lithium-based batteries power nearly every portable electronic device of modern life. The same properties that make them efficient—high energy density, rechargeability, and lightweight construction—also make them potentially hazardous in the aviation environment. When improperly packed, damaged, or short-circuited, lithium batteries can enter thermal runaway, a rapid self-heating reaction that can cause fires or explosions.

As of October 2025, global aviation authorities report a sharp rise in lithium battery incidents. The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has documented 50 verified cases of smoke, fire, or extreme heat from lithium batteries on U.S. flights through August alone—averaging over one per week. Internationally, incidents include an Air China flight's emergency landing in October due to a spontaneous battery combustion in carry-on luggage and a South Korean tarmac fire in January linked to a power bank. These events underscore the urgency of compliance with evolving regulations from bodies like the FAA, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), the International Air Transport Association (IATA), and the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA).

 Such incidents are particularly dangerous in aircraft, where accessibility and suppression are limited. The International Air Transport Association (IATA), along with the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), has thus established stringent global standards to ensure that these batteries can be carried and transported safely.

2. Understanding Lithium Batteries: Types and Ratings

Lithium batteries fall into two primary categories, each with distinct risks  and regulatory treatment:

1) Lithium Metal Batteries (non-rechargeable)

a) Contain metallic lithium.

b) Common in small devices like watches, cameras, and remotes.

c) Classification: UN 3090 (batteries only), UN 3091 (batteries in/with equipment).

2) Lithium-Ion Batteries (rechargeable)

a) Contain lithium in ionic form.

b) Used in laptops, phones, tablets, and power banks.

c) Classification: UN 3480 (batteries only), UN 3481 (batteries in/with equipment).

Every battery shipped or carried on an aircraft must meet the UN Manual of Tests and Criteria, Part III, Subsection 38.3, ensuring its resilience against vibration, thermal shock, and overcharge.

3 . The Regulatory Framework: Key Authorities and 2025 Updates

Air travel regulations harmonize under the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), but implementation varies by region. Here's a breakdown:

Authority

Scope

Key 2025 Focus

FAA (U.S.)

Domestic and international U.S. carriers

Issued a September safety alert urging airlines to enhance passenger communications on battery risks; no major limit changes, but reinforced carry-on-only for spares. Updated PackSafe guidelines in February.

TSA (U.S.)

Security screening

Aligns with FAA; emphasizes removal of spares from gate-checked bags. Final decisions at checkpoints rest with officers.

IATA

Global airlines and cargo

66th Edition Dangerous Goods Regulations (DGR) effective 2025 introduces a 3m stack test for non-UN packaging of batteries in equipment (Packing Instructions 966-II, etc.); new FAQs for sodium-ion batteries; multilingual traveller campaigns launched in October.

EASA/ICAO (EU/International)

EU and global harmonization

May Safety Information Bulletin (SIB) reinforces passenger restrictions; October ICAO alert on cabin fire response; 300 Wh limit for mobility aid batteries; bans unmarked power banks on Chinese domestic flights.

These updates reflect a post-pandemic surge in device usage and incidents, with IATA's global campaign emphasizing proper handling to prevent mishaps.

4. Passenger Carriage: IATA Guidance for Air Travelers

IATA’s Passenger Lithium Battery Guidance Document defines what passengers can safely carry on board or check in. The most critical distinction is between installed and spare batteries. Passengers often carry an average of four such devices per flight, amplifying potential hazards. Always check markings on the battery or device for Wh ratings; if absent, consult the manufacturer.

The golden rule: Spare lithium batteries must always travel in carry-on baggage. Checked baggage poses insurmountable risks, as fires in cargo holds are hard to detect and extinguish.

4.1. Installed Batteries (In Devices)

Devices with lithium batteries (phones, laptops, cameras, tablets) are generally allowed in both carry-on and checked baggage.

a) Carry-On: Unlimited for personal use, provided under 100 Wh. Devices like laptops must be powered off and protected.

b) Checked Baggage: Permitted if the device is fully protected from accidental activation and damage (e.g., padded in a case).

 However, post-2025 FAA guidance strongly recommends carry-on to allow quick access in emergencies.

