To believe someone flying twice that TIME is immediately much safer to me seems like a much bigger trap than the 12hr pilot who knows they are going to be somewhat limited. Someone could have done 24hrs via longer enroute legs and done exactly the same amount of landings and take-offs as the 12hr pilot, it's meaningless.
Yes, I agree. As stated, this makes a very valid point. However, this begins to open up a broader topic. There's a saying: "you can have a thousand hours, or an hour a thousand times".
A pilot who is very recent on a few elements of flying, to the exclusion of all the rest, is a greater risk than a pilot with even less recent experience, if that experience was "well rounded". Everything in balance.
That said, I quite agree with the theme of:
those who do fly a considerable amount, with a considerable wealth of experience, nearly uniformly have very different views from those with little or no experience. Why do you suppose that is?
The frequent pilot may have a more comprehensive recollection of things which can go wrong, and be flying much more ahead of them. The less recent pilot is just keeping the plane in the air.
After a half hour refresher of two circuits and slow flight, then straight into more than 10 hours flight testing two modified Navajos in the last few weeks, I know what it feels like to feel like you're playing catch up with the plane. And I can pick my flying conditions to be perfect. I'm constantly paying attention to assure that swiss cheese holes are not lining up un-noticed.
Are pilots with only modest recent experience being effective for watching for the holes lining up in their flying? Or is all their attention devoted to the task at hand?
It's very hard to measure, and no disrespect intended, but you don't know what you don't know, so you may not see what you're missing.....