"Garry O" wrote

One of the themes developing here it the recoverability of the air frame,
what a crock!!

I don't think that was the thrust in this part of the thread. It perhaps
was elsewhere, but here, the level parachute landing vs. tail up or tail
down is being discussed. It seemed someone said the ultralight type
aircraft they were talking about had the chute rigged from the tail. I was
stating that the fuselage, landing gear and seats offered much better crush
distance (equating directly to peak G forces experienced by the occupants)
that would a tail up landing. I stick by that observation for well designed
aircraft. The landing gear will crush, and so will proper seat supports,
thus giving maximum protection to the people in the plane.

if the pilot feels that the situation is so far beyond his/her
capabilities then I think that any damage to the airframe is the furthest
thing from their mind and rather they have taken a course of action
designed to make their survivability a priority.
honestly do you think someone would pull the chute if they only thought
"maybe I can't do this" or when they thought "****!! this is going to
hurt"

I never have been in a position to pull a chute in a plane, but I purposely
drove off an inline in a van rather than roll down the incline, and in that
case, I most definitely thought "this is going to hurt" in one millisecond
during the crash. I made the right choice, because I did not roll, and I
most certainly would have if I had not made the conscious choice to drive
directly off of the drop-off.

If a person decides to pull a chute, they most likely have decided the plane
is a write-off. It only could be a bonus if it is not.
--
Jim in NC