Fujiabound, clearly the SR20 didn't exhibit favorable characteristics for spin recovery. Emphasis was placed on stall avoidance and spin prevention, with the use of the parachute as a secondary method to back up a pilot who didn't manage to keep the airplane shiny side up in the first place.
I dont see on what evidence you base that statement? 60 spins were conducted including complete rotations. The spin may not have been fully established but never the less in every case the aircraft recovered using conventional spin recovery.
As I indicated earlier JAA required the POH to be amended such that the pilot should apply standard spin recovery inputs and only in the event recovery was not effected within 60 seconds, or there was insufficient height in the first place, should the chute be deployed. Presumably based on the evidence the JAA felt there was a reasonable probability of the aircraft recovering.
You may well be correct that the Cirrus does not exhibit favourable spin recovery characteristics but you still have not explained how you reach this conclusion on the basis of the evidence so far discussed.
Truth is that Cirrus is in the middle of a series of lawsuits right now regarding fatalities which have occured following fatal crashes (and yes, some involved parachute failures). The details of those cases will not be made available until the matters are concluded. Unfortunately a personal friend is embroiled in the matter.
Law suits mean nothing. In America there is an expression - if you have had a bad day, poor yourself a good glass of wine and mull over who you can sue. That is not to say there may not be merit in the case(s) but it is not relevant to this discussion other than as a distraction unless you care to share the details of the case.
Nearly overwhelmingly, the attraction to the BRS installation appeals to those with the least experience, and that is telling.
I do worry about some of your "statements". I cannot imagine on what evidence you base that assertion?
I can however think of an analogy. Twins are frequently promoted as being "safer" because of the extra engine. The evidence however is that you are more likely to kill yourself in a twin following an engine failure so it is popular to conclude they are not safer. Of course what everyone forgets is if you give a pilot a tool with the intention of reducing fatalaties but the training is inadequate for him to use that tool correctly then dont be surprised when he kills himself. The corrrect conclusion is that a twin is more dangerous than a single unless the pilot receives adequate and recurrent training in which event a twin is "safer"
Another is the MU-2. Its accident record is so poor the FAA has mandated additional training. It would be easy to conclude the aircraft is "unsafe". However the FAA after careful analysis of the evidence has had the sense to avoid this conclusion. Rather they have concluded that the aircraft has some characteristics which requires additional training. Since these requirments were introduced there have been no accidents involving the MU-2.
I cant help feel that you are not distinguishing between cause and effect in some of your posts. I would like to be wrong, but unless you can set out the evidence on which you rely more clearly I dont know what else to conclude.