Peter, the trouble with non-occurences as a means of proving a system designed to prevent accidents work is that it's nigh on impossible to prove that the system caused something to not happen. You can't prove a negative. It makes it harder to demonstrate the benefits of the system, sadly!
Before I go spouting off to the CAA about this, I think I might widen the thread to include Rotorheads, etc. After all, I started the thread to see if those who have the hours thought I was wrong, not to start a campaign! I'm ever mindful that I may be crashingly wrong about something. I have much to learn.
Blunty