Chris VJ - you're talking about something different to this accident, & to a certain extent, it's a red herring. The pilot in this aircraft is reported as having approximately 3500 hours total time, approximately 30 hours on type. He wasn't inexperienced at flying; he was also reasonably experienced on this aircraft. The issue stems from his lack of qualification to conduct the flight in the conditions he flew under. Had he complied with his licence, the aircraft would not have been where it was, therefore it would not have crashed. The aircraft was not certified or maintained in accordance with the requirements to conduct that flight either, therefore the opportunities to address the mechanical defects with it weren't available. The whole point of having a more robust licencing system, & more aggressive maintenance regime for aircraft carrying paying passengers, is to make sure such issues are caught & addressed before a passenger ever steps foot inside the aircraft. By ignoring them all, every single chance of keeping this aircraft safe was missed. No system can ever protect against wilful disregard of the rules & regulations by those who know them but chose to ignore them.
The issue of low hours pilots conducting charity flights does indeed have risks attached to it, the legislation & guidance is clear on that. It is still the licence holders responsibility to understand the requirements of the flight they are conducting, & to do so appropriately. Whether there is more risk attached than if the pilot was flying a friend or family member - I'm not sure why there would be - if they're conducting the flight correctly, why would their relationship with the other passengers make any difference? Surely someone offering assistance to a charitable event is already demonstrating a social conscience - they're donating their time for a good cause, after all. That doesn't strike me as the behaviour of someone who's likely to fly recklessly. You say you'd be uncomfortable to fly under such circumstances - that's fine, the guidance makes clear provision for that by placing an obligation on the pilot & the organiser to make sure you're aware of the circumstances - if you're unhappy, then you don't take part. Unfortunately, in this accident the poor passenger was denied that option & denied the protections of the system he had every right to believe he would be protected by - not because the aircraft wasn't fit to be flown, but because it should never have been airborne in the first place.
As an aside, I (pre pandemic) take part in charity driving events: these involve passenger rides around one of our race tracks - coned as a road circuit, so not at race speeds, but with the opportunity of stretching the car & showing some of it's capabilities, traffic permitting. The insurance, risk assessment, & briefings, both written & verbal, are very thorough. The rules are very clear & punishment for transgressing them is swift & final with no right of appeal. I've also run the events occasionally & have exercised the option to remove drivers for misbehaving: it's very well policed, very well marshalled, after all, there's no room for error when you're dealing with safety. I've no reason to believe flying events wouldn't be operated to the same criteria, I'd be horrified if they weren't.