Call me a skeptic until they provide hard numbers and details of what planes make it back into the sky v's scrapped, and those planes have a year or two of a service history showing they make it back into a reasonable service lifestyle, I'd be shocked to hear this is great at saving planes. I find a lot of the old 172's i fly have plenty of bumps and scratches, but wouldn't be super excited to trust the frame of a plane that went through an experience like this.
I like it from a safety perspective, but in my mind, the reward you get out of a system like this should be your life...I have zero expectations the plane will ever fly again.
A 172 or similar that has been retrofitted with a BRS? Yeah, not so much.
This is a 9-passenger airplane, maybe too large for current recovery parachutes? (though I imagine that will change.)
[1] https://www.cirruspilots.org/copa/safety_programs/b/pull_ear...
Actually, this has me thinking: not all low-altitude situations are the same - an airplane with a downwards trajectory, such as one in a spiral dive, will need more height to save than one that is in a glide, such as after a power failure. This is why even a zero-zero ejector seat will not always save you, if you are descending rapidly at low altitude.
Even so, replacing a motor, if that is all it takes, is going to be cheaper than repairing or replacing an airframe that has undergone a parachute recovery.
(Action starts at about 02:05)
I guess it depends on one's definition of low altitude. Rocket-deployed parachutes open very fast.
Parachutes. They are now a very practical option for GA aircraft. More than a few cessnas have been saved. The concept of "off-field forced landing" should too be going away.
https://brsaerospace.com/cessna-faqs/
" Q. How many aircraft saves are credited to a BRS Whole Aircraft Rescue Parachute System? A. As of August 2017, 376."