Originally Posted by vunkze
i just beleive we should refrain from drawing "conclusions" before the people who are trained and appointed to do so do
No, friend. People "trained and appointed" have political constraints and opinions just like anyone else. Most of them do a first rate, sometimes outstanding, job *within those constraints*. But satisfying those constraints often distorts what is proposed in their published report.
Many of us feel that the best objective results are obtained by publishing the data as early as possible, letting everyone who so wants have a go at analysis, and critique of others, and then focusing on those explanations that prevail. It's not perfect, and it is not efficient, but then many of those people are likely working pro bono with a view to other ends (such as tenure, or future private contracts) so nominal efficiency doesn't matter.
This point of view, by the way, extends much further than accident reports, into the assessment of any safety-critical system, and is held by many senior safety-critical system specialists besides myself.
The reason we hold it is what we know of actual accident investigations, as well as what we know of safety cases and such. You may be surprised by the number of senior accident investigators at major agencies who would welcome it too.
PBL