A while ago I looked at forced landing stats on the NTSB database for the LongEZ and for interest, piper cubs. I don't know where I put the raw data right at the mo', but as I recall the majority of reportable LongEZ engine failures ended in fatalities, whereas this was rarely true for the piper cub - where a lower proportion of engine failures would result in reportable damage to boot.
I would like a 'chute for anything high performance, or to fly at night or in IMC. I wouldn't worry about one for a VFR aircraft with a relatively slow stalling speed.
Also: the lighter the craft, the greater the risk of an incident like the one maoraigh mentioned. Indeed ISTR a similar accident in Germany, where a microlight was dragged over the airfield on its chute.
That's a good point, about being dragged by the 'chute. If it's strong/large enough to land a 600kg a/c safely, then in a strong wind it could have a very powerful and uncontrollable effect on the ground.
On difficult terrain, with obstacles near the landing area, it's not an appealing scenario. As far as I know, there's no fast jettison to dump the 'chute after 'landing'.
To play the devil's advocate, won't a larger heavier aircraft need a proportionately larger, heavier 'chute? And if you do parachute into rugged terrain, isn't rugged terrain with lots of obstacles (trees, bushes) better than rugged, empty terrain where you can get dragged for some considerable distance?
We had to make the decision on the 'chute today, and the majority decision was to go ahead with it.
We'd been through the downsides and advantages, but what won through was (a) over-water (or inhospitable terrain) engine failure (b) in-flight collision and a resultant disabled a/c and (c) incapacity of the operating pilot with a non-flying passenger.
There's no compulsion to use it, of course, and if one opted for a 'conventional' forced landing then there's nothing to contradict the decision of pilot in command.
I have to admit that it goes against my experience and training, but I'm (reasonably) open to new ideas and operating procedures. Look how it hit the fan with the idea of monitored approach procedures in commercial operations.....
Well after seeking advice and information from all over the place we have decided to give it a go. It was a difficult decision and we did not have a clear majority either way. Maybe one day we will be very thankful that we have one, or maybe we will spend years carrying around an additional lump of "luggage". Time will tell. Paul
I carry a ~20kg toolbox and enough stuff to build a second TB20 on a Greek island, so you shouldn't worry too much 
Anyway, the weight of your chute is much less than the difference between two possible passenger weights and is probably not a lot more than the amount someone might lie about how much they weigh.
It's not so much the weight, but it's a 30% decrease in the very limited baggage space. I know it's not a touring aircraft, but it means cutting back on overnight kit, paper manuals etc. and probably being forced to get a seriously compact life-raft. Someone mentioned a 5kgs 2-person raft.....
Sounds like this is too late and the decision has been made, but I just thought I'd add my thoughts.
I own a Kitfox 912 80HP, 485kg - a very similar aircraft. I can land it, in zero wind, in 75 metres on it's big bouncy tyres. I reckon you wouldn't even notice landing it on gravel, stubble, even longer crops. I've happily taxiied it across 14" grass no issues. Normal landing is at 50mph, and during PFL i increase it by a few MPH to give a better controller flare. It's incredibly agile, and i love PFLs, with high angles of bank and big slideslips the norm. I feel that if you practice these skills you will safely stick it down if the fan stops.
As such, I feel that you can stick it down almost anywhere. There would be very few bits of inhospitable terrain so poor you could not land the thing. The Eurofox won't be much different.
I like technology, and in principle like the idea of the chute - but when I was flying a C42 the other day, i have two major concerns about having the chute.
1) When to decide to use it. When you're in such a lightweight machine so capable of off-field landings, this is a tough call! 2) Whether the chute could get you in more trouble. Floating down into a house, or the chute failing, or breaking your back. Again, in such a light machine - do you really stand more chance of survival?
So would I choose one? I vote no for this aircraft. For anything bigger and more metal, i vote Yes.
