Aviators who fly, or who are flown, for living (ie it's their job) will overwhelmingly take a pragmatic, professional approach, to accident reports and discussions about accidents wherever they take place. Unless personally involved they will be focusing on one aspect - what can I learn and how will it make me safer in the air. There will be outliers (there always are) but in the professional world of aviation the vast majority will study reports and involve themselves in discussion for this sole purpose.
Where people fly for a pleasure/leisure it will vary a little more. I've seen/heard GA club flyers studiously avoid reading accident reports for all sorts of reasons; equally I've seem them study and discuss them with the same forensic analysis as their professional brethren - it varies, that is all.
The internet forum amplifies this difference. There are plenty of contributors (I use the term loosely) who don't, and haven't, flown in any capacity at all. There are trolls and walts who post rubbish for all sorts of weird reasons and whilst their posts are clearly meaningless, they have the ability to drive discussion into all sorts of unhelpful areas.
My view is don't sweat it. The vast majority of aircraft accidents are pretty straightforward and fine detail is often unnecessary and even unhelpful when it comes to learning lessons. For example there have been two recent GA accidents in Scotland where weather has been a clear factor. Irrespective of whether or not it is the sole factor, or even the most important factor, a wise aviator would take from the discussion (neither has been reported on yet) "must brush up on my met knowledge and planning". That is not to say one should not get in the minute detail when it becomes available, there are many things to learn from an aircraft accident and many ways to learn it.
The Mull of Kintyre accident mentioned above is another clear example of what I mean...most military aviators in the UK (I was one such) would have been brushing up on stuff like safety altitude in the days after the accident. It is an utter irrelevance whether or not that had anything to do with the actual accident - the general circumstances of the accident motivated us to go and study up on a risk element of our flight planning, and that surely is a good thing. The huge debate that followed the report, compelling as it was, would not have greatly altered the flight safety awareness mindset for most low level military aviators (note: please nobody derail a good thread by opening up a debate on this accident - I'm not suggesting/implying anything whatosever to do with probable or possible cause. I'm purely using it as an example about how discussion about accidents should evoke a healthy contribution to flight safety regardless of the eventual accident report content).
Providing one is courteous, constructive and open-minded, accident discussion is a necessary part of aviation education (and in this occupation/pastime, everyday is a school day). Don't get sucked into emotional debate, legal debate and wild speculation.
Just learn from others misfortune in every way you can and remember..."there but for the grace of god go I".
Last edited by The Old Fat One; 12th Sep 2015 at 04:40.