SNS3GUPPY
In the case of Cirrus, who marketed their airplane largely based on the parachute (CAPS) system, many of the deployments have failed.
This was your original assertion.
At face value it could “imply” the deployment of the parachute had failed. On the basis of your subsequent post there seems to be perhaps two cases out of nine were the deployment was partially successful. I don’t think we have reliable evidence whether the parachute was deployed within the limiting speed.
Between 2001 and 2006 there were 19 fatal mishaps in cirrus aircraft, with the loss of 39 lives. During the same period, there were 9 CAPS deployments, some of which involved fatalities, some of which resulted in "saves.
So in this period (five years) there was apparently 9 deployments - just under two a year worldwide, involving three fatalities of which in one case there would appear to be evidence that the chute was deployed well above the limiting speed. That would appear to suggest there were 2 fatalities that arose from parachute deployment and a few people who suffered some degree of injury worse that the odd scratch.
On the basis of the evidence you have presented I think your first assertion was, to say the least sweeping, since two hardly constitutes “many” and your second statement is at best sensationalist because it implies the loss of 39 lives might be connected with the chute, whereas in fact it would seem at most only 2 lives were lost following chute deployment within the limiting speed. In one of the two cases there is apparently no evidence in either direction on the basis of your post that the chute was correctly deployed.
I am not saying your assertions are wrong. I am genuinely interested in the factual evidence surrounding the likelihood of serious injury after chute deployment within the limiting speed.
I don’t think conclusions that are not based on the evidence will get us very far.
Whether or not the chute should be used is another debate I would agree.