"Thomas Borchert" wrote:
AvWeb and a few others?


Show me. Just one quote. I am quite sure you won't find it.

And that's because tada!: The statement is just wrong! The aircraft
doesn't "lack spin recovery", whatever that's supposed to mean.

Correct.

No one knows if more conventional recovery methods work,

Actually, Cirrus does know that, because their pilots have used
conventional methods to recover the aircraft from spins.

It's not that
Cirrus tried those, they didn't work and then they went for the
chute -
as the OP implies. Rather, they went for the chute directly and got
the
FAA to accept that as the certified spin recovery method. And then
they didn't ever test other methods - why would they, with one
certifiable method proven?

Possibly because they discovered that the aircraft could be forced into
an unrecoverable flat spin and the 'chute was the only way out. But as
you pointed out, why demonstrate spin recovery to the FAA beyond what is
needed for certification? Volunteering more than is asked for is always
dangerous with the feds.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM