JF:
I guess all I am saying is nothing more profound than I don't see any need for all accident reports to meet a common standard.
Your point is well made and I would agree that the standard of the report is less important than its honest search for the truth. In that regard those decrying this report, as not meeting the standards of RAF BoI's, should remember the advice given to those who live in glasshouses.
In this forum alone certain RAF fatal accident inquiries have been shown to have been at best partial in their search for causes and at worst guilty of blatantly ignoring known type deficiencies in favour of once again finding the crew responsible, even to the point of labelling them negligent with no evidence to support that finding. I know that I am about to be brought to task by being reminded that with Mull it was the RO's rather than the BoI that found thus. That's a bit like being told by Tesco customer services that they would happily refund you the money but Head Office won't allow it!
The RAF had the accident. The RAF held the Inquiry. The RAF found the pilots Grossly Negligent. The stain on its honour will persist while it still sits on the evidence of Gross Unairworthiness that its BoI would not consider 17 years ago.
Self Regulation doesn't Work and in Aviation it Kills!
(enough grocers and capitals in that lot for you Agaricus?)