Test Pilot Territory: An Investigation into Systemic Risk in Post-Maintenance Stall Testing

Executive Summary

Fatal accidents involving Hawker business jets during post-maintenance stall tests are recurring. These events highlight critical systemic failures in aviation safety. They are not isolated incidents of pilot error. Instead, they are the predictable outcomes of a flawed system.

This report identifies three primary areas of failure.

1. A Permissive Regulatory Framework. The definition of an “appropriately rated pilot” in 14 CFR 91.407 is dangerously ambiguous.¹
2. Challenging Aircraft Aerodynamics. Swept-wing, T-tail aircraft like the Hawker series can enter unannounced, aggressive stalls.²
3. A Pilot Qualification Gap. A profound gap exists between a pilot’s legal certification and their actual qualification to conduct high-risk test flights.³

These factors have fostered a “cottage industry” for post-maintenance flights. In this environment, economic pressures often lead to using line pilots for missions that demand the specialized skills of a professional test pilot. The analysis reveals a clear pattern of catastrophe. This pattern is made worse by a reactive regulatory process that lags dangerously behind emerging safety trends.

This report concludes with a blueprint for safety. It offers actionable recommendations for regulators, maintenance organizations, manufacturers, and pilots. The core recommendations focus on amending regulations to require specialized pilot endorsements and implementing mandatory risk assessments for post-maintenance flights. They also call for revising aircraft flight manuals with explicit warnings and fostering a culture where high-risk maneuvers are deferred to qualified test pilots. The urgency of these changes is paramount to prevent future tragedies.

Section I: The Anatomy of a High-Risk Maneuver

Post-maintenance test flights hold a critical yet precarious position in aviation safety. They are a necessary final step. They validate an aircraft’s airworthiness after significant repairs or alterations.

However, these flights can expose a cascade of systemic failures when they involve high-risk maneuvers. Intentional stall testing on complex aircraft is one such maneuver. The recurring tragedies involving the Hawker series of business jets are not isolated incidents of pilot error. They are symptoms of a deeply flawed system.

This system has several key characteristics. It includes a permissive regulatory framework, challenging aircraft aerodynamics, and a dangerous gap between a pilot’s legal certification and their actual qualification. An examination of these interconnected factors reveals a predictable and repeatable pathway to catastrophe.

The Regulatory Gray Area: Deconstructing FAR 91.407

The governing regulation itself lies at the heart of this systemic vulnerability. Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), Part 91.407, addresses “Operation after maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding, or alteration.”

Paragraph (b) of this rule is particularly important. It mandates that no person may carry passengers in an aircraft that has undergone maintenance that “may have appreciably changed its flight characteristics or substantially affected its operation in flight.” This restriction applies until an “appropriately rated pilot” performs an operational check and logs the flight.¹,⁴,⁵

This regulation is sound in its intent. However, it contains a critical ambiguity that has been exploited to the detriment of safety.

The term “appropriately rated pilot” is legally interpreted to mean a pilot who holds the necessary category, class, and type rating for the aircraft. For a Hawker 800XP, this means a pilot with an Airline Transport Pilot (ATP) certificate and a corresponding type rating.¹

The regulation makes no distinction between a pilot qualified for normal operations and one qualified to conduct what is essentially an experimental flight test. A stall series is not a normal operation. It is a high-risk engineering validation procedure, particularly on an aircraft with known adverse characteristics and after maintenance that may have affected flight controls or stall warning systems.

This regulatory loophole facilitates a dangerous phenomenon known as the “normalization of deviance.” The rule’s ambiguity allows a lower-cost, lower-standard interpretation to become common practice. This practice involves using standard line pilots instead of specialized, and more expensive, test pilots. When this is done numerous times without a negative outcome, it becomes an accepted industry norm. This is particularly true within a cost-sensitive “cottage industry.”

This normalization masks the latent risk inherent in the system. The risk does not disappear. It simply lies dormant until a specific set of circumstances aligns, leading to a catastrophic failure. The accidents in Grand Junction, Colorado, and Bath Township, Michigan, are the tragic materialization of this latent risk. They expose the inadequacy of a regulation that has failed to keep pace with the complexity of modern, high-performance aircraft.

The Aerodynamic Challenge: The Hawker Stall Profile

The Hawker 800 and 900 series aircraft have a specific combination of aerodynamic features. Their moderately swept wing and a T-tail configuration create unique and challenging stall characteristics.

