After reading Rienk Ayers' post about IVP's being unsafe I have been thinking if there is any such thing as an "unsafe airplane".  After 15 minutes, I can come up with two categories: airplanes that are grossly aerodynamically unstable or otherwise have design characteristics that make them almost unflyable and airplanes that are so badly maintained that they have essential gear that does not work.  Regarding the former, the F104 comes to mind, particularly after the German Air Force loaded the nose up with avionics, and there have been other examples, mostly earlier in the history of aviation and mostly a result of attempts by the military to push performance to the limit.  No Lancair comes even close to this category.  It is true that they are a bit less forgiving than are airplanes that are designed to be flown by people who don't know how to fly (e.g. 172s) but to suggest that Lancairs are "unsafe" because they don't scream at you that you are 40 kts. too slow is simply hyperbole.

Maintenance is, of course, up to the owner and, in that sense, any airplane can be unsafe.

So why is this important?  It is important because the focus on "unsafe airplanes", whether because they are designed for performance or don't have AOAs installed or for any other "technology driven" reason, is an excuse not to deal with the real problem, which is, of course, unsafe pilots.  For reasons that I think the homebuilt community should consisder carefully, our record in this area is abysmal and we should be trying to find the reasons for that, rather than focusing on defects in our tools.  A review of homebuilt accidents (particularly at the high end with Lancairs etc.) shows that the type of airplane was not a factor in most cases and that the same accident could have happened in almost any airplane.  (Flying into CBs is 100% pilot error and it is simply escapist to focus on the particular spin characteristics that were the result of that error.)  Stalling in the pattern is also 100% pilot error whether the particular type of airplane gives good or poor stall warning.  (No, I don't know what caused the recent crash and this is not a commentary on it.)

I don't see how it is possible to escape the fact that, as a group, we make particuarly poor flying decisions, many of which result in accidents and deaths.  I don't know why that is but let me offer a plausible speculation.  As a group, we are naturally optimists -- else we would never take on the task of building an airplane.  Successfully completing the task reinforces our belief in our omnipotence.  The next thing that happens is that we take the plane up and perform some of the functions of a test pilot.  We bring the airplane back to the hangar and tinker with it, make a few mods, take it up again.  After a few years of this, it goes to our heads.  We begin to think of ourselves as test pilots when we absolutely aren't.  (If you doubt this, spend even 15 minutes talking to a real test pilot.)  We begin to take ourselves seriously as airplane mechanics when we aren't.  (Again, spend some time at a first class shop watching how a real A&P functions.)  If we haven't been killed yet, over time, we come to see ourselves as masters of the universe.

Bob Hoover is a master of the universe.  Most of the rest of us aren't.  It doesn't take a master of the universe to fly a Lancair, just a pilot who is willing to stay within reasonable limits based on his/her ability and the airplane's characteristics.  It's the ability part we have a problem with.