Actually it was me who started the chute discussion by asking the hypothetical question what a Cirrus pilot would do in the given circumstances (low, close to the airport, many wind turbines around).
I think it was a valid question. And it has been answered: a cirrus pilot would still use the chute and it would be frightening for the pax because of the extreme nose down attitude. But you will probably walk away from it it although with significant damage to the aircraft.
We got out relatively relaxed and with no damage to the aircraft. But there was a significant factor of luck involved. With the chute the “luck factor” is less important.
I was laughing about Achim’s statement on spin recovery. It’s what we call “throwing oil on the fire” and to me it was obvious he was joking. I share a similar kind of humor and this very direct, confronting jokes work very well on my teenage daughters 
lenthamen wrote:
With the chute the “luck factor” is less important.
Maybe, maybe not! The point remains, there are no statistics showing the chute actually save lives, not without a whole bunch of ifs and buts. Microlights have had BRS’es since long before the Cirrus. Some places it is mandatory, other places it is optional. The reason is that there exist no statistics showing a BRS actually saves lives. After all, a Cirrus is no fighter jet risking an incoming missile, and it does not have a stall sped of 150 knots and an L/D like a brick. Pulling the chute does not equal lives saved, not statistically. A chute is not the same as a seat belt or airbag in a car, not unless you happen to rip the wings off (which will be like ripping out the steering wheel and the pedals in a car).
The only thing we can say for sure is that flying with a chute feels much safer than without for most people. This may be enough of a reason though.
Actually, it was clear that achimha was joking.
About “scaring passengers” with CAPS: that’s completely unimportant, really. The only thing that counts is to use the method that gives you the highest chance of survival/escaping without injuries. After all we know CAPS gives you the best chance. I also would not care if the “airplane was damaged” by the chute landing (some of the airplanes only had light damage, some others could be repaired).
@LeSving
Of course the – certified- CAPS system has saved lives. In engine failures after midair collisions, engine failures over cities, after loss of control in IMC and one time even after the pilot died from a heart attack above the Rocky Mountains.
There are some cases where an emergency off-airport landing would have been an option. So what? The chute landing gives you a higher chance to survive, so it is the preferred method.
And even though the uncertified BRS system in microlights has saved lives aswell, it cannot be compared with the Cirrus system when it’s about reliability.
It will always stay the way that pilots who don’t have BRS will ridicule the system, while Cirrus pilots are convinced that CAPS is an additional safety net. That’s why these discussions quickly become emotional. The numbers show how effective the system can be in many scenarios, e.g. midair, pilot incap., loss of control in IMC, In some other scenarios (engine failure) we will never know if the same number of people would have survived unharmed. But no CAPS landings after engine failures resulted in fatalities. Good enough for me.
It will always stay the way that pilots who don’t have BRS will ridicule the system
Very few pilots ridicule the Cirrus BRS. What lots of people ridicule is the PR slant which Cirrus put on each chute pull: “it has saved X lives”. That directly implies that Cirrus pilots are unable to do a forced landing, which is obviously not the case.
The other thing which is a frequent target of ridicule is the “church of scientology” type of preaching from Cirrus USA. I think most Europeans find it just a bit over the top – especially when they see some % of the owners buy into it with a straight face.
The numbers show how effective the system can be in many scenarios, e.g. midair, pilot incap., loss of control in IMC, In some other scenarios (engine failure) we will never know if the same number of people would have survived unharmed.
Indeed, and nobody doubts that, but such scenarios form only a very small % of Cirrus chute pulls… If I was e.g. in the business of making fire extinguishers, and I had a list of all situations where they were used to put a fire out, and some high % of the list was people who set fire to themselves, I would (a) run a safety course on how to not set fire to yourself (which is what Cirrus have done, admirably) and (b) not publish the list as an example of how great my fire extinguishers are 
Peter wrote:
such scenarios form only a very small % of Cirrus chute pulls
LeSving wrote:
there are no statistics showing the chute actually save lives
The reason these BRS debates run and run, and get so tedious, is that many non-Cirrus pilots refuse to acknowledge the significant safety benefit. Perhaps for their own comfort.
It only takes some common sense and/or Cirrus flight experience, not statistics, to see the clear safety benefit in most of the common accident scenerios, including engine failure over hostile terrain or water, collision, LOC or major pilot error, pilot incapacitation, severe icing, etc. I don’t see why it is so contentious to recognise this.
If we could all just agree that the BRS does make aircraft significantly safer, but that you are no worse off from having it if you decide not to use it, then the debate could end? Or is there a different point to the debate that I am missing?
As an aside, I think that most SEP pilots massively underestimate the grave danger associated with engine failure. Again perhaps for their own comfort.
Maybe have a look at Cirrus Marketing before commenting on it? Where does it say “.. has saved x lives”?
http://cirrusaircraft.com/innovation/airframe-parachute/
And the “church of Cirrus” thing is an invention just like the “church of Apple” slogan.
I have both! ;-)
You posted it further back:
“The Cirrus statistic: Never when the chute was pulled within the parameters occupants were hurt. Around 140 were saved”
This approach is used over and over and over in the publicity. It will always be a target for ridicule because it directly implies that a forced landing in a Cirrus must always be fatal, so every chute pull saves all the lives inside.
Peter wrote:
It will always be a target for ridicule because it directly implies that a forced landing in a Cirrus must always be fatal, so every chute pull saves all the lives inside
So maybe only half the parachute pulls saved fatalities and the lives-saved number is 70 not 140. How does that change the argument?
I know of two Cirrus BRS deployments. Neither had a forced landing as an alternative.
What i posted are the actual numbers and my personal opinion – but not “Cirrus Marketing”.
Also: Cirrus never said or implied that an off airport “must be fatal”. Cirrus recommends highly using the chute in cases of engine failure, simply because the chances of escaping the accident unharmed are higher.
