Cirrus SR22 demo flight

Of course not, but my understanding is that the SR-22 design makes
normal spin recovery very difficult, and that it doesn't meet the FAA
designation for spin-resistant, as defined:
"the airplane may be demonstrated to be spin resistant by the
following: (i) During the stall maneuvers...the pitch control must be
pulled back and held against the stop. Then, using ailerons and rudders
in the proper direction, it must be possible to maintain wings-level
flight within 15 degrees of bank and to roll the airplane from a
30-degree bank in one direction to a 30-degree bank in the other
direction; (ii) reduce the airplane speed using pitch control at a rate
of approximately 1 knot per second until the pitch control reaches the
stop; then, with the pitch control pulled back and held against the
stop, apply full rudder control in a manner to promote spin entry for a
period of 7 seconds or through a 360-degree heading change, whichever
occurs first. If the 360-degree heading change is reached first, it
must have taken no fewer than 4 seconds. This maneuver must be
performed first with the ailerons in the neutral position, and then
with the ailerons deflected opposite the direction of turn in the most
adverse manner. Power and airplane configuration must be set in
accordance with Sec. 23.201(e) without change during the maneuver. At
the end of 7 seconds or a 360-degree heading change, the airplane must
respond immediately and normally to primary flight controls applied to
regain coordinated, unstalled flight without reversal of control effect
and without exceeding the temporary control forces specified...and
(iii) compliance must be demonstrated with the airplane in
uncoordinated flight, corresponding to one ball-width displacement on a
slip-skid indicator, unless one ball-width displacement cannot be
obtained with full rudder, in which case the demonstration must be with
full rudder applied."

According to an AOPA writeup, Cirrus requested an exception to FAA spin
resistance/recovery requirements by proposing the ballistic parachute
as an equivalent recovery device. Consequently, any problems with
using standard spin recovery techniques have been paper-worked over.

I understand that most unintentional spins take place at altitudes
below realistic recovery altitudes anyways, but as PIC, it's my
decision whether or not I want to fly an aircraft, and as a buyer, it's
my decision on whether or not I like the 'whole package' for a plane.
I'm not trying to convince people that the Cirrus is evil, far from it.
Like I said, it's a great looking plane with a lot of very nice
features. That said, it doesn't meet my _personal_ criteria for safety
yet.

Hey, give me 10 years and I might change my mind, but I'm not sure how
my personal decision not to buy the aircraft can be construed as an
attack on the Cirrus community, much less an example of 'badthought'
that must be corrected.

"Ben Hallert" wrote in message

I understand that most unintentional spins take place at altitudes
below realistic recovery altitudes anyways, but as PIC, it's my
decision whether or not I want to fly an aircraft, and as a buyer, it's
my decision on whether or not I like the 'whole package' for a plane.
I'm not trying to convince people that the Cirrus is evil, far from it.
Like I said, it's a great looking plane with a lot of very nice
features. That said, it doesn't meet my _personal_ criteria for safety
yet.

In one, barely significant area. Do you fly at night?

moo

Sure, I fly at night. Again, why does my personal decision not to buy
the plane agitate you?

"Ben Hallert" wrote in message

Sure, I fly at night. Again, why does my personal decision not to buy
the plane agitate you?

WRT to agitation, you're projecting. Your logic sucks. You base your
"personal decision" on the fact that the parachute might need to be deployed
for spin recovery. Yet you fly at night. The likelihood of an engine
failure exceeds the likelihood of an unintentional spin at a recoverable
altitude. Do you carry night vision equipment? Get it now?

moo