MJ - well I dont think I said they would be my personal decisions?
but I am not sure which examples you are referring to?
These are the classics;
1. Flying over a low cloud base - this could be a overcast of 500 foot or fog,
2. Flying over the sea outside glide range,
3. Flying in icing conditions,
4. Flying at night,
5. Flying in marginal VMC without an IR,
6. Flying in IMC without an IR,
7. Flying with thunderstorms in the vicinity.
Plenty of SEP pilots do 1, 2 and 4 without a chute. The main risk is engine failure. Statistically the risk is very very small because engine failures are so rare. I cant recall the last time I read about a pilot killing themselves in these conditions. You probably stand a higher chance of falling down the stairs. A chute sways the odds of surviving an engine failure significantly. You may still not like the odds but if this is the only basis of your assessment you should probably avoid every flight of steps.
As to 3, you are nuts flying in icing conditions if the aircraft is not FIKI - as it happens some versions of the Cirrus are. Leaving that aside many SEP pilots accept the risk of flying in icing conditions as long as they "know" they can descend into warmer air quickly and icing is likely to be light. Many pilots consider with proper planning this is an acceptable risk.
As to 5, pilots without an IR have flown in marginal VMC for ever. Again it can be done safely, but it can also prove fatal and is, without doubt, one of the biggest killers.
Your are nuts to do 6.
7 is a bit like 3 and 5.
My friend is PIC in an aircraft with four engines. In his early days he had an engine failure while crop dusting and refuses to fly in a SEP - period.
Another friend who is not a pilot had a bad experience on a commercial flight - he will not fly in any aircraft.
We each make our own risk assessment. As I said you cant say 1 is an unacceptable risk in an aircraft with a chute and go any where near a flight of stairs because statistically you are more likely to come to harm on the flight of stairs. That is an irrational assessment. 5 is a good example where it is much more difficult to control the risk and therefore it is a much more difficult assessment. Learn how to assess the risk and the evidence suggests you can do 5 safely.
So, MJ, they are (although I am not certain to which you refer) unacceptable in your book, and that is of course fine - its your call and you doubtless have your reasons. These days I rarely fly in a single because I can and do fly a fully deiced twin. Personally at my age I feel more comfortable in a twin. I know it is irrational, but hey, that's life. However, ask me to do any of the above and I would, except 6, if I didn't have an IR. Personally I would hesitate to do 1 and 4 without a chute, I would have my own parameters for 2, 3, 5 and 7, although a chute would only come into the equation with 2.
Of course these are age old arguments that come up time and time again. MJ you have your own views which I totally respect, and I have mine. I have thought them through over a great many years but I can always be persuaded to change them although too be convinced the arguments would need to be well constructed and supportable.
That is me done, I just felt I had to get that off my chest once again!
PS - on re-reading I should have added the caveat that I am referring to certified and well maintained aircraft. I accept that some non certified aircraft constitute a higher risk of engine failure and personally I make a point of not flying in an aircraft in which I doubt the quality of the maintenance. As someone said earlier I know of very few engine failures in certified aircraft that have been methodically maintained by reputable engineers that were not the direct fault of the pilot.