Defred,
You could be right about a new C172 in Aus costing four times what it should.
People still crash and die in BMW's, but if it happens in a Cessna, the cost continues to rise, because it's somehow "not acceptable".
Why is this?
I too don't understand why there is a 'zero' tolerance to any aircraft death (ie: Overregulate to such an extent it is unaffordable to most) yet other activities are acceptable.
I personally would never skydive, yet many do. There has been deaths around the world from people, swimming, racing cars, racing motorbikes, scuba diving, Mt climbing, working at your job, driving on the roads, bee stings, shark attacks, shooting, boating, jet skiing, skiing, abseiling. You name it.
Accept there is a risk with whatever sport / hobby / job, we do, but don't over regulate it until it doesn't exist.
If the wings fold inflight in a new aircraft, they have a case to answer, if pilot error causes and accident. Don't sue the Manufacturer. Change the law to common sense law.
Like your comment here.
Never a truer word spoken in jest'
Prior to the 1970's, Mankind's biggest contribution to aviation was to innovate, build and fly great aircraft.
At some point after that, Mankind's biggest contribution to aviation became to ensure that no-one could afford it.