Pace, I see you edited the paragraph that I quoted. So let me address your edited thought:
Originally Posted by Pace
When the manufacturer(Cirrus) will not condone the use of the chute simply stating consider its use if all other conventional options are not available and a second body are advising the use of the BRS for any engine failure almost even down to using it if you sneeze then its natural that when to pull will be discussed as there is NO official guidance.
I wonder what "condone" means to you? Have you read the Cirrus materials? Are you relying upon memory or other sources?
In my reply, I quoted several statements from the manufacturer (Cirrus) in their regulatory document, rev A10 of the Cirrus SR22 Pilot Operating Handbook.
Do you agree that those statements go beyond your criticism? Would you now change your position?
There is lots of official guidance. For all Cirrus pilots. From Cirrus. From COPA. From CSIPs. Even officially from insurance underwriters. One went so far as to say "Pull! I would rather keep you as a customer than deal with your estate!" Underwriters give discounts for participation in the safety programs conducted by the "second body," COPA. And members of that organization show up in accidents much less frequently than you would expect if all Cirrus pilots were the same. Participation has its privileges.
Pace, if you stay on the issue of training and decision-making, then we can have a productive dialog. When you stray over the line into mis-stating positions and denigrating the complexity of decisions to deploy a whole-airframe parachute, then your misstatements and rhetorical flourishes deserve attention.
Originally Posted by Pace
If the chute pull record is now so positively established is it not about time that Cirrus add the recommendations to the POH and officialise its use.
Surely to stick with their previous stance given the favourable BRS evidence is itself now negligent!
Passing the buck to COPA really is not on
Good grief! Did you read what Cirrus has put into it's recommendations?
And do you have any idea of the way plaintiff's attorneys use your logic of negligence to sue Cirrus? "Ah, members of the jury, you see, Cirrus now admits that the pilot should have pulled the parachute and my client followed their earlier guidance, so now Cirrus should be held liable for damages because my client died without using the parachute."
In my opinion, Cirrus has taken a courageous step in strengthening the guidance for pilots on the use of the parachute. But even those steps seem to trigger your attack that it is "now negligent."
The phrase "No good deed goes unpunished" comes to mind.
Cheers
Rick