A conventional straight-wing aircraft with a low-mounted horizontal stabilizer typically provides ample aerodynamic buffet. This serves as a natural warning of an impending stall. The Hawker design is different. During a high angle of attack (AOA) stall, the airflow separation from the wing can bypass the high-mounted T-tail. This deprives the pilot of that critical tactile warning.²

---

Visual Aid: Stall Aerodynamics of T-Tail vs. Conventional Tail

• Conventional Low-Tail Design: In a stall, the turbulent air (wake) separating from the wing roots flows backward and strikes the low-mounted horizontal tail. This creates a physical vibration, or “buffet,” that the pilot can feel through the controls, providing a natural warning of the impending stall. The reduced effectiveness of the tail in this turbulent air also helps the aircraft’s nose to drop naturally, aiding in recovery.²
• Swept-Wing T-Tail Design (e.g., Hawker): During a normal approach to a stall, the high T-tail remains in “clean” air, above the wing’s wake. This means the pilot receives no natural aerodynamic buffet as a warning. At the point of the stall, the separated, turbulent wake flows rearward and can completely “blanket” the horizontal tail. This sudden loss of effective airflow over the elevator can render the pitch controls useless, preventing the pilot from lowering the nose to recover. This condition, known as a “deep stall,” is exceptionally dangerous.²

---

To compensate for this lack of natural warning, the aircraft is equipped with a sophisticated, multi-channel artificial stall warning and identification system.⁶ This system operates in two stages:

1. Stall Warning (Stick Shaker): As the aircraft approaches a stall, an electric motor in each control column activates. This is measured by angle-of-attack vanes on the fuselage. The motor creates a vigorous shaking motion, providing a clear physical alert to the pilots.⁶
2. Stall Identification (Stick Pusher): If the pilots fail to respond to the stick shaker and the AOA continues to increase, a hydraulic actuator forcefully pushes the control column forward. This action mechanically lowers the aircraft’s nose, reduces the AOA, and is designed to force a recovery from the stall.⁶

The historical record for the Hawker series is replete with documented instances of “erratic behavior during stall maneuvers, including unexpected rolls and recovery difficulties”.¹ This behavior is often characterized by an abrupt, asymmetric stall. One wing stalls before the other, resulting in a sharp, uncommanded “wing drop” that can rapidly develop into a spin.

This design leads to a critical “Test Flight Paradox.”

A primary purpose of a post-maintenance flight is to verify the correct functioning of all systems. This is especially true after work on wing leading edges or flight controls. This includes the very stall warning system the pilots rely on for safety.⁴,⁵

The procedure to test this system requires the crew to fly the aircraft to the edge of its flight envelope. They deliberately approach a stall to confirm that the stick shaker activates at the correct speed and AOA.

However, the artificial stall warning system may fail to activate if the maintenance was performed incorrectly. An AOA vane could be miscalibrated, a sensor improperly connected, or control rigging subtly altered. In this scenario, the pilots are deprived of both the artificial warning they are testing and the natural buffet their aircraft does not provide. They will experience an unannounced, abrupt, and potentially violent stall.

The very act of validating the system’s integrity exposes the crew to catastrophic failure if that system is, in fact, compromised. This is a high-stakes maneuver. It should only be undertaken by a pilot trained and prepared to recover from an unannounced and potentially disorienting departure from controlled flight.

Comparative Accident Analysis: A Pattern of Catastrophe

The fatal crashes of a Hawker 900XP in Utah and a Hawker 800XP in Michigan reveal a clear and disturbing pattern. The similarities between these events are stark. These were not random accidents but near-identical scenarios separated only by time and location.

Factor	Hawker 900XP (N900VA)	Hawker 800XP (XA-JMR)
Date & Location	February 7, 2024; near Westwater, UT⁷	October 16, 2025; near Bath Township, MI⁸
Flight Purpose	Post-maintenance test flight combined with a positioning flight¹,⁷	Post-maintenance test flight⁸,⁹
Maintenance Preceding Flight	Routine inspections at West Star Aviation, including removal of wing leading edges and TKS panels⁷	Scheduled maintenance at Duncan Aviation; aircraft had been grounded since March 2025⁹,¹⁰
Flight Profile	Departed GJT, requested and received a block altitude from FL180 to FL200 for “checks”⁷	Departed BTL, requested and received a block altitude from 14,000 to 16,000 feet for testing⁸
Loss of Control Event	Leveled at FL200, then entered a rapid, “corkscrew” descent with multiple rotations. Descent rate reached nearly 13,000 ft/min¹,⁷	Crew reported being “in a stall” shortly before a rapid, nose-down descent from 14,775 feet, impacting the ground in under 30 seconds⁸,⁹
Occupants	2 Fatal (Pilot, Copilot)⁷	3 Fatal (Two pilots, one maintenance representative)⁸,⁹
NTSB Status (as of user query)	Preliminary report released; final report pending⁷	Investigation initiated; preliminary report pending⁸

Table 1: Comparative Analysis of Recent Hawker Stall-Related Accidents

The data in Table 1 is unequivocal. Both flights followed significant maintenance. Both involved a specific request to Air Traffic Control for a block of altitude conducive to air work. And both ended in a catastrophic loss of control consistent with an unrecoverable stall or spin.

