It is rather depressing that after all the airworthiness related fatal accident threads to be found in this forum, people can still refer to airworthiness (or more appropriately the lack of it) in flippant and truculent ways. Those threads account for over 100 avoidable deaths, the Mull of Kintyre crash of Chinook ZD576 costing 29 deaths alone. The RAF/MOD has still failed to explain why that accident happened, given that the infamous finding of Pilot Gross Negligence by the Inquiry Reviewing Officers was overturned by SoS for Defence Liam Fox. It seems that RAF leadership shares the same cavalier views exhibited by some posting here.
Tucumseh (and I, FWIW) have not claimed that the display pilot involved was not culpable in any way for this tragedy. What he has claimed is that the aircraft was unserviceable and unairworthy. The latter can and does kill. It is a serious matter that has not only cost needless deaths but has eaten away at our national defence capability. That one lone ex-military aircraft flying on a PTF happened also to also be unairworthy would scarcely have merited comment were it not for the tragic accident it was involved in. fdr mentions the a/c of the BBMF. Like all aircraft, they should have a complete sequential library (a lot more than 0.03 grams!!!) of fully audited paperwork to confirm that they are airworthy. No point asking tucumseh about that, try the MAA (and good luck!).
This thread seems to have moved on somewhat from the OP. That is perhaps no bad thing. Instead of so much emotional and angry outcry, perhaps it is time to step back and see the wood for the trees. Whatever Hill's part in this accident, his aircraft was unairworthy and should not have been flying. How many other such aircraft are also unairworthy? No matter where the CAA places its flight line, if an aircraft is unairworthy it remains so in transit to a display, during a display, and from a display, and in an overcrowded island at that. It should be doing none of those things and remain on terra firma. That the CAA assumes ex RAF aircraft to be airworthy simply because they are ex RAF is risible. Better they be assumed to be unairworthy unless proved otherwise!