By the attorneys at Aviation Law Group
When news of the crash of a Hawker 800XP in Michigan broke on October 17, Aviation Law Group attorneys were shocked by the similarities between the accident and another case the firm is working on — the February 7, 2024, crash of a Hawker 900XP in Utah. While the NTSB has not yet issued its probable cause report from the 2024 accident, nor released evidence about it, in light of the similarities of the accidents, ALG attorneys are left wondering if safety concerns arising from that accident could have been brought to light and implemented earlier, possibly preventing the Michigan accident. Of course, more facts are needed to fully evaluate the causation factors of both accidents, but the substantial similarities raise serious questions.
October 16, 2025, Hawker 800 XP in Bath Township, Michigan
The Hawker 800XP had been in maintenance for nearly 5 months at Duncan Aviation’s aircraft maintenance facility at the Battle Creek Kellogg Regional Airport (BTL) in Michigan. On October 16, the Hawker jet, owned by Aereo Lineas del Centro SA and registered in Mexico as XA-JMR, took off at approximately 5:05 pm local time for a maintenance check flight scheduled to return to BTL an hour later. The check flight was to include aircraft stalls. The aircraft climbed out to the northeast toward the south side of Lansing and once past the city turned north. XA-JMR climbed to approximately 15,000 feet and requested from air traffic control a block altitude zone to do aircraft performance checks from 14,000 feet to 16,000 feet. That clearance was granted.
XA-JMR then slowed down. At some point, it appears that the aircraft stalled, and based on ground video, the aircraft entered an uncontrolled spin. One of the pilots reported to ATC that they were in a stall. They were unable to get out of the stall/spin, and they crashed. Shortly thereafter, other aircraft reported billowing black smoke in the area where ATC asked them to look for XA-JMR. The two pilots and a mechanic, all from Mexico, died in the accident.
FlightRadar 24 profile of the October 15, 2025, Hawker 800XP Accident
February 7, 2024, Hawker 900XP Accident in Grand County, Utah
In February 2024, Aviation Law Group reported on the tragic accident involving a Hawker 900XP that was performing post-maintenance flight checks shortly after departure from Grand Junction Airport, Colorado (GJT). As reflected in the ADS-B data for that flight, aircraft N900VA had a normal take-off and departure. During climb-out, the pilots requested a block altitude to do some checks. This is a common request when a pilot wants to do aircraft performance tests and stalls. Approximately 10 minutes after departure, and 30 miles northwest of GJT, the aircraft slowed down to approximately 165 knots and then entered a right-spiraling descent. From there, the aircraft accelerated into a high rate and angle of descent, dropping nearly 13,000 feet per minute vertically. The pilots were unable to recover and crashed at a very high rate of speed.
Flight track of N900VA from NTSB preliminary report.
As the NTSB final report is not yet out, the NTSB has kept very tight-lipped about their investigation, findings, and any thoughts on the cause of that accident. The wreckage has not yet been released for public inspection. Aviation Law Group currently represents the estate of one of the pilots involved.
“We have always been most perplexed by this accident,” Robert Hedrick recently stated. “We suspect that there is much more to this investigation, because if it was caused by just a broken part, poor maintenance, or pilot mistake, the NTSB final report would already be out. Without access to the wreckage, or flight data, or voice recorder information, Aviation Law Group is left in a prolonged holding pattern in its investigation for the truth, and the full story behind the accident. “ Hedrick continued: “In our cases, we are not just content in finding out how an accident occurred, we want to know why, and explore all the potential multiple causes in determining why, because this not only gets to the truth for our clients, but answering why is the best way to help prevent future similar accidents.”
Similarities Between The Two Accidents
So far, we are able to identify the following similarities between the two accidents:
- Both aircraft were substantially similar: a Hawker 800XP and a Hawker 900XP.
- Both aircraft were in for extended maintenance over time before the accident.
- Both aircraft planned a post-maintenance flight check that included stalls.
- Both aircraft flew to approximately 15,000 feet above the ground.
- Both aircraft requested blocked airspace of 2000 feet.
- Both aircraft commenced their flight check at altitude.
- Both aircraft entered into a stall.
- Both aircraft entered into a spin.
- Both aircraft were unable to recover and crashed.
Are There Other Similar Accidents and Incidents?
Here, as we previously reported, there may already be an accident history warranting serious consideration regarding the safety of stall procedures on Hawker series jets. Instances of erratic behavior during stall maneuvers, including unexpected rolls and recovery difficulties, have been documented in various models over the years. These incidents underscore the inherent risks associated with stall tests, particularly when conducted at low altitudes or without comprehensive pre-flight planning and risk assessment. It is common practice for trained test pilots to perform these types of stall tests on other business jet aircraft, such as Learjets. Yet, for Hawker jets, we have seen multiple incidents in which stall tests conducted by regular pilots have resulted in a loss of aircraft control.
For example, on September 20, 2003, near Beaumont, Texas, a Hawker 700 training flight resulted in three fatalities. During this flight, an instructor-pilot was preparing two pilots for Part 135 flight checks. The cockpit voice recorder captured a conversation that revealed a potential underestimation of the aircraft’s stall behavior. At 5,000 feet, following steep turns and approaches to stalls, the instructor asked for a demonstration of an approach-to-landing stall. This incident tragically illustrates the dangers of performing intentional stalls at low altitudes without sufficient recovery margins, emphasizing the need for comprehensive stall recovery training and heightened awareness of aircraft capabilities and limitations.
Another significant example involves a Hawker 800A wing-maintenance stall check on May 4th, 2006. The pilot-in-command (PIC) reported that the flight was entering a stall series in accordance with the planned flight test procedures. The PIC was the pilot flying at the time of the incident. The PIC stated that “as the airplane slowed through [approximately] 126 knots [indicated airspeed], it abruptly rolled off / dropped the right wing and the nose fell rapidly.” He noted that, although the autopilot was on as required by the test procedure, he was holding the control wheel and felt “no vibration or abnormal indication” prior to the event. He reported that the airplane rolled 5 to 7 times, both to the right and the left.
The pilot reported that during the resulting uncontrolled descent, the airplane entered an underlying cloud layer at 12,000 feet msl. The airplane exited the cloud layer about 10,000 feet msl and was “descending vertically.” He stated: “I neutralized the ailerons with the yoke and began a higher than normal back pressure pull-out, experiencing [approximately] 4 – 5 Gs. The aircraft responded, and we stopped the descent somewhere below 7,000 [feet msl].” Icing might have also been a contributing factor.
Final Thoughts
While we do not yet know where the Lansing, Michigan Hawker 800XP and the Grand County, Utah Hawker 900XP accidents fit into this history of stall recovery challenges and the general dangers of stall recovery of swept-wing business jet aircraft, the similarities of these accidents raise serious concerns that these aircraft may not be safe to stall, or to stall without substantial training and experience. We anticipate that the NTSB will timely release the answers needed to help prevent similar accidents in the future, and that the FAA will promptly implement any needed safety changes. In the meantime, Aviation Law Group’s investigation continues.