Posted for Jack Cowell <jackcowell@optonline.net>:

 I am curious as to the facts and specifics Rienk Ayers used to make his
assertions.
 
For example, on what is "virtually no allowable margin for error" based? My
IVP gives a very noticeable buffet warning through the stick before what I, as
a layman, will call a low airspeed stall.
 
 Is it possible that the issues Mr. Ayers raises are largely training-based?
 In my case, for example, I have been well served in my 500 or so IVP hours by
aviator/instructors like Mike Mahar and Pete Zaccagnino who mercilessly
drummed into my thick skull, "Know your airspeed. Keep your airspeed at a 100
kts or more in the pattern. Make standard rate coordinated turns when you are
low and slow, and in case you didn't get it the first twenty times, keep your
airspeed up!
 
 Additionally, was the Columbia in fact difficult to certify? Or were its
certification issues restricted to flight controllability and stability in the
spin and spin recovery part of FAA certification that necessitated the wing
cuffs, etc?
 
 Was no type of "static dynamic stability and controllability designed into
the plane during engineering"? It would be interesting to hear about this from
the professionals who worked on the Lancair(s) Mr. Ayers references to learn
exactly what did go into the design, engineering and development of the
plane(s) in his blanket reference.
 
 Perhaps a professional engineer and experienced Lancair pilot and test pilot
like Peter Zaccagnino could also shed some light on the validity of Mr. Ayers
assertions.  If the assertions are valid, or even partially valid, then the
affected Lancair pilots owe him a debt of gratitude for bringing this
situation to light.  If, on the other hand, the assertions are found to be
wanting either in specificity, fact, completeness or other significant
category, that would be beneficial for all of us - not the least of whom is
Mr. Ayers -- to know and understand as well.