RE: Risk Takers?
Jim, nice strawman argument. I could ask you a parallel question... Exactly what skill level is required to perform a <blank> maneuver in a model plane at <blank> location. You try to separate "control" and safety, but you can't. Even your question contradicts itself as you ask how much control (skill) is needed, yet control is not the issue? Without control, any action is unsafe. Control comes from skill. With control, risky actions such as takeoff and landings become safer, and a pilot earns the right to fly solo. Add some more control and simple aerobatics become safer. Add even more control and complex/difficult aerobatics maneuvers are safer. Actions simply become safer with control, but there is ALWAYS risk and we ALWAYS tempt fate in every action. Control simply pushes the fate odds in our favor. At some point, and this varies with every individual, as control is added, the risk level is reduced such that the action is deemed acceptable, or safe, etc.
I believe sticking point of the DB article is that it was aimed at those that have control skills to perform complex/difficult maneuvers instead of the unskilled copycats DB is so worried about. DB implies that these maneuvers are unsafe, i.e. risk level is too high, not because the of the original action by skilled pilots, but because of copycats. If there was some specific event that caught DB's attention, then he should have mentioned it specifically as opposed to directing statements at a broad group, most of which already fly safely IMO.