Pace,
Your post reads to me as if you are trying to disagree with me (and I appreciate that tone is difficult to read on a forum).
But I haven't disputed anything you say in your last post, and indeed wouldn't because I agree with it entirely.
The only point I'm trying to make is that I think the role of the chute is over stated in this incident. I can't see a VFR pilot chosing to do an IFR approach based on having a chute available.
If someone tried to make the argument that having fancy automatiion would encourage them then I could see the point.
I accept fully that a chute can change risk assessment in other areas, but find it difficult to believe it would encourage a VFR only pilot to do an instrument approach.