Putting aside the human factors element, the inquest and the criminal prosecution, this event does highlight the fine line between wanting to see old aircraft fly and the way in which we can maintain them and keep them airworthy, doesn't it?
Ex-military types seem to be covered by a patchwork of bits of different regulatory regimes. Many operate under Permits to Fly, but with a varying basis for who holds responsibility for airworthiness, who regulates the specialists skills of inspectors, who assesses the technical competence of those that maintain them, whether the skills and knowledge of the regulators themselves are adequate, etc.
We all know about skills fade with time. We all know that there is knowledge that is key to flight safety but that isn't written down clearly, but passed by word of mouth (shouldn't be the case but it has always been thus). Couple that with the pressure to get aircraft like this airworthy and performing in front of many thousands of people that very much want to see them fly, and fly at the edge of their safe envelope, and it seems inevitable that there are likely to be airworthiness issues. I know these didn't seem to contribute in this case, but it has highlighted them.
I remember talking with one of the engineers at Goodwood that helped look after ML407, years ago. He mentioned that there were a handful of people that had the knowledge and understanding to keep aircraft like that airworthy, and that if anything happened to them then there was a fair chance that they would be grounded, at least here in the UK. No one wants that, but it seems to me that keeping older types flying at displays is very much reliant on the deep pockets of a few enthusiasts and the committent of many more who freely give their time to both learn about and help to look after this small and varied fleet.
Hard to see a way to fix this, given the disparity of different types, their increasing age, and the inevitable loss in old maintenance and repair skills.