Pete,
Uh, a slightly different view is that the Lancair accident pilot,
relative to other pilots, is less safe. Possibly because he/she didn't
rise to the demands of a high-performance plane. IMHO
Would you expect a highly experienced 172 pilot to always
successfully perform a carrier landing in a very safe F-15 without training
and respect for the aircraft? BTW, some don't make it through the
training.
OK, that's a stretch. But the idea is the same.
I'll go back to my padded cell now,
Grayhawk
I
don’t think the issue here is whether the IV can be flown safely. It
can. Those of us on the forum are proof of such (full disclosure – I fly
an ES-P). The issue is how much margin of error the plane offers when
the pilot makes a mistake. Even the best of us make mistakes.
Whether those mistakes kill us or not is a function of how many we make in a
row, how bad they are, and how much margin for error the plane gives us.
The first two are relatively independent of the plane you are flying.
The third is entirely dependent. A plane like the IV, with very narrow
margins of safety, will kill more pilots than a plane that has a much broader
set of safety margins because pilots are human and make
mistakes.
So,
in my opinion, relative to most other planes, the Lancair is less safe.
Let’s stop pretending otherwise. That is just part of the price we pay
for high performance. If you make a bad mistake, it is much more likely
to kill you, which is why it has such a poor safety record. This is not
the plane’s fault. Rather, it is because we as pilots can’t be perfect
all of the time.