Final report released on Hawker 900XP crash in Utah

The NTSB released the final report on the 2024 Hawker 900XP (N900VA) crash that happened in Utah on Dec. 23, 2025. The crew was conducting a stall test on Feb. 7 2024 after the wing's leading edges and de-ice panels were removed, inspected and reinstalled at West Star Aviation's facility at Grand Junction Regional Airport (GJT) in Colorado. The aircraft departed normally, according to the report, and leveled off at 20,000 ft msl, but then entered a rapid descent in the shape of a corkscrew before impacting terrain and catching fire near the Utah-Colorado border. Both the pilot and copilot were killed in the crash. The post-crash fire mostly consumed the aircraft, leaving it highly fragmented. The NTSB states that there were no anomalies with the flight controls or engines, as the flight control surface movements were consistent with the flight control inputs and engine performance matched the power lever movement. The pilots reportedly did not follow cloud clearance and height limitations by knowingly choosing to do the stall test above clouds about 2,000 ft above the prescribed maximum altitude. Flight recorder data and cockpit voice recorder audio also shows that the flight crew departed without engine ice protection and likely without airframe ice protection. While the exact reason is unknown, the decision may have been made to prevent the de-icing fluid from contaminating the airflow over the wing. RELATED STORIES: Hawker 900XP crashes in Utah, killing two Hawker 900XP conducting stall test during deadly crash, NTSB says The NTSB also states the flight crew were not sufficiently trained for the flight and that the Pilot's Operating Manual did not provide clear instructions for what could happen with unacceptable stall characteristics. When the pilot attempted remedial action during the stall, it only aggravated it and led to a loss of control. The probable cause is stated to be a combination of wing contamination from conducting the test in icy conditions, the manufacturer's lack of training and experience requirements to safely perform the test, which resulted in a loss of control and the decision to conduct the test outside of the required conditions.