"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
m...

I don't. I count at most one spin that could have been recoverable if
the aircraft
had conventional spin behavior (and it has yet been proven that the Cirrus
can't be
recovered by some control inputs). Your assertion of numerous crashes as
a result
of spins and/or deployments is not supported. Even by your own
optimistic view
it's only 4.

I plead guilty to the charge of pessimism. I think we are talking at cross
purposes here. I am going by what the manual says, which says that spins
have not been tested and the only approved method of recovery is by
deploying CAPS. I also think the number of stall/spin accidents is
excessive, given the small size of the fleet and the fact that the Cirrus is
supposed to be especially resistant to this type of accident.

I think the thing that really bothers me is the implicit criticism of the
pilot who merely followed the procedures in his manual, as well as the
religious like fervor with which some people attack anyone who dares to say
anything they perceive as negative about Cirrus, even if the information
comes from Cirrus itself.

I see no particular reason why the Cirrus should have any method of recovery
from spins other than deploying CAPS. If there is, fine, but why bother? If
the airplane is supposed to be spin and stall resistant and the pilots are
trained properly, then this type of accident should be much more rare than
it seems to be.