Skip to main content
← Planes

Erika Flight Logs Erased

This page covers a narrow, checkable dispute in the aircraft angle of the case: Erika Kirk publicly invited people to examine the flight logs of the jet N102DZ — and researchers who took her up on it say the public tracking history for that tail number was removed from FlightRadar24 in May 2026, after which no member of the public can independently pull it.

Everything below is reported claim and public statement, not established fact. No conclusion about anyone's conduct should be drawn from a records removal alone; aircraft owners can and routinely do request blocking of their tail numbers from public tracking sites through ordinary, lawful privacy programs, and that is one of the plainest explanations available. It is also worth noting that no flight record of any kind — this tail number included — has featured in the state's prosecution of Tyler Robinson, who is charged but not convicted, so the aircraft strand of the investigation runs entirely outside the criminal case.

Erika Kirk responds to the flight-log questions in her own words. Source: @hurtfeelingzday on X, July 21, 2026.

What she said​

In the clip on the right, Erika Kirk answers the flight-tracking questions directly and dismissively. Transcribed from the video:

"You really think I'm going to be on an Egyptian plane while I am wanting to be with my In-N-Out burger and my chocolate milkshake? No, I'm not. So if you want to go through my flight log, go right ahead. It very boring. You say I was here on this date. I have a photo on my phone to prove that I actually was in the hospital, because I was having contractions. So game on."

Two things are worth separating in that statement. The first is a denial — that she was aboard the foreign-registered aircraft discussed on the Planes Following Charlie or Erika page. The second is an invitation: "if you want to go through my flight log, go right ahead." She also offers a specific alibi for at least one contested date — that she was in hospital with contractions and has a timestamped photo.

The researcher response​

The X account @hurtfeelingzday, posting the clip on July 21, 2026, argued the invitation is hollow because the records it points to are no longer public:

"…says we can check her flight logs of her jet N102DZ? The same flight logs that were ERASED in May 2026 from flightradar24 so now NOBODY can check them? But too late I & others have them. They are far from boring."

The post makes three separate claims, and they carry very different evidentiary weight:

ClaimTypeStatus
N102DZ's public history was removed from FlightRadar24 in May 2026Checkable against the tracking siteReported by researchers; not independently confirmed on this site
Copies of the logs were saved before removalClaim of possessionAsserted; the underlying data has not been published in full
The saved logs are "far from boring"CharacterisationOpinion — no specific flight has been produced here to test it

Screen recording accompanying the post, shown as the tracking-record material. No spoken audio. Source: @hurtfeelingzday on X, July 21, 2026.

Why this matters to the investigation​

The aircraft angle rests almost entirely on public ADS-B data — the same open records that let independent researchers assemble the overlap counts described on Planes Following Charlie or Erika. That method has one structural weakness: it only works while the data stays public. If a tail number central to the analysis stops being publicly queryable, then every claim about it — supporting or refuting — becomes unfalsifiable for outsiders. Researchers cannot confirm an overlap, and the aircraft's occupants cannot clear it either.

That is the practical significance of this dispute, and it cuts in both directions. It is also why the reform proposals in the Fix section emphasise preserving and compelling disclosure of records rather than relying on voluntary public availability.

Counterpoints​

  • Blocking a tail number is ordinary. Private aircraft owners routinely request removal from public tracking through established privacy programs. A removal in May 2026 is fully consistent with a privacy request and implies nothing on its own.
  • The alibi is testable. Erika Kirk states she has a dated photo placing her in hospital on at least one contested date. That is a concrete, checkable rebuttal, and it has not been disproven here.
  • Ownership and occupancy are different questions. A jet's movements do not establish who was aboard on any given leg. Much of the dispute conflates the two.
  • The saved logs have not been published. The claim that copies exist and are damaging cannot be evaluated until the data itself is produced.

X.com posts:​

Interesting​