Morgans wrote:
"Dave" wrote\

And in an aircraft that was not engineered to willingly assist the
pilot to maintain, recover to, and sustain controlled flight..
++++++++++++++++++
I'm not sure if that is the whole picture. The Cirrus was not certified for
spin resistance and recovery because it would have been so expensive to do
so, up to the FAA's standards. That is not to say that it would not meet
them, if they tried to do so.
+++++++++++++++++++
Simply put, they took the cheap way out, with the *added* benefit of another
mode of recovery for other types of situations, such as pilot
incompacitation, loss of flight controls, loss of power over inhospitable
terrain...

It was cheaper to design, test and certify a BRS than it was to take
the plane up and do a couple of spins? I think not. The CAPS tests
themselves required the destruction of at least one airframe. Spin
testing just has to show recovery after a couple times around.

The reason the Cirrus was not spin tested is because it is very stall
resistant. Any maneuver that could throw this plane into a spin might
be so violent as to be unrecoverable. There have been accidents
attributed to people trying deliberately to spin the Cirrus. There is
no reason to attempt to spin the airplane anyway. It is unlikely to
enter a spin accidentally, so it is not as if it is a needed emergency
procedure.

Some people claim the airplane will successfully recover from at least
an initial spin. Fine. But why bother? Cirrus strongly discourages it.
It is not really certified for it. There is no training advantage to
it. If I want to do spins then give me an airplane where they will be
fun; even Aerobat. Doing spins in a Cirrus would be like doing
motocross in a Ferrari.