4.2. Spare Batteries (Including Power Banks)

a) Spare lithium batteries, including power banks and vape devices, must be carried in carry-on baggage only.

b) Checked baggage carriage is prohibited, as fires in cargo holds are difficult to detect or extinguish.

c) Terminals must be insulated (e.g., by taping over contacts or using protective pouches) to prevent short-circuit.

d) Gate-Checked Bags: Remove all spares before handing over; keep them in the cabin.

4.3. Capacity and Quantity Limits

IATA uses Watt-hour (Wh) rating for lithium-ion batteries and lithium content (grams) for lithium metal batteries:

Battery Type

Carry-On Limit

Checked Limit

Approval Needed?

Installed ≤100 Wh

Unlimited

Allowed (protected)

No

Spare ≤100 Wh

Unlimited

Prohibited

No

Installed/Spare 101–160 Wh

Up to 2 spares

Prohibited for spares

Yes (airline)

>160 Wh

Prohibited

Prohibited

N/A

Lithium metal ≤ 2 g

Permitted.

Prohibited

No

Lithium metal > 2 g

Prohibited

Prohibited

N/A

These limits apply to most personal electronics. High-capacity batteries (e.g., for professional film cameras, drones, or medical equipment) require explicit airline approval before travel.

5. Specific Items and Scenarios

a) Power Banks and Portable Chargers: Top incident culprits (39% of FAA cases since 2006). Carry-on only; no charging devices onboard with them (e.g., Southwest Airlines ban since May 2025). South Korea mandates clear safety markings.

b) E-Cigarettes and Vapes: Carry-on only; batteries must be removed and protected. No use or charging onboard. Prohibited in checked bags.

c) Laptops and Tablets: Carry-on preferred; if checked, ensure shutdown and padding. Extended-life batteries may need approval.

d) Medical Devices (e.g., CPAP Machines): Exempt from Wh limits if for personal medical use; notify airline in advance.

e) Commercial Quantities: Prohibited; only personal-use batteries allowed.

5.1. Packing and Handling Best Practices

To prevent short-circuiting—the primary trigger for thermal runaway—follow these steps:

a) Protect Terminals: Use original packaging, tape over contacts, or non-conductive pouches.

b) Avoid Extremes: Do not expose to heat (>140°F), cold, or moisture; turn off devices.

c) Stowage: Keep visible and accessible (e.g., seat pocket, not buried in overhead bins) for quick monitoring.

d) Charging: Use only aircraft seat power; no power banks onboard.

e) Pre-Flight Check: Verify no damage (e.g., swollen batteries) and review airline policy via apps or websites.

IATA's 2025 multilingual resources offer visual guides for packing.

5.2. Damaged, Defective, or Recalled Batteries

Do not fly with these—ever. Cracked screens, swelling, or recalls indicate internal damage priming thermal runaway. Check the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) or manufacturer sites. Remove and dispose safely per local hazardous waste rules; airlines may offer disposal guidance. In 2025, millions of chargers and vapes were recalled globally for fire risks.

5.3. Smart Baggage and Emerging Technologies

“Smart luggage” — bags containing built-in tracking, charging, or weighing systems — has prompted additional restrictions.
IATA’s Guidance on Smart Baggage with Integrated Lithium Batteries and Electronics mandates:

a) Lithium batteries must be removable if the bag is checked in.

b) Smart bags with non-removable batteries are only allowed as carry-on items.

c) If the battery exceeds 100 Wh or 2 g lithium, airline approval is required even for carry-on.

Airlines such as Lufthansa, Emirates, and Air India have adopted these standards, aligning their policies with IATA’s baseline.

6. Air Transport as Cargo: The IATA Dangerous Goods Regulations (DGR)

The IATA Dangerous Goods Regulations (DGR) provide the definitive framework for the safe shipment of lithium batteries by air. The relevant Packing Instructions (PI) are:

1) PI 965 — Lithium-ion batteries (UN 3480)

2) PI 966/967 — Lithium-ion batteries packed with/in equipment (UN 3481)

3) PI 968 — Lithium metal batteries (UN 3090)

4) PI 969/970 — Lithium metal batteries packed with/in equipment (UN 3091)

6.1. State of Charge (SoC) Limit

For stand-alone lithium-ion batteries (UN 3480), IATA mandates that they be shipped at no more than 30% State of Charge (SoC). This significantly reduces the likelihood of thermal events during transport.

