BRS *could* be beneficial, but many of the circumstances in which BRS was used could have been dealt with using 'conventional' means ie training, good airmanship, conservative decision making and the like to avoid or solve the problem. In the few cases where BRS was the only realistic solution to the problem then the risk is not great enough to justify the cost. Not just $ to have the equipment on board but also things like useful load that could have been available but used instead by the BRS system.
Sigh... lovely debate to have it summed up nicely as stating that safety innovations are not justified -- instead of saving yourself, you could invest in more training and useful load.
I can only imagine the state of general aviation in the future if we follow this logical thinking and can only rely upon the old ways of doing things.
In my research, I have now talked with the pilots of 8 of the 28 Cirrus parachute pulls about their experiences. Universally, they report dislike of this attitude represented in the negativity towards the system and the pilots who fly it. Universally, they admit that they got into a situation that overwhelmed their training, their airmanship, conservative decision-making.
Now what?
They had an innovative safety feature that changed their plan. And they and their passengers all survived.
Could they have survived without pulling the red handle? Universally, they ask themselves that question, some endlessly, some with finality.
But they all admit that they would rather pull the handle, see their family again, and avoid the negativity.
Cheers
Rick