Heck yes!! On-site examination and collection is always best. That said, this is NOT the first example of a major hull loss accident in which an on-site examination was not possible. Will the lack of a detailed, site examination change the investigation's eventual conclusions? In theory, of course it is possible. In the case of the
'attack' on MH17, it appears that their is more than ample photographic and secondary evidence to support the preliminary conclusions reported by the Dutch investigative body. The Dutch investigators are as sharp as the type gets and while I'm sure they would prefer safe & secure access to the HUGE crash site, having such access is not likely to change their conclusions or eventual report in any way. They have the evidence required to reach legitimate conclusions. In more simple terms, of course site access is best! Would early access have changed or influenced the Dutch investigator's (in-process) report or its conclusions? Not likely. If anything, site access would only add to the support for what they will eventually report. Very short answer: No! Am I worried about the factual accuracy of their eventual report, simply because they did not have complete site access?
NO!