Katamarino said:
"The Killing Zone" book is statistically worthless; it's a shocking attempt at mathematics.
Specifically, it divides the number of low-hour pilot accidents by the number of accidents, and claims that low hour pilots are risky because they are in a lot of accidents.
The correct measure is to divide the number of low-hour pilot accidents by the number of low-hour pilot hours flown, and then compare that ratio with the high-hour pilot equivalent.
This error is so well known it has a name: "the base rate fallacy". For example I expect most GA accidents in Britain involve British pilots. I can't use this statistic to deduce that British pilots are the worst in Britain. Nor that they magically improve when flying in Germany, etc.
So far as I know, there is no record of how many hours are flown annually by low-hour pilots, which could be why we never see the correct measure.
In Paul Craig's defence, I believe he did do a lot of research on accident records and published them, and there are some useful lessons in his book, so I am in no rush to criticise even if the statistical analysis is dodgy.
And even if he does't prove it exists, the idea of a Killing Zone is at least plausible!