Well Said, Lonewolf.
Its not that the first nine lives do not matter, not at all.
Risk assesments require drawing lines, lines that are some times arbitrary or debatable.
Its easy to see that one standard would not work for all aircraft.
Would the same set of laws serve a single seat ag operator and a 121 carrier?
What a a 121 carrier and somone who flies helicopter tours in a 206? Obviously not!
at some point there needs to be threshold where you draw the line between a high level of safety requirements, and the highest level of safety requirements.
If you make the highest level requirements across the board the small helicopters cease to exist.
Many Years ago I asked Tim Tucker why robinson does not use bladders in their fuel tanks. His reply:
It would be nice, what about frangible fuel fittings or some other nice safety features? Bladders and those other things add weight and cost, you add that weight and you have to design the airfame to take that extra weight, you do that by adding to the strength and weight of other components, you nickel and dime yourself to a point where before you know it you have a million dollar R44 which is essentially a robinson version of a 206. Robinson fills a niche, let people decide by where they spend their money whether a bladder is that important to them.
I think history would show he was correct.
I agree, the "weight class" really is arbitrary, its the 9 limit that should stay.