Gordy,
Mistakes are for learning.
Couldn't agree more, however what you learn depends on the
facts surrounding the mistake.
If people "learn" from their own interpetation of an event there is no guarantee what you are learning is correct, that is the whole point of having a team of trained experts dedicated to publishing all the facts from an incident, so that all others have the right information to reduce the risk of the same event occuring again or even other events occuring due to preconceived misconceptions.
Epiphany commented on having to wait till 2012 for the aaib report for the facts and seemed to hint towards not being too concerned about the incident if the weather conditions were harsh.A concerning comment to say the least, a prejudgment of the situation (granted based on experience and knowledge of the industry) but without possession of all the facts, a prejudgment nonetheless. It's these types of actions that human factors is trying to overcome.
Are you saying that if the flying conditions were good your concerns would lead you to not fly? What if someone posted some duff info regarding a particular part of the aircraft? Would you insist the engineers focus their attention towards it(possibly increasing their workload or shifting attention) or even refrain from using something because your confidence in the system has diminished even though it turns out to be nothing more than hearsay?
It matters not how long the facts take to come out as long as they are thorough and correct when they do, altering your beliefs and/or actions based on anything else before that time is at best foolish, at worse dangerous.