I think there may be an element of delusion in this; GA aircraft, light twin and smaller, are not "safe" - too much surface area for thier mass, not at all manuverable in the vertical plane, and not very G tolerant. We fly in the weather, vice above it, in aircraft with little redundancy. We can mitigate to a degree, but if safety is your goal, GA isn't your arena.
The stats are silly, mostly without context, in terms of rate; if we all stopped making mistakes, then the Feds (and other entities needing to justify thier existence) would be "alarmed" at the up-tick in "the rising percentage of maintenance and mechanically related crashes".
A person can get killed in GA, and that's probably a more likely outcome than when driving a car, or boating, and maybe sky diving. Does a chute mitigate much of the risk? Probably not enough to be statistical significant. It seems, subjectively, to be an expensive security blanket with marginal utility.
Flying light aircraft has inherent and significant risks. . .four point harnesses, chutes, airbags, 406 ELTS, etc., likely reduce the risks just a small amount - like buying a Volvo; it is, very slightly, safer. But not by all that much. If you have the means and will, sure buy all the safety stuff you care to - but be cognizant that your likely buying very, very small and incremental improvements in your "safety".
