Let me speak more plainly.
I don’t “believe” that more flight hour experience translates to fewer deaths in a linear fashion, although I am willing to be persuaded by evidence.
When this flight-hours == lower death rate was asserted, I tried to find evidence for or against it, and the only study I found on the net was the one I posted.
You have dismissed the study as useful for the purpose I was trying to use it for.
SO I am asking you to provide a link to a study that WOULD be useful to either prove or disprove the assertion that more flight hours == lower death rate.
In my opinion, there are so few deaths in airplanes that the data will have too much noise in it to make any claims about experience. Since it seems from my cursory study that most plane crashes are catastrophic mechanical failures (which no amount of experience would help), it could well be that the raw data will show that more experienced pilots, flying longer routes and more complicated aircraft, might end up having a HIGHER death rate.
This goes back though to the basic question — how many deaths do the FACTS suggest would be prevented by doubling the minimum hour rule, how much does it cost to double the rule, and is the cost worth it for the number of deaths prevented?
Without actual data, it seems we are all just speculating.
But I can’t imagine, given the number of deaths/passenger mile differences between planes and buses, that the money wouldn’t be better “spent” training bus drivers instead of airline pilots.
I didn't dismiss the study at all. In fact it supports the notion that more experienced pilots have lower accident rates. I merely pointed out some limitations with the study, which apparently may have led to your bizarre conclusion:
"However, above 9999 hours, the death rate increased precipitously, and never returned to the 5000-9999 level."