Posted for "Chuck Jensen" <cjensen@dts9000.com>:

 I don't have a dog, or a Lancair, in this fight-happen to be a canard
 man myself, but this safe/unsafe argument clearly misses the point.  As
 Mr. Sletten pointed out, an inanimate object is neither safe or unsafe.
 True.  However, it is incontrovertible that between two inanimate
 objects intended to be used for flying, one is most certainly safer than
 the other, as no two objects can occupy the same relative position.  Of
 course, even that relativity is based on pilot experience, practices and
 knowledge.
 
 
 
 If RA's point was that Lancairs are unsafe, I would disagree.  However
 if, as I suspect, he was intending to say that 'Lancairs are relatively
 unsafe compared to many other planes', then any Lancair builder or pilot
 that disagrees does so at his personal peril.  That's not to say that a
 Lancair can't be flown safely, but it takes a higher level of skill,
 awareness and vigilance than a flying a C172. If this is true, and I
 believe it is, then a Lancair is relatively (to a C172) unsafe.
 
 
 
 Yes, one can demand engineering data on stability, static and dynamic
 and all kinds of numbers, but for those not whistling in the dark, just
 look at the NTSB Accident List-that's evidence enough.  And, it should
 be understood that this log of accidents was built with the inclusion of
 many pilots that were not 25 hour per year fliers with 125 hours TT.  On
 that list are CFIIs, Instructors, ATPs, Commercial pilots ad nauseum.
 
 
 
 Do I dislike or am I attempting to denigrate the Lancair....not at all.
 I love the look, I love the performance and I would love to have the
 skill to fly one safely.  Instead, I'll stick with a canard pusher that
 is a better match to my piloting skills and when I get low and slow in
 the pattern.
 
 
 
 In short, to not acknowledge that the Lancair requires a higher level of
 skill to fly safely is simply denial.  On the other hand, anyone that
 wants to diplomatically remind Lancair fliers to 'be careful out there'
 is doing a public service, not a disservice to the plane.
 
 
 
 Thanks,
 
 Chuck Jensen