Creamy,
If you take your point to its logical conclusion, every risky activity would need to be quantified prior to any individual accepting participation.
The problem is just how you go about quantifying risk to a lay person. Yes, one fatality every 60,000 people sounds like it has been described, but has it really? To the average person those odds sound acceptable (unless you are the 60,000th person to fly). But do they have any idea how many people fly per hour, per day, per year?
Is that 1 in 60000 just within Australia, or in the participant's State, or across the world? Is it an average taken over the last decade or just for last year?
Or should risk be quantified based on proven safety record? In an aviation related court case that i was assisting in, the senior counsel advised me that the organization's outstanding safety record counted for naught in the eyes of the law.
Then how do we compare quantitative risks of differing risky activities...aviating with caving or abseiling, or pole dancing? I would stand a much greater of injuring myself pole dancing by the way.
I'm not trying to be trite, only saying that its bloody hard to come up with an acceptable measuring stick that truly informs the participant of either the absolute risk or the relative risk.
As pointed out, the Civil Aviation Carrier's Liability Act, which is capped too low in my opinion, covers your average fare paying passenger. Everything else is considered 'risky' and this judgment reiterate that view legally.
This is the only way rec flying for the public can be managed. All participants are entitled to be advised that they are about to do something which has a definite element of risk. They are entitled to have this pointed out both verbally and in writing eg placard or waiver form. I advise this to those who I am about to take flying then go on to brief about just how those risks are managed. Risks remain irrespective.
Of course no-one is safe from litigation against negligent or criminal failures by the PIC.
LD