Pitch stability is a result of Xcg – Xac, where X is a distance from a datum forward of the airplane (arbitrary so long as consistent), and cg and ac refer to locations of center of gravity and aerodynamic center, respectively (aerodynamic center is the location about which moment caused by lift is constant with angle of attack, and can be approximated as a function of the distribution of “area” of a top/bottom cross section of the aircraft with all wings/canards/stabilizers included). There is no reason here, for static stability, that a canard configuration cannot provide equal pitch stability for most purposes.

In this case, the thrust axis did not pass through the CG, which will induce a moment. In a very small airplane such as the one described, engines placed above or in line with a high wing may induce quite a large moment relative to the moment provided by the canards mounted on a relatively short fuselage.

If, like some canard designs, the thrust axis is through the CG, the flying characteristics can be made very similar, albeit with a more limited CG range due to the shorter moment arm of the canards and likewise shorter fuselage.

I do agree, however, that the Gulfstream crash should not be considered “general aviation.”

The bigger picture that we are missing is this:
THE NUMBERS DON’T MATTER! What matters is the true interpretation of the data.

If we can’t get a bloated, ineffective federal agency to change the way they push paper, then stop trying.

The president isn’t going to save the aviation industry. The NTSB isn’t going to change the culture of pilots. We are losing because we are fighting the battle with groups who have more money and people using their tactics.

WE CONTROL OUR OWN DESTINY!

Frankly, I’d be delighted to see more stories that inspire me to lead my fellow pilots in a culture of legacy and safety.