The flight track data for N900VA, described as a “corkscrew,” is a classic signature of a spin.⁷ The ATC audio from XA-JMR, where the crew explicitly states they are “in a stall,” confirms the nature of the event.⁸,⁹ The presence of a maintenance representative on the Michigan flight further underscores its purpose as a functional check flight.⁹

This pattern strongly indicates that the crews were attempting to perform a stall test as required by the maintenance manual. They encountered the known adverse aerodynamic characteristics of the Hawker and were unable to recover. This clear pattern of failure, rooted in both regulation and aerodynamics, is enabled by the economic realities of the maintenance industry.

Section II: The “Cottage Industry” of Post-Maintenance Flight Testing

The execution of post-maintenance test flights is not a monolithic activity. It is served by a diverse and fragmented “cottage industry.” This sector ranges from highly structured, in-house flight test departments at major Maintenance, Repair, and Overhaul (MRO) organizations to a fluid market of on-demand contract pilots.

The economic drivers within this industry, coupled with its historical development, have created a system where a critical, life-saving discipline can be treated as a commoditized service. In this system, price and convenience often take precedence over specialized expertise.

Market Landscape and Key Players

The market for providing pilots for return-to-service flights can be segmented into several distinct business models. These models reveal a wide spectrum of specialization and capability.

Category	Description	Examples	Key Characteristics
Full-Service MROs with In-House Test Crews	Large, often historically military-focused organizations that maintain a dedicated, permanent staff of professional test pilots and flight test engineers.	Marshall Group¹¹	Institutionalized flight test discipline; deep engineering integration; high cost structure; focus on major modifications and military contracts.
Specialized MROs with In-House Expertise	MROs that focus on a specific aircraft family and leverage deep type-specific knowledge, including flight testing, as a key market differentiator.	Phoenix Rising Aviation (Dassault Falcon)¹²	High level of airframe-specific expertise; pilots are often company leaders with extensive experience in type; offers a blend of maintenance and operational knowledge.
Specialized Flight Test Service Providers	Companies whose sole business is providing flight test crews and engineering services for acceptance, functional check, and maintenance test flights.	WASINC International¹³	Crews are marketed as highly qualified and experienced in flight testing; qualifications accepted by multiple international authorities (FAA, EASA, CAAC); provide formal flight test reports.
General Contract Pilot/Crewing Agencies	Firms that act as brokers, connecting a large database of freelance pilots with operators needing temporary crew for various missions.	JetPro Pilots, Flight Crew International (FCI), Jett Group Inc.¹⁴	Focus on rapid fulfillment and logistics; pilots are vetted for ratings and currency; services include ferry, charter, and post-maintenance flights; variable levels of specific test flight expertise.

Table 2: Profile of Post-Maintenance Test Flight Service Providers

These different models highlight a critical choice for an aircraft owner or MRO. They can engage a highly specialized, integrated team, or they can source a pilot from a general agency. The latter model, driven by the logistics of the “gig economy,” has led to the commoditization of a critical skill.

Contract pilot agencies often market their pilots based on easily quantifiable metrics like type ratings and total flight hours.¹⁴ These metrics are simple to verify and understand. However, the nuanced, qualitative, and far more critical skills of a professional test pilot are not easily captured in a database. These skills include a deep understanding of flight test methodologies, experience with flight envelope expansion, and recent hands-on training in out-of-control flight recovery.

This can lead to a dangerous mismatch. A pilot who is perfectly competent for a ferry flight or a standard charter may be assigned to a high-risk test flight for which they are fundamentally unprepared.

Market Sizing and Economic Drivers

The global market for aircraft MRO is a massive economic engine. It was valued at approximately $90 billion in 2024. It is projected to grow to over $140 billion by 2034.¹⁵,¹⁶ The specific sub-market for post-maintenance test flights is not independently tracked. However, it is a mandatory and integral component of this larger industry. The sheer scale of the MRO sector creates intense and relentless pressure for efficiency and cost control.

---

Projected Growth of the Global Aircraft MRO Market (in USD Billions)

Year	Market Value
2024	$90 Billion
2034 (Projected)	$144 Billion

*This chart illustrates the significant economic scale and projected growth of the aircraft maintenance, repair, and overhaul industry. This growth creates underlying cost pressures on all associated activities, including post-maintenance test flights.*¹⁵,¹⁶

---

A post-maintenance test flight represents a necessary cost center for the MRO or the aircraft owner. The powerful economic incentive is to satisfy the legal requirement of FAR 91.407 at the lowest possible price. This directly addresses the core of the user’s concern. Restricting these flights to a small pool of highly-paid, specialized test pilots would disrupt the prevailing business model. It is far cheaper to use the aircraft owner’s own line pilots or a readily available contract pilot than to engage a dedicated flight test organization.

This economic pressure creates a dynamic of diffused responsibility—a “liability hot potato.” An MRO can frame the event as simply returning the aircraft to the operator’s care by allowing the customer’s pilots to conduct the test flight. The operator, in turn, relies on the legal fact that their pilots are “appropriately rated” and assumes they are qualified. Each party can thus deflect full ownership of the risk assessment for the flight itself. The powerful financial incentive to pass this “hot potato” of liability and cost is a significant driver of decisions that compromise safety.

