1)  You are absolutely right that starting in a Cirrus is not a good idea.  The 150/172 approach is much better.

2)  You are absolutely wrong, however, in your characterization of the BRS.  They are not designed to lower the airplane at 1500 fpm, looking for a steep slope in order to survive.  The weight rating on those puppies is that weight resulting in a 25 foot-per-second descent rate at an altitude of 5000 feet.  I know this because last month I was in a telephone conference with the two senior engineers at BRS.  We were asking whether a light sport amphibious airplane (1430 pounds) could use their chute intended for land-based light sport airplanes (1320 pounds).  This is when they described how they rate the chutes.  With our higher weight, we would have a descent rate of 25.7 fps, which might be acceptable if other impact-attenuation devices were used (such as crushable seats) but we'd have to convince them of the survivability at this higher descent rate first. 

3)  You are absolutely correct that a last-ditch parachute system which depends on having enough controllability to slow to 165 KIAS is a pretty foolish and useless concept -- unusable unless maybe you're on fire over the mountains.  Myself, I don't believe in BRS's at all, but then I didn't believe in air bags either until I head-on collision with a teenager driving on the wrong side of the road last year.  (70 mph rate of closure and me in a Miata.  I walked away.  Maybe them things are useful after all...)

And no, there's no farmer's daughter in this story either...sorry!

- Rob Wolf