"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
Once again, in order to meet certification requirements since they
wouldn't or couldn't demonstrate spin recovery properties Cirrus had to
come up with an 'equivalent level of safety' which was the parachute.

I spoke with a Cirrus rep at a static display and they said the same
thing,, although he couched it in the guise of making the plane 'safer'
he DID indicate that the parachute was done as an alternative to
showing/demonstrating appropriate spin/stall characteristics.

This is certainly what I'd say if my design couldn't meet the FAA
stall/spin certification standards. :-)

And why should anyone give a **** about that? Really. I think the above
quote is crap. And I invite anyone to show me otherwise. In the meantime,
are 172s etc. for pussies because any idiot can recover them from a spin?
So many people here whine that a BRS is an unnecessary safety device. I
agree. But at what level or performance are you OK with spin recovery not
meeting FAA standards? Why does it matter in a 172 and not a 747?

moo