In the seven years (and more than 700 hrs.) that I have been a part of the Lancair community, I have had literally hundreds of discussions about what is killing Lancair pilots at a totally unacceptable rate.  I have also listened to presentations such as Jeff's at OSH.  We all keep agreeing that there is a critical problem, we generally identify correctly what it is and we all profess a commitment to do something about it.  But the accident rate continues to be way higher than it should be.  People like Joe Bartels and Tim Ong are frustrated beyond description but at a loss to find anything effective to do about it.  I suspect I can't either but, in an effort to do what I can, here are some thoughts generally centered around what I think are misperceptions that those who get into these crashes seem to have about their own capabilities and the capabilities of the aircraft (with apologies for the length.)

1.  The Aircraft
 
It's not a Cessna 172 or a Piper Cherokee or even a Bonanza or a Mooney.  Aircraft design is, as everyone knows, a matter of tradeoffs and the tradeoffs in the case of Lancairs are in favor of performance.  In the hands of an experienced pilot with substantial time in type they are a dream to fly; they are stable, predictable and well balanced.  If the airplane flys where it shouldn't it's not the airplane's fault.  They are, however, not a particularly easy aircraft to learn how to land.  I came from a background that included military flying and carrier landings and I would say it took me well over 100 landings to feel as if I was in control, more than any other airplane I ever flew.  More importantly, they have stall/spin characteristics that are at best poorly understood (a result of a lack of data from those who lived to tell about it) and at worst (and in all probability) significantly adverse.  This does not make the aircraft dangerous -- it just means that they need to be flown with the fact in mind that a stall/spin may not (probably is not) survivable in a large percentage of cases.  It means that, whatever the skill level of any pilot, he or she needs to fly the aircraft with whatever margins are required to reduce the risk of stall to virtually zero.  I you are an ace (more about that below) maybe you can fly at 1.1 or 1.2 x VS.  If you are not an ace, try north of 1.5 unless you are flared out over a runway.  That's what is taught in all of the training programs I know of and it is an excellent idea.  Neither my military nor my civilian training taught me this but it is an essential element of safety in Lancairs.
 
Then we get to the one I just don't understand.  Contrary to what seems from the record to have been a significant minority view among Lancair pilots, Lancairs cannot safely fly through thunderstorms.  WELL, DUH!  Just exactly who doesn't know this?  No airplane can safely fly through a thunderstorm and it seems that everyone in the world knows this but us.  A couple weeks ago it took a fellow Lancair pilot and me 14 hours to get from Chicago to Billings on the airlines.  The principal reason was a fairly modest line of thunderstorms passing over ORD when our departure was scheduled and the resulting decision to shut down ORD for over an hour, disrupting traffic throughout the country, costing the airlines hundreds of thousands of dollars that they don't have and all kinds of passenger frustration, ours included.  Any chance whoever made this costly decision knew something?  If I was going to fly through a thunderstorm, my aircraft of choice would be an F-9 (which you cannot do any significant damage to with a sledgehammer) but an instructor and I spent two unscheduled days in Pensacola rather than try to fly our F-9 through a line of thunderstorms.  There is no reason why we cannot, as a group, get this right.  Friends don't let friends fly through thunderstorms.
 
2.  Us
 
One of the best things about being a part of the Lancair community is the people but modesty is not among the most common virtues that we display as a group and, as always, when the testosterone starts to flow, the most modest among us always seem to include those with the most impressive resumes.  Anyone ever hear Darryl Greenameyer or Gordon Hardy boast about their awsome skill and cunning?  I am personally waiting until my achievement matches theirs before I let loose with a little bragging.  I'm not against bragging, merited or otherwise, as long as it stays in the bar.  Unfortunately, we seem, as a group to be unusually susceptible to believing our own bs.  So maybe it would help to review a few unfortunate truths:  first, the fact that you built your airplane and did the first flight does not mean you are a test pilot.  It doesn't even mean  that you are a particularly good pilot (although you might or might not be.)  Second, the fact that you pursue an inherently risky hobby and are still alive doesn't make you an ace.  It may only mean that you have been lucky so far and luck has a way of running out.  The record provides no evidence that, as a group, our skill levels are any different from those of the general GA community and when it comes to judgment, there is ample evidence that we fall far short of that standard.
 
I think it is a fair statement that we are, as a group, flying aircraft that are substantially less forgiving than the typical spam can with skill levels no better than those of the average spam can driver.  Both groups run the gamut from plumber to ace with most of us falling somewhere in between.  The fact that we are taking on the added challenge of flying aircraft with performance driven designs with no better skills than those who fly more forgiving aircraft is not necessarily dangerous UNLESS we fail to understand and accept that fact and take appropriate precautions.  If you are a cherokee driver with a hundred hours or so and want to transition to a 172, a quick spin or two around the pattern (and maybe a stall series) will make you proficient enough to be safe.  Even transitioning to a more powerful aircraft (beechcraft, mooney) can be done by an amateur with reasonable skills fairly quickly and simply.  Such is not the case transitioning to Lancairs, if only because, in an alarming number of cases, a Lancair pilot's first stall has proven to be his last.  There are a number of excellent training alternatives and they should be taken advantage of.
 
A pilot of modest skill can easily be a safe Lancair pilot IF he or she gets good training (and, for the record, the insurance companies have no idea how much training is enough) understands and respects the limits imposed both by the aircraft and their own skill levels and leaves appropriate margins for the type of aircraft being flown.  Without following these rules, the record shows that we are engaged in a passtime so dangerous as to be almost foolhardy.
 
Take a look at Jeff's statistics.  If we could just stay out of thunderstorms and stalls, our fatal accident rate would shrink to a fraction of what it presently is.  Observing these rules should be within the ability of any pilot other than someone who would be unsafe at the controls of any aircraft so there is no reason that we can't get there.  It's a head thing.  PLEASE, fly safe and encourage others to do likewise!