From 1 January 2026, this 30% SoC restriction will extend to batteries packed with equipment (UN 3481) and vehicle batteries (UN 3556), reflecting growing concern over energy storage devices in larger systems.

6.2. Packaging, Marking, and Labelling

All lithium battery shipments must:

a) Use UN-specification packaging tested to withstand pressure and impact.

b) Display the lithium battery mark — a black battery symbol with red hatching and a telephone number for additional information.

c) Include proper documentation and dangerous goods declarations (where applicable).

Failure to comply can lead to shipment rejections, regulatory penalties, or, in worst cases, in-flight fires.

7. Operational Considerations for Airlines and Crew

7.1. Cabin Safety and Fire Mitigation

a) Flight and cabin crew should be trained to identify signs of battery failure — swelling, overheating, smoke, or odor.

b) IATA recommends the use of non-alcoholic water or halon extinguishers for initial flame suppression, followed by cooling with water to prevent re-ignition.

c) Passengers should immediately report dropped or damaged devices in seat mechanisms.

7.2. Dispatch and Ground Handling

a) Ground personnel must verify the correct packing instructions and SoC compliance for any battery shipments.

b) Safety management systems (SMS) should integrate lithium battery carriage procedures, risk assessments, and incident reporting mechanisms.

c) Airlines are encouraged to pre-emptively align with the 2026 SoC amendment to avoid last-minute operational disruptions.

7.3. Passenger Communication

a) Airline websites, check-in counters, and pre-flight announcements must clearly communicate lithium battery restrictions.

b) Harmonized signage (following IATA templates) improves compliance and reduces confrontations at security checkpoints.

7.4. Responding to an Emergency

If you notice overheating, smoke, or fire:

a) Alert Crew Immediately: Do not attempt to extinguish yourself—crews are trained with specialized tools like fire sleeves and cooling agents.

b) Evacuation Protocol: Follow crew instructions; isolate the device if possible.

c) Post-Incident: Report via FAA's hotline (1-866-TELL-FAA) to aid research.

8. Regulatory Evolution and Future Outlook

Lithium battery transport remains one of the most rapidly evolving areas in dangerous goods regulation. IATA’s 66th Edition (2025) DGR introduces several critical updates:

a) Expanded rules for sodium-ion batteries, an emerging lithium alternative.

b) Mandatory SoC limitation for more categories of batteries.

c) Revised training frameworks under ICAO’s competency-based training and assessment (CBTA) model.

As eVTOL aircraft, drones, and electric ground vehicles proliferate, the interface between passenger transport and energy storage will grow even more complex. A coordinated approach—linking design standards, certification, and transport regulation—will be key to ensuring both operational efficiency and public safety.

DGCA currently follows ICAO/IATA baselines; multiple Indian news outlets (Oct 2025) report DGCA is actively considering stricter rules for power banks after several incidents.

9. Recent Incidents and Emerging Trends

2025 has seen a 42% rise in U.S. lithium fires over five years, driven by increased device carriage. Notable events:

a) August: American Airlines emergency landing after device fire post-takeoff.

b) September: FAA alert following 50 incidents, including injuries and diversions.

c) October: Air China diversion; Airbus guidance on in-flight risks.

Trends point to power banks as primary offenders, prompting bans like Southwest's on onboard charging. Research into detection tech (e.g., EASA projects) promises future enhancements.

10. Summary and Best Practices

3.1. For Passengers:

1) Carry spare lithium batteries and power banks only in cabin baggage.

2) Protect terminals to prevent short-circuits.

3) Do not pack spares in checked baggage.

4) Obtain airline approval for batteries exceeding 100 Wh.

5) Remove or switch off batteries in smart baggage if checking in.

6) If a bag is selected for gate Check-in, remove all electronic items and batteries.

3.2. For Airlines and Operators:

1) Train crew and ground staff in lithium battery hazard recognition and response.

2) Verify SoC and packaging compliance for all shipments.

3) Integrate IATA’s latest DGR changes into manuals and SMS.

4) Communicate restrictions clearly to passengers at every touchpoint.

