I think that the original question got answers.
BPF - I've not done the course, but every thread I've seen on here or Flyer about the Cirrus courses has had Cirrus pilots saying that the default action being taught is to pull the handle in most cases.
I plan to do the course one of these days, simply because the aeroplane fascinates me. But the very high accident rate is a matter of record, from GASCo's website...
The fatal accident rate of the Cirrus type has dropped to 1.01 per 100,000 hours, which is slightly less than the US average of 1.2. However, ten years ago in 2004 the Cirrus rate was about twice the US average at 2.6 per 100,000 hours. Two reasons are cited for the higher rate: firstly that it was a new aeroplane with which pilots were unfamiliar and secondly that this is a type used more for serious personal transport rather than pure recreational flying. These pilots are flying complex missions for long distances, a lot of weather and a lot of different types of terrain. But it’s still the same type of pilot who would normally fly around the traffic pattern so it’s a more challenging mission, argue the makers.
And from
Avweb three years ago:-
Cirrus aircraft finished lower when fatal rate is considered. The Cirrus combined rate (SR20 and SR22) is 1.6, compared to the GA average of 1.2/100,000. Diamond's DA40 has the lowest fatal rate at .35, followed by the Cessna 172 at .45, the Diamond DA42 at .54 and the Cessna 182 at .69. Cessna's Corvalis line, which began life as the Columbia, has a fatal rate of 1.0, a bit less than the GA average of 1.2. The Columbia/Corvalis models are essentially similar in construction and performance to the Cirrus SR22, but without the Cirrus Airframe Parachute System (CAPS).
For an extremely expensive aeroplane, mostly flying long trips - and thus less take-offs and landings (where most accidents occur) than the background fleet, loaded with what are supposed to be safety features, where the background population of aeroplanes are much older and more basic, that really doesn't look good does it when the C182 and DA42 are both showing much better safety records.
Half the fatality rate of the background fleet is, I'm afraid, just not true. It has a higher fatality rate than much older aeroplanes, despite far more safety features. Something's wrong somewhere.
G