<<WRT the writer who felt that continuing practice of recovery from
deep stalls had made him better at it, I say, "So what?". Even if the
theory was correct that such training makes you marginally safer, it
would require continuous practice to keep reflexive. How many of us have
the time, or the desire, to be this well-honed in preparation for
something we can avoid and in any case is not a likely event?
Statistically, we would be infinitely better off practicing fuel
management!>>

Brian -

I don't know if I was that writer.  I did not try to advocate continual practice of deep stalls -- merely the stall entry and subsequent recovery.  And I don't do it a lot, either.

I also did not know how poor the L-IV stall characteristics were (according to the several LML readers who have talked about them in recent days).  I'm building a 360 and I understand that their stall characteristics are more benign.  In fact, having read about the poor stall characteristics of the IV, I wonder about the wisdom of doing stalls in them at all!  Your approach of letting a test pilot try them in your airplane, then flying with him to learn how to recover, then staying the hell away from the stall sounds a lot more reasonable now.  This forum has certainly been illuminating in that respect.

I don't like spins in any airplane, and certainly not an experimental one!  I don't advocate holding a Lancair in a stall for fun or for practice -- just enter the stall and recover.  As for intentional spins, I'd say you're nuts to do them.  But then, I feel that way about spins in a Decathlon, and I know those will recover.  (I admit I'm a wimp...)

As to your final point -- I agree you are probably better off focusing on IFR training and fuel management, since that accounts for something like 80% of accidents, I think.

Fly safe!

- Rob Wolf