The N1098L Low Pass at 12:24 (Claims)
:::caution Attributed claims only This page covers only the timing of one maneuver inside the ten-minute window. The aircraft's broader flight profile, the HADES program, and the drone allegations are treated at N1098L and the HADES low passes and are not duplicated here. The timing argument fails on its own terms, and this page leads with why. Nobody named below is accused of a crime. :::
Claim snapshot
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| The claim | N1098L, an aircraft associated with the HADES program, reportedly made a 335-foot AGL low pass near the UVU campus at 12:24 PM MDT — roughly thirty seconds after the shot and within about two miles of campus |
| Exact time in window | 12:24 PM MT — approximately 30 seconds after the 12:23:30 shot |
| Raised by | The investigation file's N1098L section, quoting a stated "drone retrieval training" justification. Disputed by @TJPHager, who argues the airframe was not built out to launch drones |
| First surfaced | Undated in source; the referenced Defense Post article is dated 2025-09-10 |
| Rests on | Secondhand hearsay — a quoted justification with no named speaker, plus flight-tracking figures the file cannot state consistently |
| Evidence rating | EMERGING |
What is alleged
The investigation file records a claimed explanation for the aircraft's behavior over Orem: "drone retrieval training occurred on Sep 10. It was the primary purpose of N1098L's Orem, Utah low passes. The two maneuvers (600 ft AGL at 11:47 AM MDT; 335 ft AGL at 12:24 PM MDT) were textbook drone drop/recovery simulations." The file identifies N1098L as flying under the HADES program (High Accuracy Detection and Exploitation System), with ICAO A0299E and callsign AXEL10, tracked via ADS-B Exchange and Flightradar24, having departed Biggs Army Airfield, with crew reportedly employed by Leidos Aviation Services.
The second of those two maneuvers is what falls inside this window: a pass at 335 feet above ground level at 12:24 p.m., roughly thirty seconds after the shot, within about two miles of campus. The suggestion drawn from it is proximity in time — that a surveillance-program aircraft descended to a few hundred feet over the area at the moment of the killing.
Two things must be excluded. The file's separate claim of a drone pickup at 12:48 is twenty-four minutes outside the charter of this section and is not covered here. And @TJPHager disputes the drone premise entirely, arguing the airframe was not built out to launch drones at all — which, if right, removes the framework both sides are arguing inside.
The ordinary explanation
The timing only means anything if the flight was reactive, and it cannot have been. An aircraft cannot receive news of a shooting, descend from altitude, set up an approach, and execute a 335-foot pass within thirty seconds. That is not a close call; it is not physically possible for any fixed-wing aircraft. Whatever N1098L was doing at 12:24, it had been doing it since well before 12:23:30 — the maneuver was already underway when the shot was fired. A pre-planned profile that happens to bracket an event is the null hypothesis, and the file's own source supplies it: the quoted justification frames both maneuvers as scheduled training, and describes an 11:47 a.m. pass thirty-six minutes before anything happened. A scheduled pair of passes at 11:47 and 12:24 is a training sortie. The event landed between them.
The file also cannot hold its own numbers steady, which is disqualifying for a claim built entirely on numbers. One section gives the 12:24 maneuver at 335 ft AGL; another describes the low passes at 203 feet and 116 knots. One section names the crew as Michael R. Harlan, J. "Jax" E. Donovan, and Elena Vasquez; @TJPHager gives an entirely different three-person crew — Cooper Brown, Michael Reynolds, and Sarah Kline. Three named humans, twice, with no overlap. At least one list is wrong, and possibly both. An argument that depends on altitude and timing being precise cannot be run from a source that reports altitude two ways and the crew two ways.
What would settle it
- Pull the raw ADS-B track for N1098L (ICAO A0299E) for 11:30 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. MDT and establish the actual altitude and position at 12:24, rather than choosing between 335 and 203 feet.
- Obtain the flight plan filed before takeoff from Biggs Army Airfield. A pre-filed plan settles whether the profile was scheduled.
- Identify who actually stated the "drone retrieval training" justification and in what forum. The file quotes it without a speaker.
- Establish the actual crew roster from Leidos Aviation Services records. Two irreconcilable lists are circulating.
Sources
- Investigation file, "N1098L" section, quoting the "drone retrieval training" justification and giving the two maneuvers as 600 ft AGL at 11:47 AM MDT and 335 ft AGL at 12:24 PM MDT — no speaker is named for the quotation.
- Investigation file, same section, elsewhere giving 203 feet and 116 knots for the low passes — an unreconciled internal conflict.
- The Defense Post, "US HADES spy plane," 2025-09-10 — https://thedefensepost.com/2025/09/10/us-hades-spy-plane/amp/
- @TJPHager, disputing that the airframe was built out to launch drones and giving a different crew roster — no URL is cited in the investigation file.