Contact Tower,
Tailwheel aircraft are more likely to be involved in a take off/landing accident than a nosegear aircraft.
You seem a bit beleaguered, I don't wish to add to the onslaught, just some additional thoughts following a cursory investigation. I completely understand your rational but, surely the crux of Fuji's original post and this debate is to identify something more conclusive. Now if you wrote
"Is more likely to widen the eyes a little more than usual" I might tentatively agree with you
But I don't see anything to suggest tailwheel aircraft have more accidents during takeoff/landing.
I don't see any practical relevance to takeoff anyway, a tailwheel is only really unstable during deceleration - usually a small window of time at a relatively low speed a few seconds after landing. An aborted take-off is a distinct candidate for problems, but looking at the AAIB I find only one t/w in the 8 results and that was a turboprop that the pilot thought related to his abrupt use of reverse pitch.
Nobody can deny that a tailwheel requires a different technique and can more unforgiving in certain specific circumstances, but that lesser forgiveness does not, in my view, translate to danger or risk. Those are separate propositions that require more parameters that don't seem to be born out by some cursory searches of the AAIB.
Also, don't believe that tricycle gear aircraft are forgiving, they are not. There are numerous AAIB reports where "safety aeroplanes" have ground loops, overran, stalled, undershot, damaged the gear (particularly the nose) and struck props. These events seem to be just as likely regardless of the configuration, except that when searching the AAIB for "propeller struck", 4 out of 16 aircraft returned were t/w.
Interesting stuff
