There is no evidence that it will "certainly always recover."
I think you have confused yourself. I am referring to an incipient spin NOT an established spin.
60 out of 60 recoveries even under test conditions is not bad going. Moreover we have no evidence the spin drogue was used in a single recovery. In fact I think we can be pretty certain it was not.
I agree the testing was not as comprehensive as required for an aircraft cleared for spinning. However you appear confused later by what constitutes a guarantee. More comprehensive spin testing does not guarantee a pilot will always recover from a spin. It strongly suggests that a competent and current pilot will do so.
Both the 152 aerobat and Tomahawk are cleared for spinning. Both can show peculiarities. I have never experienced these in the 152 but in the Tomahawk
there is nearly always a pronounced tendency to roll off one wing. It is not an issue but AOPA identified that the aircraft has been involved in more fatal spin accidents that the 152. Sensibly they also concluded that there is "nothing wrong" with the spin characteristics but the type requires additional training.
In short there is no such thing as a guarantee as you are implying for any aircraft. No POH guarantees the aircraft will always recover from a spin. What the POH does is state the aircraft has met the requirements (whatever they may have been when the type certificate was issued) to be used for intentional spinning.
The Cirrus does exactly what it says on the box. It is NOT cleared for spinning. In EASA land if the aircraft enters a rotation if there is sufficient height the evidence would suggest that almost certainly a standard spin recovery will work and if it does not the chute should be deployed.
Nearly all spins occur at low level.
Again, per previous commentary, this is not correct.
Your evidence is?
Pilots are on the whole not fools.
I disagree. The most dangerous component in an airplane is the pilot, and pilot error, often stemming from poor decision making, continues to be by far the number one cause of mishaps and fatalities.
You are confusing two totally different concepts. Whether the pilot is the most dangerous component has nothing to do with whether most pilots are fools.
which by it's very nature entails accepting risk, and accepting risk is unacceptable.
You are nuts. Every time you get in an aircraft there is a component of risk. If you don’t accept that, you would certainly never fly a single.
Earlier we reported on the unfortunate fella that had a brain tumour. A brain scan would have detected the tumour. In most aircraft he may have killed himself. Fortunately medicals don’t require a brain scan but if you wanted to eliminate that risk they should.
If one wouldn't make the flight without it, one shouldn't be enticed into doing so with such a carrot dangling ahead.
That as I said is a matter of opinion.
The risk of an engine failure at night in a single is very small. The fact that if it happens your chances of a successful forced landing are something of a lottery is an issue for some. For some the chute removes the lottery element because the evidence suggest in the vast majority of cases you will escape with minor injuries. If that tips the balance for you then I see nothing wrong in that assessment.
I think for reasons I don’t understand you have a bias against the Cirrus and are not therefore prepared to rationally consider the evidence or concede on any issue.
You have formed an entrenched view on twins and in spite of the comments on here by some very experienced pilots your mind is closed to any other view. That is a real danger for a pilot. I don’t mean to give offence because we are all guilty of entrenched views, and it sometimes takes a third party to point this out to us.
It is not so much whether you are right or wrong on some of the issues you raise but it is the way you use the evidence to try to support some of your arguments which are unsupportable based on the available evidence.
If you are not prepared to concede on any issue there is little point in debate and I will have to agree that my friend IO540 has it right.