Bronx, the discussion on this thread alone shows what can become apparent once access to a published SI report is possible by professionals (and I count all those who have posted here in that manner, lest you think I am claiming some unique insight). The suggestion that showing this SI alone to non-professionals prompts them to ask informed questions about it is disingenuous. They are told that the cause of this accident was the (inadvertent) initiation of the firing sequence, and why should they not accept that? Yet I am not alone on this thread in claiming that to be plain wrong, and that the cause was the failure of the scissor shackle to open, allowing main chute deployment. That is just one example of the version of events differing to that offered to the family and the coroner.
If you don't know what questions to ask then you don't ask them. If you don't know what version of events has been published then you cannot dispute them. Those are the i's and t's that were not dotted and crossed at the inquest. Why? Because publication was withheld for that very reason.
Previous Coroners have heavily criticised the MOD for the state of its aircraft. By delaying general publication of the SI that criticism was curtailed. We cannot rely on the MAAIB to determine the cause of airworthiness related military air accidents, and have had to rely on an 800 year old institution to point out our airworthiness shortcomings. Now that window has been effectively closed by the MOD. In doing so it reveals its disinterest in maintaining Air Safety, and I encourage others to ask themselves why should that be?