A few thoughts on the 1700 fpm descent rate vs landing in a field after an engine failure:
It is important to consider the momentum that needs to be dissipated in bringing the aircraft to a stop which is proportional to the square of velocity.
1700 fpm is equivalent to 17 kts
The stall speed of my SR22 with full flaps is 59 kts.
That is about twelve times the amount of energy that needs to be dissipated.
The option of trying to dissipate that energy gradually by landing in a field and rolling out can look attractive. Whilst it is perfectly possible to land a Cirrus on a grass strip (I have done so many times) the landing gear and the low prop clearance mean that it is not designed for an off airport landing.
The aircraft is designed to land safely under the chute and incorporates seats with a honeycomb base designed to absorb an impact of 27G, flexible landing gear and later marks also have seatbelt air bags. That said: the aircraft will be damaged although several have been repaired and have flown again.
Quite apart from the energy dissipation calculation, gliding to land in a suitable field is not as easy as it sounds. Whilst we all did power off forced landing approaches in our training and flight tests, picking the right field isn’t that easy:
Field Crops - NoGo Fieldspicking the right field isn’t that easy:
Landing on a road isn’t always a great idea either:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-36629540
And by the time you realise that you have one of these problems, you are probably too low to use the chute safely.
I am lucky enough to fly an aircraft equipped with BRS. If it ever comes to it, unless I have a nailed on glide approach to a runway, I plan to use it.