[QUOTE=USMCFLYR;1229916]
No - I think you need to look at the mishap statistics again for both military and civilian.
There are spikes in the mishaps rates at both the lower end of the spectrum(usually construed to inexperience) and at the mid-range (often thought to be bred of complacency), and then of course the 15,000 hr pilot who does something that no one can figure out why
Considering training here in the US as a starting point, there isn't a 1500 hour pilot who hasn't been taught the proper recovery for a stall or unusual attitudes. Whether that low, mid, or high time pilot applied that training at the proper time is another question and one that can't be answered until put into that situation - but if you want to put your dollar in the pot with me - I'll generally go with the higher time pilot unless there is some extenuating circumstance (an extreme example would be that I would trust riding in the backseat of a 200 hr naval aviator trainee going through carrier qualifications rather than a 2000 hr GA pilot trying to do the same - highly specialized training being the difference in that scenario)
It is true; you have a higher chance of having an accident in your first 100 hours of flight time than at any other point in your career. However, if you add up all the accidents that have happened in general aviation, the majority of them happened with mid to high time pilots at the yoke. Their rate may be
slightly lower, but their numbers are vastly greater when examining the whole spectrum.
Look at the Airbus incident, a 5000hr+ pilot drove the thing into the ocean because he failed to recognize the stall indications. There's not a single CFI I know who wouldn't have picked up on that right away. Why? Because they're living with stalls and spins every day. They have currency on how to handle that situation.
Further reading:
http://www.faa.gov/library/reports/m...ia/age60_3.pdf