11. Conclusion

Lithium batteries are indispensable to modern life—but their energy potential demands respect and regulation. Flying with lithium batteries is safe when passengers prioritize knowledge and caution. Adhere to carry-on mandates, secure approvals for larger capacities, and pack proactively to sidestep the rare but severe risks of thermal runaway. As aviation evolves with battery-dependent tech, staying informed via official sources like FAA PackSafe or IATA's DGR ensures not just compliance, but collective safety. Bon voyage—powered responsibly.

References

1) IATA. Lithium Battery Guidance Document (2025 Edition).

2) IATA. Passenger Lithium Battery Guidance.

3) IATA. Dangerous Goods Regulations (66th Edition, 2025).

4) ICAO. Technical Instructions for the Safe Transport of Dangerous Goods by Air (Doc 9284).

5) RRC Power Solutions. New IATA Regulations for Lithium Battery Transport (2025–2026).

6) Lion Technology. State of Charge Recommendations for 2025.

7) Reuters. Airlines Updating Lithium Battery Policies (2025).


Author: GR Mohan

Sunday, 26 October 2025

Aviation Accidents: Interplay Between Man, Machine, and Environment

 Introduction

Aviation remains the safest form of long-distance transportation in human history. In 2024, scheduled commercial operations recorded approximately 37.09 million departures with 10 fatal accidents, resulting in 296 fatalities and a fatality rate of 65 per billion passengers (ICAO, 2025). This marks an increase from 2023's exceptionally low figures (1 fatal accident, 72 fatalities) but still reflects a downward trend in rates over the decade. The all-accident rate stood at 2.56 per million departures, up 36.8% from 2023 but 12.8% lower than 2019 pre-pandemic levels.

This article presents a deeply researched, systems-level analysis of aviation accidents through the Man–Machine–Environment (MME) triad, grounded in:

a) 95 scheduled commercial accidents in 2024 from ICAO and Aviation Safety Network (ASN)

b) In-depth investigative reports from NTSB, AAIB, and BEA

c) Longitudinal studies using HFACS, SHELL, and Reason’s Swiss Cheese Model

d) Real-time flight data from FOQA and FDR/CVR analyses

It is seen that approximately 79% of fatal accidents involve at least two MME elements, and 94% of preventable accidents show failures in human–system interaction. The goal: move beyond blame to predictive, proactive safety.

1. The Statistical Landscape (2000–2024)

Metric

Value (2024)

Source

Total scheduled commercial departures

37.09 million

ICAO (2025)

Total accidents

95

ICAO (2025)

Fatal accidents

10

ICAO (2025)

Total fatalities

296

ICAO (2025)

Most common phase

Approach & Landing (inferred from categories like ARC/RE)

Boeing (2024)

Leading cause (primary)

Turbulence Encounter (TURB) – 33.7% of accidents; Bird Strike (BIRD) – 60.5% of fatalities

ICAO (2025)

Human error contribution

62% (direct), 88% (contributory)

FAA HFACS Database

Trend: Fatal accident rate fell from 1.35 per million flights (2000) to ~0.27 (2024)—an approximate 80% reduction over the period, despite record passenger numbers (4.528 billion in 2024).

1.1 Fatalities by Cause: The MME Interplay (2015–2024)

Boeing's CICTT analysis shows how human (e.g., LOC-I decisions), machine (SCF failures), and environment (TURB, weather) factors contribute to fatalities. RE often stems from wet runways (environmental factors) and poor braking (machine/human).

Insight: BIRD caused over 60% of fatalities, despite fewer accidents, by amplifying environmental factors through machine/human responses. LOC-I (human/machine) remains critical but reduced in newer aircraft.

1.2 Accident and Fatal Rates Over Time (2019–2024)

Track the evolution of global accident rates per million departures, highlighting the post-pandemic recovery and 2024 uptick. Fatal rates remain low but volatile due to high-impact events.

Insight: Rates dipped during COVID (2020–2021) but rebounded with traffic. 2024's rise ties to turbulence (TURB: 33.7%) and bird strikes (BIRD: high fatalities).

1.3 Accidents by Flight Phase: High-Risk Moments (2015–2024)

Phases expose MME vulnerabilities: Landing (env. weather + human precision) sees disproportionate risks despite low exposure time.


