I haven't had time to get back to this until now...
Although posted earlier, this link to an AOPA article;
AOPA article - Spinning In
discusses the main reasoning behind the FAA's decision to certify the SR20/22 and other new aircraft without requiring them to comply with the one-turn spin recovery requirement. Their main reasoning point is that statistically, most spins (stall induced spins) are entered at altitudes too low to effect spin recovery during patterns, approaches, etc., so building in more spin prevention near the stall was deemed safer overall.
I think that increasing spin resistance near the stall adds to overall safety, since it's virtually impossible to recover from a spin below 1000 AGL. So I agree with the FAA's philosophy in that low level flight is made safer, and statistically this is where most of the spin related accidents occur.
However, in my opnion, higher level flight (where spin recover is possible) is now made less safe than it was. The Cirrus SR20/22s at least have a parachute if you enter a spin at altitude, but other aircaft such as the Lancair Columbia 300 (certified to the same philosophy) do not. Hear is an extract from the Information Manual Rev. 2, Limitations Section page 2-7, of the Lanair Columbia 300:
SPINS
The airplane, as certified by the Federal Aviation Agency, is not approved for spins of any duration. During the flight test phase of the airplane’s certification, spins and/or spin recovery techniques were not performed or demonstrated. It is not known if the airplane will recover from a spin.
WARNING
Do not attempt to spin the airplane under any circumstances. The airplane, as certified by the Federal Aviation Agency, is not approved for spins of any duration. During the flight test phase of the airplane’s certification, spins were not performed. It is not known if the airplane will recover from a spin.
What's interesting is that the aircraft is approved for certain acrobatic manuvers such as Chandelles, Lazy Eights, and steep turns, with speed limits. However if a spin were entered at altitude in this aircraft due to "sporty" manuevering, the outcome would most likely be loss of life, since the aircraft has no parachute, and no demonstrated or tested ability to recover from a spin.
So while low level altitudes have been made safer by this certification philosophy change, higher altitudes now appear to be made less safe by this same philosophy change.
I think the reduction in higher altutude flight safety cause by this certification philosophy change is a bad idea.