Historical Evolution of Civilian Test Flying

The discipline of flight testing was born in the crucible of early military aviation. It was established out of the stark necessity to understand the performance, limitations, and dangers of new and unproven aircraft.¹⁷ Organizations like the U.S. Air Force Test Pilot School and the Empire Test Pilots’ School (ETPS) in the United Kingdom formalized this discipline. ETPS, founded in 1943, helped turn it from a daredevil pursuit into a rigorous branch of aeronautical engineering.¹⁸

The principles of methodical planning, precise data collection, and incremental expansion of the flight envelope were developed over decades in the military and developmental test sectors. The requirement for post-maintenance operational checks in civilian aviation, as codified in regulations like FAR 91.407, is a direct descendant of this safety philosophy.¹,⁴,⁵

However, the transfer of this philosophy has been dangerously incomplete. The requirement for a test flight was adopted. The rigorous qualification standards for the pilots conducting them were not.

The problem, therefore, is not a lack of knowledge on how to conduct these flights safely. The body of knowledge, the training methodologies, and the safety disciplines have existed for over 80 years. The systemic failure lies in the inconsistent application and lack of enforcement of these principles within the cost-driven, less-structured environment of civilian general and business aviation.

Section III: The Qualification Gap: “Rated” vs. “Qualified”

A fundamental flaw exists in the current approach to post-maintenance testing. It is the conflation of being legally “rated” to fly an aircraft with being genuinely “qualified” to test it at its performance limits. A standard pilot certificate and type rating are necessary. However, they are profoundly insufficient for the unique demands of high-risk flight testing.

This creates a dangerous qualification gap. Pilots are placed in situations that their training has not prepared them for. They often have a false sense of security derived from their certifications.

The Regulatory Minimum: A Low Bar for a High-Risk Task

The foundational training that most U.S. pilots receive for out-of-control flight recovery is for the Certified Flight Instructor (CFI) certificate. Per 14 CFR §61.183(i), an applicant for a CFI certificate must receive and log flight training. They must also obtain a logbook endorsement from an authorized instructor in “stall awareness, spin entry, spins, and recovery procedures”.¹⁹

This critical training is almost universally conducted in a light, single-engine, piston-powered aircraft, such as a Cessna 152, which is certified for intentional spins.²⁰ This entire training module can often be completed in a single day. It comprises a few hours of ground and flight instruction, at a cost of approximately $500 to $600.²¹

While valuable for its intended purpose, this experience is not transferable. It does not prepare a pilot for a high-altitude stall in a 30,000-pound, swept-wing business jet. The aerodynamic behaviors, control inputs, recovery altitudes, and physiological stresses are worlds apart. Relying on this minimal, dissimilar-aircraft endorsement as a primary qualification for conducting a stall test in a Hawker is a catastrophic false equivalency.

This minimal requirement contributes to an “illusion of proficiency.” A pilot may hold an ATP certificate, a Hawker type rating, and the CFI spin endorsement. On paper, they appear highly qualified. They are legally certified and have been exposed to the approved recovery procedures in a controlled, predictable simulator environment.²²

However, the simulator cannot fully replicate the violent, disorienting, and often asymmetric nature of a real-world aerodynamic stall. The pilot has likely never experienced the “startle factor” of an unannounced departure, the negative G-forces, or the degraded control authority that characterize these events. They are proficient according to the regulations but dangerously inexperienced in the harsh reality of out-of-control flight in a complex aircraft.

The Gold Standard: The True Test Pilot Skillset

In stark contrast to the regulatory minimum stands the body of knowledge and best practices developed by the FAA and the flight test community. These represent the gold standard for operating aircraft safely at the edges of the flight envelope.

• FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 120-109A, Stall Prevention and Recovery Training: This document provides comprehensive guidance on modern stall recovery techniques. It is directed at air carriers but recommended for all operators. It fundamentally shifts the focus from minimizing altitude loss to an immediate and decisive reduction of the Angle of Attack (AOA) as the single most important action.²² It stresses that pilots must be trained to accept the altitude loss that is a necessary consequence of a proper recovery. It also calls for realistic, scenario-based training that includes stalls at high altitude and with the autopilot engaged.²²
• FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 25-7D, Flight Test Guide for Certification of Transport Category Airplanes: This highly technical manual outlines the rigorous procedures used to certify transport aircraft. Chapter 8, “Stalls,” provides exhaustive detail on the methodology for conducting stall tests. This includes data recording, calculation of lift coefficients ($C_L$), and determination of the maximum lift coefficient ($C_{L_{MAX}}$).²³ The procedures described are those of an engineer and a scientist, not a line pilot. They involve methodical test planning, precise control inputs, and detailed post-flight data analysis.²³

The principles and procedures detailed in these documents are the daily language of the professional test pilot. Their training goes far beyond procedural repetition. It is a deep, academic, and practical immersion into aerodynamics, aircraft stability and control, and flight test methodology. The following table starkly illustrates the chasm between the qualifications of a standard line pilot and a professional test pilot.

