If you have more recent information, my apologies.

However, I still feel that this criticism of the pilot in this case, who was
merely following the instructions in his manual, is entirely unjustified. If
it makes me anti-Cirrus to quote Cirrus, then I suppose Cirrus is
anti-Cirrus, too. I note further down that some people think I may be too
pro- Cirrus.

The bottom line is that I really don't give a hoot what anyone thinks -- I
am going to use the best and most recent information that I have. If
somebody like you comes up with more recent information, I will use that, no
matter what I think of you personally. However, given that you began with a
wholly unwarranted personal attack, I will have to treat your assertions
with a certain amount of skepticism until I can verify them with Cirrus
personally.

Look - no personal attack, I'm just tired of inaccurate statements,
intended or not. Let's skip the BS with the AFM and focus on what
matters. My view on this entire matter can be summed up thusly: it's
just as incorrect to state that the SR series *won't* recover from
spins (whether they're of the incipient or fully developed variety) as
it is to say that they *will.* I've never claimed that Cirrus
certified the aircraft to spin, nor have I claimed the company has
demonstrated (to the FAA's satisfaction, anyway) that normal spin
recovery inputs will be effective in the event of inadvertent spin
entry. This is an exercise in using precision in communication. We
should all agree that only correct statement is as follows: activation
of CAPS is the only demonstrated and certified method of recovering
from a spin.

And to answer your other question: Yes... one of Cirrus' product
managers, visiting from Duluth, upon my employer's activation of our
Cirrus Standardized Training Center designation, verified to me
personally -- in front of a crowd of flight instructors -- during one
our initial meetings on the Cirrus product line, that the airplane has
been spun on many occasions during testing and certification, with as
many as three turns prior to recovery. (Hot topic among us as a group
that day... !) That 'fact' will never be anything more than anecdotal
information in the face of the AFM's recommendations. It is not an
implicit endorsement of the airplane's spin recovery characteristics.
It is not an implicit recommendation to disregard the AFM's admonition
that CAPS deployment is the only approved method of spin recovery as
demonstrated during certification. If you think you're going to call
Cirrus on the phone and get someone to tell you the airplane was
successfully spun during flight testing, you've got another think
coming. There's no way in hell they'll say that unless they have a
damn good reason to do so. It's not hard to understand or believe
that many guidelines, recommendations, and procedures listed in the
AFM are driven at least in part by marketing and legal concerns,
rather than engineering or flight test conclusions. A logical person
should be able to internalize this when considering issues such as
these. John Deakin has done much excellent work at AVWeb.com
debunking many inaccurate "official" publications that pilots treat as
gospel, such as engine manufacturer's operating guidelines and even
Pilot Operating Handbook procedures. This is nothing new.

My main contention is with your statement that the SR-22 and SR-20
"won't" recover from a spin. That is an incorrect, or inaccurate if
you prefer, statement based on the facts. It's just as bad as saying
"Sure, they'll recover from spins!" If you stop making that
statement, I'll be a happy camper. You can criticize Cirrus for
choosing an alternative method of compliance during certification of
the SR, but frankly no flight instructor I know who works in the
Cirrus (if standardized by Cirrus, they're called 'CSIs') really cares
about the spin/BRS issue at all. The Cirrus handles wonderfully at
MCA - I can rack in 30 degrees of bank with the stall warning horn
ringing incessantly. No problem, just light buffet. From that 30
degree bank turn at MCA I can slam immediate full aileron to a turn in
the opposite direction, also at 30 degrees of bank *with no rudder
application at all to coordinate the roll* and the airplane refuses to
wobble over the edge and stall in uncoordinated fashion. Even full
power stalls, which occur at very high deck angles, can be effected
leaving one's feet on the floor -- and the stall is clean and
predictable throughout, with only a very slight yawing moment during
the break. You'd really have to work hard to force the airplane into
an inadvertent spin. But "they" keep perfecting the better idiot with
revolting persistence, so that will never be ruled out.

In short, the spin issue is a red herring if you're looking for things
to gripe about with this airplane. The ironic thing is, with 150 or
so hours in 20s and 22s, I'm not a big fan from an ownership
perspective - I see some glaring faults that need to be corrected to
make the current iteration of the 20/22 a truly safe and redundant
electric airplane - but none of my concerns involve spin resistance or
recovery. The cuffed airfoil (which is actually a decades-old
design!) takes care of that nicely.

Put it this way. I'll fly over areas of widespread LIFR in my Twin
Comanche and taken anything/everything at minimums, no sweat. In the
Cirrus, I don't like flying with ceilings less than 1000 feet or 3
miles of visibility. And I teach/fly instruments, often in IMC,
nearly every day. That should tell you something.

-Ryan
ATP/CFII (airplanes and helicopters)
.... and Cirrus Standardized Instructor