"Michael 182" writes:

Is there any mechanical reason the BRS system could not be designed to allow
the chute to deploy, stabilize/slow the plane and, optionally, allow the
pilot to disconnect the chute to land normally?

Weight, complexity, reliability, and practicality. The venerable SR20
s/n 1 used for flight testing of the parachute was rigged to be cut
away (they couldn't afford to trash a dozen airframes) and I was told
by the test pilot that the cutaway system was problematic, though
presumably if it were meant to be a production device they'd refine
the design a bit more.

The test pilot also told me that the cutaway was very disconcerting,
as the nose dropped abruptly past the vertical, which isn't surprising
given that the plane is starting at 0 airspeed.

The number of scenarios in which this would be useful seems very
small. I imagine that it takes quite a bit more than 1500 feet to
recover from the "steep nose-down attitude" (as the NTSB would put
it.)

I'm thinking about floating down in a $400K Cirrus with chute deployed in a
spin in IMC, then breaking out at 1500 feet looking at a suitable landing
place and cursing the imminent destruction of the plane.

It's all a matter of perspective. I'd be much happier floating down to
the imminent destruction of the plane than I'd be to briefly glimpse the
suitable landing space just before ending up in a smoking crater.

Plus, when in an emergency, always remember that the plane belongs to the
insurance company. Or as a pilot friend of mine puts it, "f**k the airplane,
save the seats!" ;-)