@Miles Gustav,
I don't see this as a very constructive comment and feel that this is fundamentally a miss-understanding of aviation and expectations of performance.
...
Firstly, there are no professionals out there who look to put people in danger!
Well, if a constructive comment helps, the regulators should always ask themselves whether the conditions they impose are sensible. Mandating a deep technical inspection of a critical component after every flight is at tacit admission of a lack of faith in that component, an acknowledgment that within the timescale of a flight it might fail. Regulators should in future apply poppycock filters to their advice.
As for professionals deliberately putting people in danger, we'll of course they don't do that. But circumstances (commercial pressures, can do attitudes, etc) have a nasty way of resulting in a conspiracy of optimism, and it's the regulator's job to spot those and put a stop to them. I think what's happened here is that the regulator has not acknowledged that they have the power to prevent aviation as well as the duty to enable it.