The U.S. aircraft register, updated daily
Accidents · NTSB CEN13FA326 · Final report

Hawker Beechcraft B200GT accident near Baker, Louisiana, June 7, 2013

On June 7, 2013 at about 6:10 pm local time, a Hawker Beechcraft B200GT, registered N510LD, was destroyed in an accident during enroute (climb to cruise) near Baker, Louisiana (Baton Rouge Metropolitan, Ryan airport). It was a personal flight under general aviation rules (Part 91). 1 person was killed. The weather was visual conditions (good weather).

The NTSB's probable cause their words, unchanged

The pilot’s failure to maintain adequate airspeed during departure, which resulted in an aerodynamic stall and subsequent impact with terrain. Contributing to the accident was the pilot’s lack of specific knowledge of the airplane’s avionics.

Source: NTSB aviation accident database, copy made October 5, 2026. Docket and reports at the NTSB.

What the record shows

Date
June 7, 2013 · about 6:10 pm local time
Place
Baker, Louisiana · Baton Rouge Metropolitan, Ryan · map
Type
Accident
Injuries
1 person was killed.
Weather
visual conditions (good weather)
Aircraft
Hawker Beechcraft B200GT
Registration
N510LD · no longer on the register · serial BY-24
Damage
Destroyed
Flight
Personal flight · general aviation rules (Part 91)

The NTSB's narrative final · quoted from the NTSB record

The accident pilot and two passengers had just completed a ferry flight on the recently purchased airplane. A review of the airplane's cockpit voice recorder audio information revealed that, during the ferry flight, one of the passengers, who was also a pilot, was pointing out features of the new airplane, including the avionics suite, to the accident pilot. The pilot had previously flown another similar model airplane, but it was slightly older and had a different avionics package; the new airplane's avionics and flight management system were new to the pilot. After completing the ferry flight and dropping off the passengers, the pilot departed for a short cross-country flight in the airplane. According to air traffic control recordings, shortly after takeoff, an air traffic controller assigned the pilot a heading and altitude. The pilot acknowledged the transmission and indicated that he would turn to a 045 heading. The radio transmission sounded routine, and no concern was noted in the pilot's voice. However, an audio tone consistent with the airplane's stall warning horn was heard in the background of the pilot's radio transmission. The pilot then made a radio transmission stating that he was going to crash. The audio tone was again heard in the background, and distress was noted in the pilot's voice. The airplane impacted homes in a residential neighborhood; a postcrash fire ensued. A review of radar data revealed that the airplane made a climbing right turn after departure and then slowed and descended. The final radar return showed the airplane at a ground speed of 102 knots and an altitude of 400 feet. Examination of the engines and propellers indicated that the engines were rotating at the time of impact; however, the amount of power the engines were producing could not be determined. The examination of the airplane did not reveal any abnormalities that would have precluded normal operation. It is likely that the accident pilot failed to maintain adequate airspeed during departure, which resulted in an aerodynamic stall and subsequent impact with terrain, and that his lack of specific knowledge of the airplane's avionics contributed to the accident.

The complete narrative as the NTSB published it. The NTSB's docket holds the report as a PDF and any photographs, statements and other documents from the investigation.

The factual record from the NTSB's investigation tables, in plain English

What happened, in order

  1. Stall warn/stick-shaker/pusher during enroute (climb to cruise)
  2. Aerodynamic stall/spin during enroute (climb to cruise) defining event
  3. Loss of control in flight during enroute (climb to cruise)
  4. Collision with terrain or object (not controlled flight into terrain) during uncontrolled descent
  5. Fire/smoke (post-impact) during post (impact)

The NTSB's findings

  • cause Personnel issues › Action/decision › Action › Incorrect action performance › Pilot
  • factor Personnel issues › Experience/knowledge › Knowledge › Knowledge of equipment › Pilot

Pilot

  • Certificate: airline transport pilot
  • Ratings: multi-engine land; single-engine land; instrument: airplane
  • Flight time: 15,925 hours in all; 5,200 in this make and model
  • Last flight review: March 1, 2013
  • Medical certificate: Class 1 (with waivers/limitations)
  • Seat: left
  • Injury: fatal

The aircraft

  • Airframe total time: 974 hours
  • Last inspection: continuous airworthiness programme, March 18, 2013
  • Landing gear: retractable
  • Engine 1: P&W Canada PT6A-52 (turboprop); 0 hours total
  • Engine 2: P&W Canada PT6A-52 (turboprop); 0 hours total
  • Fire on the ground
  • Operator: Osage Air LLC

The flight

  • Departed from: BTR Baton Rouge LA at 6:10 pm
  • Destination: MCB Mccomb MS
  • Flight plan: none

Weather at the time

  • Light: daylight
  • Wind: from 250° at 8 knots
  • Visibility: 10 statute miles
  • Sky: broken clouds at 7,500 ft
  • Temperature: 82°F (28°C), dew point 68°F (20°C)
  • Altimeter: 29.88 inHg
  • Observation at 5:53 pm from KBTR, 3 miles away

Injuries

FatalSeriousMinorNone
Flight crew1

Documents from the investigation the NTSB's docket: the evidence folder behind the report

The docket, the folder of records gathered during an investigation (maintenance records, photographs, witness statements, examinations), has not been read from the NTSB for this case yet; the list appears here once it has. Open the docket at the NTSB.

Everything on this page comes from the NTSB's public records. The narrative, probable cause and findings are the NTSB's own words; the coded tables behind the report are written out in plain English, with pilots' ages, home towns and medical details left out. The documents and photographs are the NTSB's docket, shown as the NTSB released them. This site's own text never names anyone involved. A preliminary report can change; the final report usually follows one to two years later, and the page is refreshed when it does.