Being a guy who used to hate Cirrus, and now fly's one almost every day, I can see the ignorance of your post. Why would you not want to pull the chute? Chances are, in an off airport landing, the airplane WILL be bought by the insurance company. Not to mention that the majority of off airport landings end in injury/fatality. I hope this doesn't bring up any sting for any one, but look at Ben's accident. Had he been in a Cirrus, or something equiped with a chute, I think the outcome would have been different. The statistics are there if you just look for them. Remember, this is from a former Cirrus hater. Just do some searching through my history, and you'll see. Education is the cure for ignorance.
Lets look at what happened here as well. The engine was having trouble. There was no runway within resonable distance. The thickness of the ice was uncertian because last year at this time it was gone. So attempting a landing in uncertian conditions, that you have no clue if the ice will support the airplane at a forward speen of 65-75 knots and possibly going through the ice at that speed, or descending under chute, I pick the chute because it's going to give me the best chance of survival. And that's what the chute is all about. Giving you the best chance of survival. Airplane be damned. If I ever have an issue in an airplane with a chute, I'm going to fly it over the field I would land in if I had no chite, and pull. Flying airplanes is not about saving equipment in an emergency, it's about saving lives. There have been plenty of guys who should have pulled the chute, and didn't, and didn't make it. The outcome would have been different had they pulled. And there have been a few fatalities where the chute was pulled, but the majority were from pulls outside of the airplanes envelope, and outside of the chutes demonstrated capibilities. Operate anythinf outside of it's demonstrated limits, and you don't know whats going to happen.
Without being too much of a dick, do you actually have facts to back up the above statements? How many off airport landings are there, and how many of them are fatal? Also, whereas one can speculate about how those that survived a landing under the chute would have surely been killed had they attempted a conventional emergency landing, no one knows what the outcome would have been. Likewise, we can't know whether a fatal crash landing would have been averted with a parachute.
The problem I have with the "pro-chute" crowd is the extremists. There have been several successful off airport landings in Cirrus where there was little to no damage, and the pilot has been ostracized by some for not pulling the chute. Much like it is somewhat difficult to criticize an outcome where people have walked away unharmed (as in the topic of this thread) I find it even more reprehensible to attack an arguably more successful outcome.
I think the logic about the unknown thickness of the ice is somewhat flawed. You're more likely to break through the ice under the canopy than you are with a controlled descent. One can touch down at a much lower rate of descent when landing than coming straight down. Other than that, I don't know any of the details of this crash...weather, pilot experience, the circumstances that led to the decision to pull etc. I have no cause to second guess this. Whether I may have made a different choice, I can't know without having been there, or at least knowing more.
One thing to consider in the decision matrix that appears to be glossed over in this thread: pulling the chute does not guarantee a particular outcome. In the quoted post above, "The outcome would have been different had they pulled." The parachute likely leads to a safe(ish) arrival with the ground, but it is not a guarantee. Personally for me, to quote Bob Hoover, I'm going to fly the airplane as far into the crash as possible. Pulling the chute cedes control of the airplane to God and the wind. If the airplane is unflyable, I'll pull no questions asked. Having the chute is another tool that can turn an untenable situation for most airplanes into something with a greater chance of success in a Cirrus.
The unfortunate aspect having a chute is the effect it can have on decision making. While I doubt most professional caliber pilots are likely to use the chute as a crutch or escape route for flying in conditions they otherwise wouldn't, Cirrus aircraft aren't marketed to the professional pilot. They are marketed to those who have the $750,000 it costs to buy a new one. It is marketed as an airplane with an incredible safety device, that many substitute for good judgement. There are numerous stories of safe, under canopy landings, that while successful, led me to wonder why the airplane was flying in those conditions in the first place. I readily admit that I have no data to back up my belief that the chute instills a false sense of security in some, but the anecdotal evidence points to it happening. Whether the number of people endangered (or killed) outweighs the number saved by use of the chute, I don't know.
So long as people don't use the chute as a crutch, or as a substitute for good judgement, I don't have a problem with it and see it as a good safety device.
To answer the post about the flap hanging in the picture...my guess is that is broke from the pushrod during the "landing." It is my understanding that it is a somewhat violent collision with the earth under the chute. Note the missing wheel pants and main gear strut fairings as well.
Thanks for the laughs!
