Well as defined by whom?

As defined by whoever will be applying the definition.

We can legitimately disagree thusly on whether or not this or that pilot
is "good" based on our own evaluation of "well". But my point is that
the point is not "how good..." but rather, "how consistently good". To
be a "good pilot" (a term with predictive value) one must be
consistently (though not perfectly) good, and to be a "bad pilot" one
must be consistently (though not perfectly) bad.

Who defines good judgement?

Ditto

But if a bad pilot by your definition flies without incident for 50 years, is he/she still a bad pilot?

Yes. He's damned lucky, but I still wouldn't fly with him.

I'd rather fly with the "bad" pilot who has never had a crash than the "good" pilot who averages a crash a year. :-)

Well, a crash a year due to bad piloting (or perhaps consistently bad
choice of aircraft) is no longer the "statistic of one" to which I
object. But a test pilot who flies all sorts of different wierd
homebrew designs all the time for a living, and =only= crashes once a
year, is proabably a damned good pilot.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.