Don't blame me for a partially cynical answer!
I think one of the most important aspects is, that people killed by aircraft accidents had a very passive role in these accidents.
Let's start with active-role-accidents: if you control (or try to) any kind of system with risks and dangers, you normally accept these risks. For instance, compare driving a car, driving in car races, dangerous climbing, canyoning, skydiving and so on. In most of these cases, the risk is is higher than taking a commercial flight from A to B. If a skydiver dies, who cares? He knew the risk, he accepted his risk, he tried, but he failed. He had an active role, but wasn't good enough to survive.
the situation is different, when people have a passive role: passengers in cars, busses, aircrafts, ... There, people expect a safe trip. And there, they also do not want to be reminded, that there could be any risk. Here they have to rely to other person's accuracy, skills, behaviour.
What can be easier accepted by an individual (you?):
- risk of death when taking a flight being 0.000001 (no real value)
- risk of death when doing skydiving (...) being 0.001 (no real value)