Not sure about books, but the NTSB generally seems to adopt the philosophy of not trying to assign blame, but instead to figure out what happened, and try to de

Not sure about books, but the NTSB generally seems to adopt the philosophy of not trying to assign blame, but instead to figure out what happened, and try to determine what can be changed to prevent this same issue from happening again. Of course trying to assign blame is human nature, so the reports are not always completely neutral. When I read the actual NTSB report for Sullenburger's "Miracle on the Hudson", I was forced to conclude that while there were some things that the pilots could in theory have done better, given the pilots training and documented procedures, they honestly did better than could reasonably be expected. I am nearly certain that some of the wording in the report was carefully chosen to lead one to this conclusion, despite still pointing out the places where the pilots actions were suboptimal (and thus appearing facially neutral). The "what can we do to avoid this ever happing again?" attitude applies to real air transit accident reports. Sadly many general aviation accident reports really do just become "pilot error".