BUT, there are downsides. First of all I really do feel that having the chute on the aircraft does take away some element of assumed risk.
There are two aspects to this:
Firstly, there is a chance that a reckless pilot might take a stupid risk because they think the chute protects them from that and I am sure that must have happened and it is wrong.
The way to address that is through training and mentoring and it is covered extensively in the transition training and CPPPs I have been banging on about in previous posts and has been discussed often on COPA.
Secondly, though, there is the reassurance it gives in “normal” operations, especially flying in IMC or at night. I remember doing my night rating in a Robin and wondering what I would really do if the engine failed.
I have never flown any aircraft other than a Cirrus in serious IMC, but I have to say that I wouldn't fancy needing a forced landing either on a dark night or under a 200-400 ft cloud base without knowing I have the chute. Obviously other pilots do fly their non-CAPS aircraft in those conditions, and I don't for a moment blame them for doing so, it's just my personal view.
But no one seems to consider the people on the ground. A chute pull (when there may have been a recovery if no chute had been available) may well save the lives of the people in the aircraft, but once the chute has been pulled there is no going back and next to no control. The last chute pull I heard about came down in a garden and a couple of hundred metres from a school.
In the Cheltenham pull thread which discussed this particular pull and which was was locked, this topic was covered very extensively. In that pull, the number of people who reported hearing the bang from the rocket, seeing the big parachute as well as watching, and even having time to get out a phone and film, the descent was remarkable.
I would draw the contrast between that and an engine out aircraft without a chute.
Also, remember that a light aircraft hitting at 60 KTS carries about ten times the energy of one landing under CAPS at 17 knots. Yes, in the former case you have an element of control that you don't have under the chute but, as the picture I posted in an earlier reply shows, that's by no means an assurance of a good outcome either.
I would suggest that using what altitude you have to glide away from vulnerable areas and then deploying the chute is almost always going to be the best (or at any rate the least bad!) outcome.
I think it is very difficult to judge if the chute should have been pulled or not as I wasn't in the aircraft and I may of had a very different opinion if I had of been in there. Unfortunately (or fortunately), it is human nature for life preservation and when under pressure and a life threatening situation, the first reaction is to take away that risk and the chute gives a very good option of doing that.
That's quite right and it's why the training tries to integrate the use of CAPS into emergencies handling to ensure that the system is used when needed but also early enough in the incident for it to work properly. It's very much NOT "see a warning light: pull the chute”.