I second PJ2's reply to Ron Johns.
I presume that few people have a problem with the process of picking up data from QARs and analysing them in quasi-real time to determine safety and unsafety trends and feed them back ASAP into line flying. Why would it be then, that in the case that someone dies, we are supposed to stop discussing and shut up for a couple of years?
Surely what works in the one case works in the other. If feedback on QAR parameters helps line flying, then so does analysing accidents. Waiting one or two years for a report may mean one or two years of lessons not learned.
Assuming also that the report is accurate. About half the reports we look at have easily identifiable mistakes in the causal reasoning. Public discussion of the analysis beforehand might have alerted the report writers to mistakes they were making.
PBL