Cirrus ballistic chute recovery
Peter I don't hold with your view about the avionics and engine, why should they be written off ?
It is unlikely that any insurer would wright off an engine or the aircraft Avionic fit after a heavy landing that involved a small amount of airframe damage.
Most ballistic chute landings don't do more that minor damage to the landing gear and so the shock to the airframe is likely to be no more that a badly executed landing, also the nature of composite structure is to fail in a progressive way rather than metal that resists and then fails compleatly. The ability of the composite structure ( just like wood) to absorb energy in a progressive way is not only good for the survival of the occupant but also for the equipment fitted.
My own felling is that Avionic equipment gets a far harder ride when it is sent from the manufacturers to the factory by UPS or FedEx than it will get in a ballistic chute recovery as long as that recovery involves flat ground ( the wheels contact first) and the surface wind is not a factor in a high ground speed arrival into a solid object.
A large part of the insurance problem with composite aircraft is the lack of knowlage within the GA maintenance industry of composite repair that results in aircraft that are reparable being written off for no good technical reason, thus driving up the insurance cost.