HC,
You erred in some of your assumptions and assertions.
I said Mr. Decker should be allowed to review that portion of the report to which he contributed as the sole survivor. I noted in my post, which you must have missed, his review should be re what the professional interviewer said he said...and what the professional interviewer thought important and contained in the report or what was not thought important by its omission in the report. I would submit Mr. Decker is fully qualified to make statements about his escape, what went well, what did not, what gear worked, what gear did not, specify what training was effective, what was not....how things could be improved and the like! After all....he is the one guy that got out of the machine and made it to the surface alive and was able to continue living until rescued.
As to parties being harshly treated to have a heads up to defend themselves....pray tell why that is a reason they should be given preferential treatment? They can bloody well defend themselves after the investigative report is published. Are you saying they should be allowed to offer up issues and statements they want to see edited before the report is published?
Many of our passengers think that if the engines stop, the rotors start going round the other way.
Just what kind of safety briefings do you guys do these days HC?
Might be a bit of confusion if some of them are old enough to have flown on the 61's....and now have to do the changeover to EC products which turn the wrong way to as we all well know!