Private Jet Owner Confirms Standard Radar Termination for N888KG, Dispelling 'Vanishing Plane' Claims
%3Amax_bytes(150000)%3Astrip_icc()%3Afocal(756x220%3A758x222)%2Fcharlie-kirk-London-Executive-Aviation-Bombardier-Challenger-300-091125-1f05d942f4ea4af29d6493f1f36b4a70.jpg&w=3840&q=75)
Private jet owner Derek Maxfield has publicly clarified that his aircraft, registered as N888KG, did not "vanish" but underwent a standard radar services termination procedure near a non-towered airport. The explanation comes amidst online speculation, fueled by false rumors of conservative commentator Charlie Kirk's assassination, that linked the plane to the unsubstantiated claims. Maxfield's statement aims to counter what he described as attempts to involve his family in misleading narratives.
Maxfield explained that the termination of radar services was a "mutual agreement between Denver FAA center and N888KG," a practice he noted is "a generally accepted standard practice at non-towered airports like PGA." This routine procedure allows aircraft to transition from Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) to Visual Flight Rules (VFR) as they approach or depart from airports without air traffic control towers, enabling pilots to manage their own separation visually in uncontrolled airspace. Aviation experts confirm this is a common and safe operational practice.
The speculation surrounding N888KG gained traction online, with a tweet from Ann Coulter stating, "> REVEALED: The truth about the 'vanishing plane' five miles from Charlie Kirk's assassination." However, multiple fact-checking organizations have debunked the claims of Charlie Kirk's assassination, confirming he is alive and actively engaged in his public activities. These rumors circulated in late August and early September 2024, originating from unclear online speculation and misinformation.
Maxfield's public statement directly addresses the misinformation, emphasizing the routine nature of the radar termination. His explanation highlights how standard aviation procedures can be misinterpreted or sensationalized when placed within the context of broader conspiracy theories or false reports. The incident serves as a case study in how online content can quickly generate unfounded speculation around otherwise ordinary events.