Comments on various posts:  Yes, the 61-knot requirement is all about crash energy.  It is equally significant for experimentals as it is for certified planes, even though it is not a requirement for experimentals.  It's about physics.  Energy to be dissipated goes up as the square of speed.  And one safety expert said that the "serverity" of a crash goes up as the cube of speed.  Double the speed and the energy goes up by a factor of 4 and has to be dissipated in half the time, making the crash 8 times as "severe."  I'm not surprised that the study couldn't come to a conclusion, but a more correct statement would be "A survey of controlled emergency forced landings was unable to show a clear correlation...."  The reason is obvious - there aren't enough controlled forced landings to overcome the variation in design and landing circumstances.  The physics are clear - lower crash speeds are safer.  So don't disregard the 61-knot requirement as irrelevant.  Of course, any other speed is equally relevant.  Yes, I think The FAA publication shortly after the beach landing incident caused needless confusion as it was not relevant to the accident.  But that doesn't make it irrelevant.  Higher (than average) stall speeds, in my mind, are still a hazard.  But they are a hazard not because of the high stall speed itself, but that it is higher than the vast majority of experience most pilots have.  Getting slow therefore might not be recognized as the hazard it is.  Joe mentioned that training is "the key" to safety and I slightly disagree.  It is certainly "a key" element,  but knowledge, skill and other factors are all important.  In the end the actions of the pilot are "the only" factor and the pilot deserves the credit (or blame).  Let's not transfer it to something else.  That would be like "that was a great landing - I'll have to congratulate your instructor."  Just my 2 cents.

Gary Casey

ps:  I love my AeroComposites prop