F&B, I was deadly serious.
First, safety is NEVER assured. It is a label we can only apply to happy outcomes in the past. Even at the astronomical levels of successful conclusion which commercial aviation achieves, all we can ever say is that 'history teaches us that what we are about to do is very likely not to result in an undesirable outcome'.
I asked for evidence and I dare say, that you have presented opinion. I presented you with a mountain to climb, I'm afraid.
Here's why: we often forget the myriad factors which have a more profound effect than the state of the crew, because as European aircrew, they are hiding in plain sight. Give me a Boeing between Western European airports in benign weather any day, over an Antonov in storms in Nepal; the state of the crew is only one factor.
We are components in the system, nothing more. Yes, the system often blames us when things go wrong, but this is mere convenience: the weakest link in the chain fails when pressure is applied. (I often ponder AF447, TK1951, JK5022, and many other 'human error' events in which the technology had ceased to function as it should, well before the humans were challenged with rescuing the situation). But it's inverting logic to say that because we are blamed we are supreme (I appreciate you didn't make that point, but others do when rehearsing these arguments, and it doesn't hold water).