Interesting reply.
I think the debate has ended up being between you and I which is not really the object of the forum, so it is time for me to take a back seat.
In my previous post I did try to labour that I was addressing the incipient spin of the Cirrus not a developed spin. I would agree that there is little if any evidence of what happens in a developed spin.
It would be interesting to read the full results of the test program. I would agree it is danagerous to jump to conclusions without doing so. Even then we dont know whether or not the results are fully reported.
Not withstanding these caveats I am inclined to conclude EASA have it right - in the event of an incipient spin with sufficient height first try standard spin recovery then pull the chute.
In terms of spins I thought I was clear I was talking about unintentional spins.
I hope my risk perception is more cautious than most. My last engine failure was in a twin at just over 2,000 feet. I am more than aware engines failure. As I indicated before I wouldnt fly a single at night - but I would a Cirrus because of the parachute. Have I been taken in by their advertising? Perhaps. Do I understand the chance of heads or tails remains the same no matter many times I toss the coin - I do. Would I keep betting on red, doubling up until I win - I have. These are the chances we take in life. Most of us dont eliminate risk, we manage and accept varying degrees of risk - that is the way it is, it is the human condition.
Anyway, a good and interesting debate, which has certainly delved into the Cirrus in more detail than usual. I think on one issue we would agree - the more evidence we have of the flight characteristics of an aircraft in given circumstances the more likely we are able to manage the aircraft.