There are some clear factual innacuracies in that page, for example:
Modern production airplanes are, in general, not tested or certified for spins.
Aerobatic designs such as Extra and Sukhoi products are, of course, certified for spins – but the mainstream general aviation four-seat designs such as Cirrus, Cessna (182, 350/400, etc), Diamond, Mooney, Piper etc. are not certified for spins. Few 4-seat designs have ever been tested or certified for spins.
This last sentence is complete nonsense. Virtually all part 23 light aeroplanes are tested for spin recovery and required to meet the following rule in FAR-23:
23.221 Spinning.
(a) Normal category airplanes. A single-engine, normal category
airplane must be able to recover from a one-turn spin or a three-second
spin, whichever takes longer, in not more than one additional turn after
initiation of the first control action for recovery, or demonstrate
compliance with the optional spin resistant requirements of this
section.
Very very few aeroplanes can be found to be spin resistant and I've never yet met any in the part 23 category, although I'm sure that there are a few.
The use of an alternative safety case did apply to the BRS on the Cirrus, but it has not so far as I know been applied to any other common GA aeroplane. I have seen many papers on spinning programmes for numerous GA aeroplanes at test piloting conferences. A quick check on the SETP papers database for example shows papers on the spinning programmes of the DR2160, Gippsland GA8, a handful of UK microlights, the Derringer, the Lancair Columbia and 400, Piper Arrow, Grumman AA1, Beech C-23, C206, Firefly.
One of those papers clearly says that the SR20 was tested, made an application for spin resistant certification, and failed to get it.
Further, this is from the Cirrus Owners and Pilots Association website:
Experimental test-flight accident, not included in Cirrus production fatal accidents counts, occurred during pre-production flight testing when aileron jammed. SR20 prototype was not equipped with a CAPS parachute. Test pilot Scott Anderson is memorialized by the ANDOE waypoint for the outer marker on the ILS runway 27 approach to Duluth.
Disregarding the facts of the sad fatal accident itself - if the CAPS was really an inherent part of the design from day 1, why was it not fitted for the entirety of the flight test programme?
So, whether the parachute was an original part of the design or not, there are significant inaccuracies on that webpage. That tends to make me distrust it overall.
G
N.B. Before anybody asks, no I can't give anybody the link to the SETP papers database - it's members only access I'm afraid.