Insight: Landing claims 37% of fatal accidents but only 1% of flight time—targeted mitigations like ROPS reduced RE by 50% in equipped fleets.

1.4 Hull Losses by Aircraft Generation: Machine Evolution (2024 10-Year Avg)

Boeing data shows generational improvements in machine reliability, reducing MME failures.

Insight: Gen4's fly-by-wire and redundancies cut LOC-I by 90%, but human training lags in automation transitions.

2. The MME Triad: A Systems Framework

2.1 Man (Liveware) – The Human Operator

2.1.1 Error Taxonomy (HFACS Level 1–4)

Level

Category

% of Accidents

L1

Unsafe Acts

81%

  

Skill-based errors

34%

  

Decision errors

29%

  

Perceptual errors

18%

L2

Preconditions

76%

  

Adverse mental state (fatigue, stress)

41%

  

Crew resource mismanagement

33%

L3

Unsafe Supervision

51%

L4

Organizational Influences

44%

(Wiegmann & Shappell, 2023 – 1,105 accidents analysed)

2.1.2 Fatigue: The Silent Killer

a) Circadian low: 02:00–06:00 local time  2.7× higher error rate (FAA, 2022)

b) Duty time > 13 hrs: LOC-I risk  370% (NASA ASRS, 2024)

c) Augmented crews: 38% reduced situational awareness in cruise (EASA, 2023)

Case: Colgan Air 3407 (2009) – Captain error + fatigue (commuter flight after <5 hrs sleep)  stall  50 fatalities.

2.1.3 Automation Dependency

a) Mode confusion: 67% of glass-cockpit pilots misinterpret FMS mode (ASRS, 2023)

b) Manual flying hours: Dropped from 12/block hour (1990) to 1.8 (2023) (ICAO)

c) Skill decay: Pilots fail basic recovery in <3 minutes after autopilot disconnect (MIT, 2022)

2.2 Machine (Hardware & Software)

2.2.1 System Reliability vs. Complexity

System

MTBF (hrs)

False Alarm Rate

Pitot-static

28,000

1 in 1,200 flights

FADEC

1.2M

1 in 85,000

TCAS

750,000

1 in 10,000

MCAS (737 MAX pre-fix)

N/A

100% failure in edge case

b737.org.uk

737 MAX - MCAS


2.2.2 Design-Induced Errors

a) Boeing 737 MAX (2018–2019): MCAS activated on a single AOA sensor → 346 deaths

b) Airbus A320 (Habibie crash, 1999): Hard-over rudder due to un-commanded yaw damper → pilot misdiagnosis

c) Automation opacity: 74% of pilots are unaware of autothrottle logic in go-around (EASA, 2021)

2.2.3 Cybersecurity: The Emerging Threat

a) 2023–2024: 14 confirmed FMS spoofing attempts via ADS-B (ENRI Japan)

b) Vulnerability: 87% of regional jets lack encrypted datalinks (MITRE, 2024)

2.3 Environment (Physical & Operational)

2.3.1 Weather-Related Accidents

Condition

% of Weather Accidents

Fatality Rate

Wind shear/microburst

38%

71%

Icing

22%

64%

Low visibility (CAT II/III failure)

18%

41%

Thunderstorm penetration

14%

52%

Case: Air France 447 (2009) – Pitot icing → unreliable airspeed → stall at FL350 → 228 fatalities.

2.3.2 Terrain & Airspace

a) CFIT: 23% of fatal accidents (2000–2024) – highest in mountainous regions

b) Top 5 CFIT airports: Kathmandu, Innsbruck, Tegucigalpa, Lukla, Toncontín

c) RNAV/RNP approaches: Reduced CFIT by 82% where implemented (ICAO, 2023)

2.3.3 Operational Pressure

a) "Get-there-itis": 61% of general aviation fatal crashes (NTSB)

b) Fuel policy violations: 1 in 8 long-haul flights land with < final reserve (Eurocontrol, 2024)

3. The Interplay: When Layers Align

3.1 Swiss Cheese Model in Practice

Safety in mind: Swiss cheese and bowties | Flight Safety ...

a) Organizational: Cost-cutting

b) Supervisory: Inadequate training

c) Preconditions: Fatigue + CRM breakdown

d) Unsafe Act: Ignored GPWS

e) Latent: No EGPWS installed

f) Active: CFIT

Tenerife (1977): Fog + miscommunication + no ground radar + schedule pressure → 583 dead.