Qualification Metric	Standard ATP with Type Rating	Professional Test Pilot
Training Focus	Procedural compliance, normal/abnormal operations, CRM.	Flight envelope expansion, data collection, stability & control analysis.
Stall/Spin Experience	CFI endorsement in light piston aircraft; simulator-based stall recognition.¹⁹	Extensive in-flight training in various aircraft types, including intentional full stalls, spins, and out-of-control flight recovery.
Key Regulatory/Guidance Document	14 CFR Part 61 (Certification), Aircraft Flight Manual (AFM).	AC 25-7D (Flight Test Guide), AC 120-109A (Stall Recovery), formal test pilot school curriculum.²²,²³
Typical Training Cost/Time	Type Rating: $20k-$40k, 2-4 weeks.	Test Pilot School: $1M+, 1 year.
Core Skillset	Systems management, adherence to SOPs.	Analytical risk management, precise aircraft control at the flight envelope edge, diagnostic flight testing.

Table 3: Pilot Qualification Comparison: Standard ATP vs. Specialized Test Pilot

Human Factors Under Duress: When the System Breaks Down

The user’s astute observation of “coaching on the audio” during one of the accident sequences points directly to the critical role of human factors. When a crew is pushed beyond the boundaries of their training and experience, cognitive functions degrade rapidly.

A professional test pilot is trained to function as a calm, methodical data collector even in the face of unexpected and violent aircraft behavior. Their training is designed to inoculate them against the “startle factor”—the moment of sheer panic and disbelief that can paralyze an unprepared pilot.

The startle effect triggers an involuntary physiological and psychological response. This is sometimes called an “amygdala hijack,” where the brain’s primitive fear center overrides higher-order cognitive function.²⁵ This can lead to tunnel vision, auditory exclusion, and a freeze response or incorrect, reflexive actions.²⁵

Specialized Upset Prevention and Recovery Training (UPRT) directly mitigates this. It exposes pilots to controlled, in-flight upset scenarios. This repeated exposure builds resilience, reduces the startle response, and develops crucial muscle memory. It allows the pilot to bypass cognitive paralysis and apply the correct recovery technique instinctively.²⁶

For a line pilot, an uncommanded, high-rate roll following a stall is not a data point; it is a life-threatening emergency. The physiological stress and cognitive overload can lead to critical errors, such as applying the wrong control inputs. A common, reflexive mistake is to use aileron to try and “pick up” a dropped wing during a stall. This action often worsens the situation by increasing the AOA on the down-going wing, deepening the stall and potentially provoking a spin.²⁴

The confusion and communication breakdowns evident in ATC recordings from the Bath, Michigan, crash are symptoms of a crew operating at their absolute limit.⁸,⁹ They were simultaneously trying to understand the aircraft, execute a recovery procedure, and communicate their dire situation. This is not a failure of airmanship in the traditional sense. It is the predictable outcome of placing a non-specialist in a specialist’s environment without the requisite training, tools, or mental preparation.

Section IV: A Chain of Culpability: Systemic Failures and Accountability

The crashes of N900VA and XA-JMR are not the result of a single point of failure. They are the culmination of a chain of events and decisions. These decisions involve the maintenance organization, the aircraft manufacturer, and the regulatory authorities. Each entity plays a role in a system that allows foreseeable risks to persist until they manifest as tragedy. A thorough analysis requires an examination of the responsibilities and potential liabilities at each link in this chain.

The Role of the Maintenance Organization

The MRO is the final gatekeeper of safety on the ground before an aircraft is returned to service. The accident in Bath, Michigan, occurred after maintenance at Duncan Aviation. The Grand Junction accident followed work at West Star Aviation.⁷,⁹ While the NTSB’s final probable cause determinations are pending, the context of these flights places significant focus on the MRO’s role.

The MRO’s responsibility extends beyond the physical “wrench-turning.” It encompasses a duty of care to ensure that the operational check required to validate their work is conducted safely. Research has shown that aircraft are at a significantly higher risk of an accident immediately following maintenance. One study indicated a 33.8% higher risk in the first hour of flight.²⁷ This is a known, quantifiable risk.

MROs are, or should be, aware that certain maintenance tasks can introduce critical failure modes. This is especially true for tasks involving flight controls, wing leading edges, and the complex systems associated with stall warnings.

Therefore, the decision to release an aircraft for a high-risk test flight to an unverified crew is a critical one. By allowing a customer’s line pilots to perform a stall series, the MRO may be contributing to the accident chain. A proactive safety culture would demand a formal risk assessment for every post-maintenance flight. Any flight plan that includes intentional maneuvers approaching the aircraft’s certified flight envelope should be automatically designated as “High-Risk.” Such a flight should require a pilot with documented qualifications in experimental flight testing. Failure to implement such a protocol could be viewed as a significant lapse in safety management.

