Low altitude loss of control is no good for BRS so I don't know why the author suggests these could have been saved.
This is possibly of interest.
As the author, let me suggest why.
One's low altitude is not necessarily the same as someone else's low altitude.
In the analysis of Cirrus accidents that might be candidates for survivable CAPS saves, recall that the design parameters were 133 knots airspeed and 920 feet loss of altitude in a 1-1/2 turn spin and 400 feet in level flight.
So, low altitude loss of control above 400 or 920 feet is a candidate for deploying CAPS. Given that the FAA requirement for flight over congested areas is above 1000 feet, most of these accident flights would be considered low altitude between 1000 and 2000 feet, perhaps even below 3000 feet.
In my analysis, I discount the possibility of a CAPS pull for pilots in CFIT accidents who were likely unaware of the risks.
Nonetheless, several pilots were flying between 1000 and 2000 feet and persisted in maneuvers until they lost control and crashed. Other pilots in similar circumstances pulled handle and survived. It's those low-altitude fatal accidents that I consider had a good, but not great, chance of surviving.
Unfortunately, investigations and discussions about the pilots involved in several Cirrus accidents reveal indications that they were not trained to consider CAPS. In a couple of cases, the pilots were known to hold similar skeptical attitudes found in these discussions. They died. With a perfectly functioning parachute behind them that activated upon ground impact. Only 8 seconds earlier had they pulled the red handle then they might have survived.
That's a tragedy that does not need to happen again. Hence my diligence in refuting the misinformation and outright distortions with facts.
Cheers
Rick