Given the difficulties in having an inquest reopened, it may be time to look at some of the interesting issues raised and potential smoking guns.
CBW – "Was the aircraft recovered and did it undergo "mechanical failure" testing? If not why not?".
Sarcs - Although the Warbirds were (apparently) the controlling body, did this mean that they also carried out the investigation into this accident?.
Given the world wide track record of failure to recover from low level aerobatic manoeuvrers (USA, UK, NZ and Aust) for the type, I expect the investigation presented to the Coroner removed any doubts about these issues as a potential cause of death.
Given the history of control failures and the UK CAA issued AD, I expect the investigation presented to the Coroner would have made him fully aware of these issues, which he will have considered before handing down a finding on the cause of death.
Given the many rumours of trading dodgy parts, I expect the investigation presented to the Coroner would have made him fully aware of these issues, which he will have considered before handing down a report on the cause of death.
WiW - A regulatory body's duties are to maintain compliance to a legislated standard and enforce the regulations as required, by whatever legal means necessary. From what you see in the real world and read on here (and other places) CASA have been more than happy to pursue other operators in the past with much vim and vigour, allegedly sometimes for nothing more than paperwork violations.
See CP post # 141.
Given the robust CASA oversight of AWB, I expect the Coroner would be fully satisfied that the complex relationship between the Administrative and regulatory bodies was robust, transparent, legally approved (for the operations conducted) and did not contribute in any way to the cause of death.
DB – "was to commit an offence, with only 7 GA FOI' s in the Brisbane office, how could they have stopped this flight or others like it ?".
Macro - Does this mean that there are a whole group of pilots who might now not be licensed for what they think they should be ???.
Now here, the regulator has a stellar track record, many cases of endorsements issued by qualified commercially licensed people being pulled, not to mention CIR etc. etc Seems they can and do pretty much as they please in this area, when the spirit moves 'em.
If all of the above boxes have been ticked we are only left with one, possibly two conclusions. For my money:- It would, I believe, be reasonable to ask if this was a protected species case; and, if so, why and by whom ??; at least to eliminate the questions from our enquiries (so to speak). We shall wait and see.