It is indeed interesting, and seems well-argued on the two main points of Andy Hill's verbal evidence and the cockpit video. However I found the following most intriguing:
What that therefore leaves for further consideration is two requests for disclosure. The first relates to reports of test flights which were done by a specialist pilot. The second relates to engineering reports on the mechanical state of the plane.
For the reasons which are set out in the Confidential Annex to this judgment, I would refuse those requests by the Chief Constable.
What on earth is it about those two aspects that means we can't even know WHY the judge refused them? As I said, intriguing.
By the way, seems this was all back in July 2016, sixteen months ago.