That figure of 17 kts is interesting, because it’s about the same as the minimum forward landing speed achievable in still air by a Cub or similar with conventional gear and radial tyres inflated to 8 psi. If you could PM or email me the reference I’d like to add it to my article on that subject by way of comparison.
Yes, the “think” part is sometimes the problem, still working on that one. I will try to improve. Please delete anything you don’t like, i would really hate to upset you with that redundant stuff.
@Flyer59, no need to be ridiculous.
Best thing is to think before pressing 
Is it relevant, informative, to the point, and non-ambiguous? Have you checked whether you already posted 1 or 2 posts higher up the thread?
How do other pilots here practice these limited panel etc. procedures? What is the best way to do it?
Good Morning, Peter! I hope you are well. No problem to delete anything you don’t like. I thoght i had never mentioned the 17 knots vertical speed. My bad!
I like both forums a lot, COPA and euroGA!
PS: i promise not to write about the Cirrus anymore, don’t worry.
How many more times will this be posted over and over and over? I get out of bed in the morning and I see yet more of these same posts. I am going to start deleting the repetitive stuff.
It’s not relevant to PFLs anyway.
Normally we allow a certain amount of digression because it makes for a more interesting discussion but nowadays so much gets derailed into the Cirrus chute territory.
For example on the Socata group any Cirrus discussion is simply banned instantly – because it always seems to go the same way. Do we want that here? I don’t think so.
Can you @Flyer59 spend more time on COPA and a bit less here, please?
It’s a simple statistic, that’s all. No pilot of a Cirrus who pulled the chute within the system’s envelope died, almost none of them got hurt – and some who tried to land on a field died.
Without the chute you will land at 70 kts mininum, with the chute you come down with a vertical speed of 17 kts. Guess what carries a greater risk!
Flyer59 wrote:
Flyer59 02-Jan-16 21:16 #62
Sorry, Gene – but if you look at the statistics, it becomes completely clear: Even over landable terrain the chute pull is the better option, because it is very likely,nobody will get hurt.
I cant buy that. Most GA airplanes (singles) have a 62Kt stall speed because the slower the better so an off airport landing especially in a field is almost normal. Afterall most airplanes used airfields as airports 50 yrs ago in the states. Only with the introduction of the tricycle gear was it better to land on pavement. Look at how many grass fields you have in Europe which are used as airports 4-1 maybe 5-1 or more.
If what you say is correct then all gliders should have parachutes and use them when they cant get back to the sailport. I would venture to say most sailplane pilots have at least one off sailport landing. Especially ones in competition.
There is a time and place for everything. So I dont belittle the guys who have chutes Im just not certain every chute pull event was necessary.
Perhaps guys with chutes take chances that they are not up for either by skill or poor judgement knowing in the back of their mind that there is an out with the chute.
Of course there are those who where just plain unlucky and lucky for them they had a chute.
By the way I think the Chute revitalized GA. More people are willing to get into the plane knowing their lives are not dependent on the pilot staying alive.
Forgot the smile.
Yes the Red Baron, Eric Hartman, even Chuck Yeager had issues with their first flights. Come to think of it so did I. 
