OK let's stick to basics just to clear the pilots' names:
a fresh inquiry is justified in that the RAF effectively misled both the Parliament and the FA inquiries on two major points:
1. The planned path.
2. The usual practice on that path.
wrt (1), look through the transcripts - the most obvious starting point for such a crash into terrain should surely be what were they intending to do? - I gather that this was a regular flight (a "milk run"?) involving coming in close to the Mull and then "handrailing" up the coast, at low level - I challenge anyone to get that scenario from transcripts from the inquiries - indeed, anyone would be shocked by the obfuscation on this basic point.
wrt (2), if this was a regular flight plan and the prevailing conditions were commonly adverse to seeing ground detail on the Mull - what were the usual practices? - why were no pilots who had done this type of flight before called before these inquiries to explain the difficulties and any special operational/security requirements imposed, and cosequently any special practices to get round those problems?
At the very least, they should be put on the spot by clear, straightforward questions on the above two points - after 10 years the most basic navigation aspects of this crash have not been dealt with to the satisfaction of at least one member of the public - anyone else share this view?