I have to agree with Weed and CFI. The Traumahawk gets my vote as well. The Tomahawk was built in response to a survey to some 10000 flying instructors in the late 70s and the Tommychuck came to fruition.
I am more than familiar with all the reasons people won't fly the aeroplane. One article I read a while ago published by one of the FAA authorities called "Tomahawk on Trial" suggested that the aircraft that was test flown in Florida was NOT the aircraft that went into mass production. In fact when one of the test pilots first saw the aircraft come off the production line he had to ask what aeroplane it was!
Dr. Kroeger, the designer of the PA38 went on to design the Skipper and then incorporated all the features that were lacking in the Tomahawk. Apparently there were a few which included a reduction in wing spars (for reduction in weight) and raised tail. I believe that this association is trivial because both aeroplanes fly vastly different. They are common in appearance only.
The aeroplane has passed the rigorous test of time and I think that this more than certifies it as safe. I have done hundreds of spins in almost every aerobatic type in OZ and I feel every bit as comfortable in a Tomahawk as I do in a Pitts. The tail shakes a little bit - so what? It doesn't move as much as my wingtip does in turbulence and it certainly doesn't make that "tearing" tin foil noise of the 152.
The Tomahawk has excellent visibility, it teaches an appreciation of rudder, is very stable on approach, it is a piece of cake in a crosswind, the fuel system is in your nose throughout flight, its flight characteristics are superb, it is an excellent low cost navigation platform, makes an excellent tourer and is really good fun to fly. I think that the Tomahawk trained pilot is typically trained to a higher standard than their Cessna stablemates.
Having said all that. A chain is only as strong as it's weakest link. I have always said that a pilots training is only as good as his worst instruction.