"Sliker" wrote

The BRS
chute would have more success.

It would have had absolutely no chance of saving the people in this crash.
They might not have even been able to get to the activation handle in time,
and if it had been deployed, there is ___no___ chance that it would have
been able to fully open and slow the airplane to a survivable speed.

Someone in an RV-6 or similar,
expericing an engine out, might be so overwhelmed by the whole affair,
they may be better off just pulling the chute handle and forgetting
trying to wrestle it down to the ground. Espeicially if over trees
with no open fields or over mountains.

Can't argue against that fact, at all. A chute would be the best choice
over unfriendly terrain with nowhere to land. There are places in the area
surrounding my house here in NC that you would be hard pressed to find a
good landing field, and even more true at night. Of course, many people say
you can do two out of three, but never all three of the following. Single
engine, mountains, night.

Cars hit everything
horizontally, so the forces are easier to plan for. In a plane, you'd
need airbags all around you. Impossible. You can't apply car thinking
to airplanes. They are too different.

Not only that, but airbags deflate rapidly, and while that is OK with cars,
airplanes often have several deadly deceleration jolts before they come to
rest.
--
Jim in NC