Manufacturer Responsibility: The Textron/Hawker Legacy

The aircraft manufacturer, Textron Aviation, bears responsibility in two key areas. These are the inherent design characteristics of the aircraft and the adequacy of the information provided to operate it safely. As previously established, the Hawker series has a well-documented history of challenging stall characteristics.¹

While the aircraft is FAA-certified, its known propensity for abrupt, asymmetric stalls places a heightened burden on the manufacturer. They must provide clear, unambiguous, and forceful warnings and procedures in the Aircraft Flight Manual (AFM) and Pilot’s Operating Handbook (POH). If the manufacturer’s official documentation does not contain a prominent warning that intentional stall series testing is a high-risk maneuver requiring qualifications beyond a standard type rating, it could be argued that the manufacturer has failed in its “duty to warn.”

Furthermore, an examination of the manufacturer’s broader safety record is relevant. Violation Tracker, a corporate misconduct database, shows that Textron and its subsidiaries have incurred penalties for numerous aviation safety violations levied by the FAA.²⁸ While not all of these are directly related to the Hawker stall issue, they contribute to a larger picture of the company’s relationship with regulatory compliance.

The FAA also periodically issues Airworthiness Directives (ADs) for Textron products to correct unsafe conditions. For example, a 2025 AD for certain King Air models concerned the potential for rudder control pushrod failure due to incorrect rivets being installed during production.²⁹ This indicates that issues related to manufacturing quality and maintenance procedures remain an ongoing concern.

Date	Subsidiary	Agency	Penalty	Primary Offense Type
2024	LYCOMING ENGINES	FAA	$70,000	aviation safety violation
2015	CESSNA AIRCRAFT COMPANY	FAA	$430,000	aviation safety violation
2015	BEECHCRAFT CORPORATION	FAA	$150,000	aviation safety violation
2014	BELL HELICOPTER TEXTRON INC.	FAA	$81,000	aviation safety violation
2014	CESSNA AIRCRAFT CO.	FAA	$20,000	aviation safety violation
2010	Hawker Beechcraft Corporation	FAA	$300,000	aviation safety violation
2010	HAWKER BEECHCRAFT CORPORATION	FAA	$32,000	aviation safety violation
2009	CESSNA AIRCRAFT COMPANY	FAA	$55,000	aviation safety violation
2005	CESSNA AIRCRAFT COMPANY	FAA	$40,800	aviation safety violation
2001	CESSNA AIRCRAFT COMPANY	FAA	$47,300	aviation safety violation

Table 4: Selected Aviation Safety Violations by Textron Inc. and Subsidiaries²⁸

Regulatory Lag and the NTSB Process

The user’s question is perhaps the most critical: “The NTSB report on the first accident is not even released yet, so how in the world was this pilot allowed to do this test?” The answer lies in the nature of the National Transportation Safety Board’s (NTSB) investigative process and the resulting “regulatory lag.”

The NTSB’s mission is to conduct thorough, independent investigations to determine the probable cause of transportation accidents. It also issues safety recommendations to prevent their recurrence.³⁰ This process is forensic, methodical, and, by necessity, slow. A typical major aviation accident investigation takes between 12 and 24 months to complete.³¹ The NTSB’s mandate is not to assign blame or legal liability, nor is it a regulatory enforcement body.³⁰

This creates a dangerous latency in the safety feedback loop. The Grand Junction accident occurred in February 2024. The nearly identical Bath Township accident occurred in October 2025. This was well within the NTSB’s standard investigation window for the first crash. During this 20-month period, the underlying systemic risks remained unchanged and unaddressed.

This reveals a critical failure in the mechanism for translating urgent safety intelligence into proactive regulatory action. There appears to be no formal process for the FAA to issue an emergency airworthiness directive, a temporary flight restriction, or even a strong Safety Alert for Operators (SAFO) based on powerful preliminary evidence of a lethal trend. The system waits for the NTSB’s final, comprehensive report, a process that can take up to two years, while the known danger persists. This regulatory inertia is a key component of the systemic failure and a direct contributor to the repetition of preventable accidents.

Section V: A Blueprint for Safety: Actionable Recommendations

The pattern of fatal accidents involving post-maintenance stall testing in Hawker aircraft is not an unsolvable problem. It is a systemic failure that requires a multi-layered, systemic solution. The analysis in this report leads to a series of concrete, actionable recommendations. These are targeted at each entity in the safety chain: regulators, industry stakeholders, manufacturers, and pilots.

These recommendations are designed to shift the industry from a reactive safety posture to a proactive one.³² Implementing these changes is essential to closing the loopholes that have allowed these tragedies to occur.

