It may be an urban myth, but a 114 Commander had a CFIT in mountainous terrain, and pilot/passengers survived – which I like to think reflects well on the build quality of the 114.
The only idea is not too wait too long. Of course i wouldn’t pull the chute in 10.000 feet in VMC, but experience has taught that pulling too early is safer than too late.
The concept of “pulling early” was developed by COPA and not by Cirrus. If there’s any doubt that you will land on a runway: pull.
Jacko wrote:
It surely depends on the airplane, and how fast it is flying. I know two GA pilots who survived CFIT, one with no injury whatsoever. He was in a C150 with full flap; he flew the airplane all the way to impact and he slept in his own bed that night. The other, in a C172, suffered moderate injuries, mainly from frostbite.Conversely, surrendering control to a parachute at the first sign of trouble strikes me as a game of chance. I’d think twice about such a gamble anywhere near a wind farm, for instance.
There is no way pulling a chute is less safe than trying to CFIT even if attempting to land on a road or hiway. Don’t think you want to compare CFIT fatalities to chute pulls and survival rates.
Flight Safety Foundation had a score based programme (ALAR) for assessing approaches, which makes you a believer in ILS or as they become more prevalent WAAS LPV.
This FAA tool seems quite helpful.
https://www.faa.gov/news/safety_briefing/2015/media/SE_Topic_15-08.pdf
I would suggest that currency in the aircraft, type of operation and knowledge of the route are some of the main risk mitigators.
i WANT to compare fatality rates for CFIT and Chute pulls. That’s easy.
CFIT fatality rate: almost 100%
Chute pull fatality rate: almost zero.
A more interesting comparison is engine out forced landing attempt fatality rate in an aicraft gliding around 90kt (somewhere between 10 and 20 percent, I would guess) vs. engine out chute pull fatality rate (zero so far).
Cobalt I think your estimate for forced landing fatalities in high performance single engine aircraft may be somewhat exaggerated – do you have a source for this?
Survivability in a crash at 90 knots may be as you suggest, or possibly even lower, but hopefully the majority of forced landing attempts occur in controlled conditions with reasonable survivability. I do agree on the point about CAPS, if fitted it is the PIC responsibility to activate early when the circumstances dictate. As mentioned elsewhere, no doubt it is what Lindbergh would have chosen to do.
CFIT fatality rate: almost 100%
Chute pull fatality rate: almost zero
That’s simply a fact, although I admit that a cool emergency landing on a highway is way cooler (if you survive it). I for one don’t care, I rather live another day than be cool. (Or: I am so cool I can afford to pull ;-))
A more interesting comparison is engine out forced landing attempt fatality rate in an aicraft gliding around 90kt (somewhere between 10 and 20 percent, I would guess) vs. engine out chute pull fatality rate (zero so far).
This may be digressing too far but the engine out rate (engine failure rate itself) is also nearly zero 
It may be different on chute equipped non-certified aircraft, however, but some of the engines used there are very flakey.
What I am getting at is this:
Most people who fly Cirruses will do more risky missions because they have the chute. This makes sense; I would do the same. Well, I would be happier to fly at night. Not sure I would be happier to overfly the Alps at night, because the chute might drop me into some ravine where I am never found.
But the “headline chute save rate”, which for the Cirrus is pretty good, is nothing even remotely resembling the rate at which the risk factors which people fear most and appreciate the chute most for – an engine failure – actually happen.
Most Cirrus chute pulls were done in circumstances in which everything was functioning – engine, aircraft, and pilot.
IOW, if you assembled 100 pilots in say SR22s and 100 pilots in say Cessna 400s, all 200 being clones of each other and all in good health, and got them to cross the Alps backwards and forwards at night, all night, for 10 years, the number left alive at the end of the 10 years would be about the same from the two groups. It would probably be well over 95
Peter wrote:
Most people who fly Cirruses will do more risky missions because they have the chute.
Conjecture not fact.
There have been over 300 BRS chute pulls so far http://www.brsaerospace.com/faq.aspx. The circumstances vary, but the end result is usually the same – lives are saved.
The only experimental aircraft with a chute is the Lancair Evolution (Pratt Turbine)…the option is too new to assess the impact yet.
The data on survival rates when a parachute has been pulled is obvious (near 100% survival). The ‘what-if’ survival for non-parachute equipped planes can only be guessed at.
The only experimental aircraft with a chute is the Lancair Evolution (Pratt Turbine)…the option is too new to assess the impact yet.
When did you last visit an ultralight exhibition?
