Austin, TX Crash: How Some Will Do Anything To Make the Extreme Look Like the Norm

A number of members have emailed NATA President James K. Coyne and me this week about an op-ed issued by STRATFOR, a political think tank, on their thoughts about last week’s Austin, TX crash.  Sadly, this is another example of an entity taking the rare extreme case aircraft accident and attempting to establish that general aviation is simply not secure. 

Last week, I wrote a blog shortly after the accident addressing the need for the mainstream media not to rush to judgment until all the facts are out on the table.  Now, after the dust has settled, we are seeing attempts to capitalize on a terrible incident to invoke fear and create controversy over the security of the general aviation industry. 

Normally, I would ignore this type of rhetoric, but the piece issued by STRATFOR does such a disservice to the general aviation community in its use of apples-to-oranges examples that it cannot be disregarded.  Scott Stewart, the author of the article, claims that last week’s incident in Austin was an act of domestic terrorism.  He even has a link to a definition of domestic terrorism that directs the reader to yet another article produced by Stratfor.  The fact of the matter is: Last week’s incident was not a case of domestic terrorism.  It was a case of an individual committing a crime, and quite sadly, taking human life in the process. 

And what is also incredibly troubling is Stewart’s statement that “According to STRATFOR analysts present at the scene, it appears that Stack’s plane struck the concrete slab between floors. Had the aircraft not struck the slab head-on, it may have been able to penetrate the building more deeply, and this deeper penetration could have resulted in even more damage and a higher casualty count.”  Really?  Exactly why were the STRATFOR analysts granted access to this scene?  I wonder if the FBI, which currently has jurisdiction over the accident as it is now considered a crime, would concur with their having been provided access.  Most importantly, I wonder if the FBI is aware of Stewart’s article.  I know for a fact that agents at the FBI would be none too pleased that a think tank was granted access to the crime scene.  I also wonder if the best accident investigation entity on the planet, the National Transportation Safety Board, which is just now gearing up its review, will ultimately come to the same conclusion as the super sleuths at STRATFOR. 

The article rambles on about foreign terrorist acts utilizing primarily commercial aircraft and how terrorists are changing how they approach their cowardly acts, and finally concludes with such a poorly researched synopsis of general aviation security that it pretty much makes my point that the folks at STRATFOR have NO IDEA what they are talking about.  Because Stack was able to walk to his plane and take off, we now have an enormous national security concern?  Huh, interesting.  And what exactly is that threat?  Do you really think the folks at the Transportation Security Administration have not performed repeated risk-assessments on general aviation security?  Are you not aware of the countless actions taken by the community since 9-11 to improve security?  Try doing a Google search, Mr. Stewart.  Did you look into any of the security programs on the books such as the Twelve-Five Standard Security Program, AOPA’s Airport Watch Program, the Alien Flight Student Program, the Secure Fixed Base Operator Program and countless other initiatives?  It certainly does not look like it according to your article.

The facts are clear.  There was a crash in Austin, TX last week that killed the pilot and one other person in the building and injured about a dozen others.  We truly know nothing more in the public domain.  Rushing to judgment and turning a criminal case into a hypothetical political statement about general aviation security is wrong and misleading and should be condemned.

Visit or return to NATA's site: www.nata.aero