From data so far in the Cirrus world, it would appear that coming down under CAPS gives far better survival odds than an off airport landing, all things considered.
Admittedly, we're talking about a Vso around 60k - slower planes may, on average, fare better landing off airport, due to less energy.
A worthwhile video, with lots of anecdotes and data here:
http://youtu.be/Pc6v-hWCSqc
Good video. I like bit at around 37 minutes of the discussion of when to use it and figuring it out before you fly. The examples of:
Pilot disorientation
Screwing up on approach
Figuring out ways to deal with mechanical problems
are pretty good, but I don't know how to quantify those for different pilots. 45 seconds of disorientation? Instrument failure? Black hole illusion? Screwing up on approach is pretty nebulous, did you miss the runway lineup due to crosswinds so you have to go around or did you end up stalling or spinning (which wouldn't help under 500ft agl). Mechanical problems, did you lose total engine power or partial, how much do you have left? They're great specific situations but not specific enough at the same time. Hmm. Good video though, I plan to include this for my paper.
Too many unknowns in your poll. What are the circumstances? Is the parachute on the human or the airplane?
In a loss of control situation it is extremely unlikely that a person will be able to exit a conventional general aviation cabin wearing a parachute, so staying with the aircraft will be the only option.
I suppose I shot myself in the foot though for saying that it could be a thing to have a backpack parachute included on the first comment. I meant on Cirrus aircraft.
I would just state in the question that this is an engine-out situation at XXXXft. in an area with XXXX surroundings/terrain; VFR (or IMC if you prefer). Also, if you intend to use this data, don't sample on the Cirrus forum. That'll skew it in favor of older people (who can afford a Cirrus) and those who would definitely pull the chute (they bought/fly a Cirrus in the first place, and obviously like them if they're on the forum--that's sampling bias right there).
Yeah. I'm using this forum because it's from a wide variety of pilots, some with Cirrus experience and lots without. I was going to go to the Cirrus forum to see how skewed it would be but after seeing the video that FastEddie posted, I'm pretty sure a majority would say "over 500 feet, pull", etc etc.
That is a good idea, the Cirrus video came up with a few provocative questions on when to use the CAPS system. Like, my guess is that a mid air collision prompt would have almost everyone saying "pull the chute". Problem is, there have been mid-air's where not much is damaged and at least one plane can return to an airport or at least make a safe landing. Specific situations seem to be the most asked for addition to my poll and I'm not sure how to give that for so many situations and be able to calculate it statistically in the end. Hmm.
Depends on what is wrong with the plane. There are just too many variables and possibilities to bring this poll down to only four choices. I'm afraid I must abstain.
Thanks for stimulating the discussion on the subject though.
Fair enough. I am working on some way to make it more specific with less variables but still enough for significant statistical work.
Given the choice I would prefer to have the option of a parachute on the plane. Do I worry about flying one without one? No, as a matter of fact never flown in a plane that had one. If money was no object for the small performance hit I would prefer to have it as an option and as mentioned above it would be just one more tool in the kit.
Good, I agree - the cost and the weight seem to be the biggest factors in having one or not. The more tools you have, the better chance you can walk away from an incident.
The presence of a chute was NOT a factor in my choice of a demo Cirrus SR22 back in 2003. Had there been a "delete" option, I might have taken it for increased load and lessened up front and continuing maintenance costs.
But like seat belts in a car or a helmet on a motorcycle, once you get used to something its lack is more noticeable.
I no longer own the Cirrus, and my Sky Arrow has no chute. And where I live in the foothills of the Appalachians there are times when there are virtually no good landing sites available if the fan quits. This is a typical view and a proposed landing site on my course northbound from Copperhill to Knoxville:
*snip*
I comfort myself in that, with a 39k stall speed, as long as I contact the ground or the trees or whatever under control, I just may survive.
But a chute would be a nice option - if I had a slightly lighter plane that could carry one without seriously compromising my useful load.
Wow. 39kt stall speed, I think you'd be okay even flying into trees (another report from a year or two back in my studies said pretty much that). I am in the camp of "the plane is fine without the parachute" and that it can probably fly/glide without a parachute but even looking at that picture I'm second guessing my "hand fly it to the ground" answer to my poll.
Unless something was seriously (Cirrusly?) wrong with the plane or landing options were non-existent, I'd probably fly it down.
Having the parachute would be nice, but there's also the downside of the deployment process being fairly rough. While the BRS-type chutes are undoubtedly gentler, according to ex-Navy pilots every time they pulled the golden handle they'd lose an inch of height.
Ba-dum tish. I'm sure deploying the thing and being permanently shorter instead of being permanently more dead would be a pro for me! Although there are those circumstances where the chute may not be packed correctly. Did you fire five or did you fire six? A chute not properly deployed may end up killing you instead of saving you.
Certainly a personal choice.
But, as stated, a lot of Cirrus pilots and passengers have died from botched emergency landings and landing attempts who in all probability would be alive today had they pulled. There's a lot of energy to dissipate one way or another, even with a perfect 60k arrival.
The video I linked is worth watching, if you have not already.
1/4 chutes pulled with instructors in the right seat according to the video. Jeez.
I saw a picture recently of a Cirrus that just landed via chute in some very rough terrain. Pilot walked away and the plane looked intact except for collapsed gear. That same landing with no chute would have been pretty ugly. So, I guess I could be convinced.
It's not an end all, save all either. Didn't help an acquaintance of mine who scattered his Cirrus all over Sugarbowl mountain after stupidly trying to fly over the Sierras in IMC.
http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief2.aspx?ev_id=20050222X00211&ntsbno=LAX05FA088&akey=1
Ouch. Sounds like he deployed it too fast and too low (and too late). Looks like a pretty icky area even with a parachute, but a slow speed crash beats a high speed crash I'd say.
Is that a 30 year old airplane or 30 year old pilot?
30 year old pilot, sorry!
Am I over a major city,or out in the wide open spaces with plenty of open spaces to land?
That's what I'm attempting to come up with here
I agree that they are too nebulous but I'm working on it!
unless populations below or passengers were a factor.
I agree that it is pretty situational; I'm not going to pull it if I see an unusual drop in the ammeter, but if something hits the fan hard like wing failure you can bet I'd pull the handle. 
Just trying to get a pulse on how pilots feel about it. 