For Regulators (Federal Aviation Administration)

1. Immediate Issuance of a Safety Alert for Operators (SAFO): The FAA should immediately issue a SAFO. It should specifically address the high risks associated with post-maintenance, intentional stall testing in swept-wing, T-tail business jets. This alert should strongly advise operators and maintenance facilities to use only pilots with specific qualifications and recent experience in flight testing and full-stall recovery for these maneuvers.
2. Initiate Rulemaking to Amend 14 CFR § 91.407: The core of the problem lies in the ambiguity of “appropriately rated pilot.” The FAA must initiate a formal rulemaking process to amend this regulation. The amended rule should create a new pilot endorsement or rating, such as a “High-Risk Maintenance Flight Endorsement.” To obtain this endorsement, a pilot would be required to complete an FAA-approved course that covers:
   • Advanced aerodynamics of the specific aircraft class.
   • Flight test planning and risk management techniques.
   • In-flight training in an appropriate aircraft in full stalls, spins, and upset prevention and recovery techniques (UPRT).

For Industry (MROs, Operators, and Insurers)

1. Mandatory MRO Risk Assessment Protocols: All MRO facilities should implement a formal risk assessment matrix for every post-maintenance flight. Any flight that involves intentional maneuvers designed to approach the aircraft’s certified flight envelope must be automatically categorized as a “High-Risk Flight.”
2. Standardized Qualification for High-Risk Flights: For any “High-Risk Flight,” the MRO must be responsible for verifying that the flight crew possesses qualifications beyond a standard type rating. This should include documented evidence of formal test pilot training or completion of a rigorous UPRT program.
3. Incentivize Safety Through Insurance: Aviation insurance underwriters should create strong financial incentives for safer practices. Operators who adopt a formal policy of using only verifiably qualified test pilots for high-risk flights should be offered significantly lower insurance premiums. Conversely, operators who continue to use line pilots for these maneuvers should face higher premiums.

For Manufacturers (Textron Aviation)

1. Issue a Mandatory Service Bulletin to Revise Flight Manuals: Textron Aviation should issue a mandatory service bulletin to revise the Pilot’s Operating Handbook (POH) and Aircraft Flight Manual (AFM) for all relevant Hawker models. This revision must include a new, prominent WARNING section that explicitly states:
   • Intentional stall series testing is a high-risk flight test maneuver.
   • These maneuvers should only be conducted by pilots with specialized training and extensive experience in experimental flight test procedures.
   • A standard type rating is not sufficient qualification for conducting these tests.

For Pilots

1. Promote a Culture of Professionalism and Self-Assessment: The pilot community must foster a culture where pilots recognize the profound difference between being legally current and being genuinely proficient for high-risk maneuvers. A type rating is a license to learn, not a certificate of mastery.
2. Empowerment to Defer to Experts: Pilots must be empowered to decline missions that fall outside their training and experience. Refusing to conduct a post-maintenance stall test should be viewed as a professional and disciplined risk-management decision. The correct response for a line pilot tasked with such a flight is to state, “This is test pilot territory. We need to engage a specialist.”

A Call to Action

The repeating pattern of these accidents is a clear and urgent signal. The status quo is unacceptable. The systemic vulnerabilities identified in this report have already claimed multiple lives. Waiting for the next NTSB report to confirm what is already known is not a viable safety strategy. Regulators, manufacturers, MROs, and operators must act collaboratively and decisively now to implement these recommendations. Failure to do so will only perpetuate a cycle of preventable tragedies.

