Between the beers I owe people and the lunches Steve is going to give away the concessions at Airventure are going to have a banner year!
Concurring that the tone needs to come down a bit, a few notes:
1) Steve is right - statistically, the odds of being struck by an airplane while on the ground are so tiny as to not warrant a person's concerns. The person struck on the beach was unfortunate and a freak accident. The light plane that struck a school was in the Phillipines; I am not convinced that the safety standards are the same there as they are in the USA.
To the guy that gets struck by lightning the odds are 1:1 at the precise moment he is hit; however, that doesn't mean it's a major concern we should be worried about. Indeed, the guy struck by lightning has the same chance of being struck again as he did before - basically none.
There's a lesson in our human grounding rod, though, that we can use. Prudent care in situations where the improbable becomes the unlikely has huge rewards. Experimental aircraft, for example, aren't supposed to be flown over populated areas (which apparently is defined on whether or not one hits a house or not); in an engine-out, the pilot should take care on where he puts it down taking the odds of people on the ground into account.
This is the golf course problem. A par five fairway can make for a fine emergency field, but there's the potential for hitting a guy that has just laid up from the woods. Does one reduce the risk to the pilot and passengers and increase the odds for striking a person, or put the odds of a guy that might be on the fairway above those around him and put it into some trees?*
2) The media always fluffs up airplane crashes because they've been trained for something spectactular when it happens. Plane crash = commercial flight with hundreds of people involved. That it's a Cub that put down into a pasture and killed a cow (without loss of human life) makes no never mind - the headline is worth gold....the reader may be disappointed to find out how minor it was, but the point is that he read it to the media.
Add in the "how did that get there" people who buy houses next to local airports and then are shocked to find out that suddenly there are airplanes flying near them and that they make noise to try and remedy the problem in an inverse fashion and it's an unfortunate circus.
3) Guys and gals that build airplanes are in the main much better prepared to maintain their aircraft than those who simply write a check for them. The analogy is folks who customize (or even build) cars and motorcycles. They don't take their rides into the dealership for an oil change or to change a spark plug.
Just because something is permitted doesn't mean it's prudent, and that's the hesitation to the notion of absolving an owner of supervised or professional only maintenance. There is already a lot of flexibility in maintaining a spam can, if one exercises it (and yes, it may mean firing the local A&P for someone else).
* Note the stress on people. To hell with "saving" the aircraft - it was never alive to begin with.