A Dharwad organisation the regulator approved with a fleet of new Tecnams, no website on the list, and a personal email address as the only way to reach it.
Aviation Connectivity and Infrastructure Developers holds an approval to train at Dharwad in Karnataka and, as far as the regulator's own list goes, has no website at all. That is the whole reason this page is short: our rule is that a school gets a page from its own sources, and where there are none the page carries the regulator's facts and stops rather than borrowing somebody else's.
What the regulator does record is worth reading. The approval runs well into the next decade, the fleet is entirely single engine and entirely Tecnam, and the base is given as the Old Technical Block at Dharwad. There is no multi engine aircraft on the approval, which matters if you want the multi engine hours of a commercial course flown where you train.
The only contact the regulator prints is a personal address at a free email provider rather than an institutional one. That is not a judgement about the organisation, but it is a fact a student writing to ask about a seat should know before they wonder why the reply looks informal.
The regulator prints approval 01/2025 against this organisation, records its ownership as Private Ltd, and gives the approval as valid to 24 July 2030.
Nothing to compare. The DGCA list records 5 single engine and 0 multi engine, types Tecnam P2010 TDI and Tecnam P Mentor, at Dharwad, Karnataka.
The regulator's list prints no website for this organisation, so there was no site of its own to read on 8 September 2026.
| What | Our source records |
|---|---|
| Registered name | Aviation Connectivity and Infrastructure Developers Pvt. Ltd. |
| Bases | Dharwad, Karnataka |
| Aircraft | 5 single engine and no multi engine aircraft on the regulator's list, being Tecnam P2010 TDI, Tecnam P Mentor |
| Courses | |
| Figures checked | 8 September 2026 |
DGCA ranking, 1 April 2026 edition: not ranked in the 1 April 2026 edition. The regulator's own reason, printed against its name, is: Ranking not applicable as the FTO did not complete 18 months (1.5 years) as on 28.02.2026 from date of approval.
The regulator publishes a letter and a serial number and no score at all, so there is nothing behind the letter to inspect and nothing here to rank schools against each other by. The bands the letters come from, and how many organisations sit in each on this edition, are set out on the flying schools in India index.
We hold no figure for this school that we would stand behind, so this page gives you none. Its fee is Not publishedby this organisation anywhere, checked 8 September 2026
This organisation publishes no admission process of its own that we could read on 8 September 2026, so the only route in is whatever the contact the regulator prints leads to.
The regulator's list prints no website for this organisation, so there is no site of its own to check (checked 8 September 2026).
There is no school website on the regulator's list, so nothing about courses, fees, intakes or instructors is published by this organisation anywhere we can cite.
We will not substitute an aggregator's number for the fee this organisation does not publish.
Nothing above is the whole cost of becoming a pilot. Our pilot training cost in India page has the full stack from the medicals to the type rating, and CPL course fees in India puts this school's licence figure next to the rest of the market.
Because there is nothing of the organisation's own to read. The regulator's list carries no website for it, and this directory only publishes what a school or the regulator has actually printed. A page padded out with guesses would be worse than a short one.
Yes. It is on the regulator's list of approved flying training organisations with a named base at Dharwad, a named fleet and an approval running into the next decade. Approval is a floor and not a ranking, and it says nothing about whether a seat is available.
The regulator excludes an organisation that had not completed eighteen months since approval at the assessment cut-off, and that is the reason printed against this one. It is a statement about the age of the approval and not about the training.