---

Works Cited

1. Aviation Law Group. “Tragic Test Flight: A Legal and Safety Analysis of the Hawker 900XP Accident.” Aviation Law Group Blog. February 2024. https://www.aviationlawgroup.com/tragic-test-flight-a-legal-and-safety-analysis-of-the-hawker-900xp-accident/
2. Aviation Safety Magazine. “Deep Stall Aerodynamics.” Aviation Safety Magazine. https://aviationsafetymagazine.com/features/deep-stall-aerodynamics/
3. Leopard Aviation. “Everything You Need To Know About Spin Recovery Flight Training.” Leopard Aviation Blog. https://leopardaviation.com/spin-recovery-flight-training/
4. Savvy Aviation. “Return to Service.” EAA Sport Aviation. November 2010. https://www.savvyaviation.com/wp-content/uploads/articles_eaa/EAA_2010-11_return-to-service.pdf
5. Federal Aviation Administration. “Advanced Preflight After Maintenance.” FAASafety.gov. September 2020. https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/2022-01/Advanced%20Preflight%20After%20Maintenance.pdf
6. Hawker Beechcraft. “Hawker 800XP Pro Line 21 Pilot’s Operating Manual, Section III – SYSTEMS DESCRIPTION, Sub-section 7: STALL WARNING/IDENTIFICATION.” http://www.jettairx.com.br/backup/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Hawker_00XPC-Stall_Warning_and_Identification.pdf
7. National Transportation Safety Board. “Aviation Investigation Preliminary Report: WPR24FA083.” February 2024. https://flightsafetydetectives.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/NTSB_Hawker_900_prelim_WPR24FA083.pdf
8. Spagnoletti Law Firm. “Three Killed After Hawker 800XP Crashes Near Bath Township, Michigan.” Spagnoletti Law Firm Blog. October 2025. https://www.spaglaw.com/blog/2025/10/three-killed-after-hawker-800xp-crashes-near-bath-township-michigan/
9. Tyree, Jadda. “Hawker 800XP crashes during maintenance test flight in Michigan.” GlobalAir.com. October 20, 2025. https://www.globalair.com/articles/hawker-800xp-crashes-during-maintenance-test-flight-in-michigan?id=11419
10. Bureau of Aircraft Accidents Archives. “Crash of a Hawker 800XP near Bath: 3 killed.” BAAA-ACRO. October 16, 2025. https://www.baaa-acro.com/crash/crash-hawker-800xp-near-bath-3-killed
11. Marshall Group. “Certification and testing.” Marshall Group Website. Accessed October 2025. https://marshallgroup.com/en/air/certification
12. Phoenix Rising Aviation. “Pilot Services.” Phoenix Rising Aviation Website. Accessed October 2025. https://praviation.com/pilot-services/
13. WASINC International. “Test Flight Services.” WASINC International Website. Accessed October 2025. https://www.wasinc.net/test-flight-services
14. JetPro Pilots. “Connecting Pilots and Business Aviation.” JetPro Pilots Website. Accessed October 2025. https://www.jetpropilots.com/
15. Zion Market Research. “Aircraft Maintenance Market Size 2024-2034.” OpenPR. October 9, 2025. https://www.openpr.com/news/4124884/aircraft-maintenance-market-size-2024-2034-soaring-with
16. Precedence Research. “Aircraft Maintenance Market Size to Hit USD 144.97 Billion by 2034.” Precedence Research. May 2025. https://www.precedenceresearch.com/aircraft-maintenance-market
17. Edwards Air Force Base. “U.S. Air Force Test Pilot School History.” Edwards Air Force Base Website. Accessed October 2025. https://www.edwards.af.mil/About/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/393895/us-air-force-test-pilot-school-history/
18. QinetiQ. “ETPS | Empire Test Pilots’ School.” QinetiQ Website. Accessed October 2025. https://www.qinetiq.com/en/what-we-do/services-and-products/etps
19. Federal Aviation Administration. “Advisory Circular AC 61-67C, Stall and Spin Awareness Training.” https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_61-67C_Chg_2.pdf
20. Great Basin Aviation. “Pilot Training Programs Cost Sheet.” https://www.greatbasinaviation.com/storage/6959/9fd0b337-3e18-44e7-91e8-10ef276ded5f/gba_certificate_costs.pdf
21. Speedway Flight Training. “Spin Endorsement.” Speedway Flight Training Website. Accessed October 2025. https://www.speedwayft.com/programs/spin-endorsement/
22. Federal Aviation Administration. “Advisory Circular AC 120-109A, Stall Prevention and Recovery Training.” November 24, 2015. https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_120-109A.pdf
23. Federal Aviation Administration. “Advisory Circular AC 25-7D, Flight Test Guide for Certification of Transport Category Airplanes.” May 4, 2018. https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_25-7D.pdf
24. Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand. “Wing-drop at the stall.” Flight Instructor Guide. https://www.aviation.govt.nz/licensing-and-certification/pilots/flight-training/flight-instructor-guide/wing-drop-stalling/
25. Plane & Pilot. “The Startle Effect.” Plane & Pilot Magazine. https://planeandpilotmag.com/the-startle-effect/
26. Global Aerospace. “Training to ‘Startle’.” SM4 Safety News. https://sm4.global-aero.com/articles/training-to-startle/#:~:text=On%2Daircraft%20UPRT%20directly%20addresses,upset%20or%20LOC%2DI%20situation.
27. General Aviation News. “Post-Maintenance Peril.” General Aviation News. March 2, 2025. https://generalaviationnews.com/2025/03/02/post-maintenance-peril/
28. Good Jobs First. “Violation Tracker: Textron.” Good Jobs First. Accessed October 2025. https://violationtracker.goodjobsfirst.org/parent/textron
29. Federal Aviation Administration. “Airworthiness Directives; Textron Aviation Inc. Airplanes.” Federal Register. October 2, 2025. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/10/02/2025-19354/airworthiness-directives-textron-aviation-inc-airplanes
30. U.S. Government Publishing Office. “49 CFR Part 831 – Accident/Incident Investigations Procedures.” eCFR. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-49/subtitle-B/chapter-VIII/part-831
31. National Transportation Safety Board. “The Investigative Process.” NTSB.gov. Accessed October 2025. https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/process/Pages/default.aspx
32. Silasjetfe. “Proactive vs. Reactive Safety.” Silasjetfe Blog. June 13, 2025. https://silasjetfe.wixsite.com/my-site/post/top-5-items-under-20-i-can-not-live-without