3.2 Neural Network Causal Mapping (2007–2023)

(Li et al., Safety Science, 2024 – 1,105 accidents)

4. Case Studies: MME in Catastrophe

4.1 Turkish Airlines 1951 (2009) – Automation + Crew + Weather

a) Machine: Autothrottle fault (single RA) → premature retard

b) Man: Crew fixation on FMS, ignored “RETARD” callout

c) Environment: Low visibility approach, high workload

d) Outcome: Stall at 400 ft → 9 dead

4.2 Asiana 214 (2013) – Skill Fade + Mode Confusion

a) Machine: Autopilot disconnected, autothrottle in HOLD (not FLCH)

b) Man: Pilot flying unaware of speed decay (no visual glide slope)

c) Environment: Clear day, but a language barrier in CRM

d) Outcome: Impact short of runway → 3 dead, 187 injured

4.3 Flydubai 981 (2016) – Fatigue + Somatogravic Illusion

a) Man: Captain on 6th sector, spatial disorientation in go-around

b) Machine: No angle-of-attack indicator in cockpit

c) Environment: Wind shear + night + fatigue

d) Outcome: LOC-I → 62 dead

5. Mitigation: From Reactive to Predictive

5.1 Evidence-Based Training (EBT)

a) Replaces the check ride rote with scenario-based competency

b) Result: 43% reduction in LOC-I events (IATA, 2024)

5.2 Flight Data Monitoring (FDM/FOQA)

a) Analyses >10,000 parameters per flight

b) Prediction accuracy: 91% for unstable approaches (GE Digital, 2025)

5.3 Human-Centred Automation

a) Adaptive automation: Hands control back during high workload

b) Tactile feedback: Stick shaker + voice warnings reduce startle by 67%

5.4 Safety Management Systems (SMS)

a) Mandatory in ICAO Annex 19

b) Hazard reporting: ↑ 400% with non-punitive cultures

5.5 AI & Predictive Analytics

a) IBM Watson Aviation: Predicts maintenance failures 72 hrs in advance (98.2% accuracy)

b) Neural anomaly detection: Flags pilot stress via voice biomarkers (Embraer, 2024)

6. The Future: Toward Zero Accidents

Initiative

Target

Timeline

ICAO Global Safety Plan

0 fatal accidents by 2030

2025–2030

Single Pilot Operations (SPO)

Reduce crew to 1 with AI co-pilot

2035+

Digital Twin Cockpits

Real-time simulation for training

2027

Quantum Sensors

100% reliable icing detection

2032

Quote: “The next accident will not be caused by what we already know, but by what we have not yet imagined.” – Dr. Nancy Leveson, MIT (2023)

Conclusion

Aviation accidents are never just one thing. They are emergent properties of misaligned systems:

a) A tired pilot

b) A silent sensor

c) A storm at the wrong moment

d) A procedure written for yesterday’s aircraft

The path to zero lies not in eliminating error, but in designing resilience at every interface.

Final Statistic: In 2024, you were approximately 22× more likely to die taking a selfie than flying commercially (WHO vs. ICAO/IATA).

The sky is not forgiving—but it is increasingly engineered to be safe.


References (Selected)

1. ICAO (2025). State of Global Aviation Safety Report.

2. Boeing (2024). Statistical Summary of Commercial Jet Airplane Accidents 1959–2023.

3. NTSB (2023). Aviation Accident Database.

4. Wiegmann, D., & Shappell, S. (2023). HFACS 2.0: 20 Years of Data.

5. EASA (2024). Annual Safety Review.

6. Li, W. et al. (2024). “Neural Causal Mapping of Aviation Accidents.” Safety Science.

7. IATA (2025). Safety Report 2024.


Author: GR Mohan

 

VIP Charter Operations, and the Regulatory Blind Spot in Indian Aviation

  On the morning of 28 January 2026 , Maharashtra Deputy Chief Minister Ajit Pawar  was killed when a Learjet 45XR  chartered from VSR Aviat...