The process of thinking about an accident has safety value; it can be equated to a safety audit on a specialist subject. This is also somewhat speculative, but can occur more quickly while the event is fresh in peoples minds (greater training effectiveness), and can be more proactive in looking ahead to avoid a similar accident, as opposed to a formal report of how to avoid the accident we have just had
Agree. With the full accident report often taking many months to publish - and even then depending on the country of origin, it may not be in the Pprune readers own langauge, interest may have long since waned. Despite it's knockers Pprune has proved to be a most valuable flight safety "journal." The well written paragraphs in the preceding posts by some of the most knowledgeable contributors testify to this.
I am all for immediate opinions on the possible causes of an accident because some of these may prove spot on. As a former aircraft accident investigator in the military many years ago, I had precious little effective training. I recall with embarrassment being sent to the scene of an accident armed with an old Poleroid camera, a note-book and bugger-all knowledge - in fact it was training on the job with a vengeance.
If Pprune and the internet been available in those days, I for one would be quickly scanning contributors posts to pick on a facet of the accident which had previously escaped me. As it was, with no CVR or FDR available then most of the time we made an educated guess on why a crash occurred.
Of course you may have to wear occasional uneducated points of view on Pprune pages but it takes only a quick scan to sort the difference between well thought-out discussions and the bogan element. Naturally the final accident report may prove some of us wrong - but I am sure most will be mighty close to the truth.