Then I have not expressed myself clearly enough. Sorry! The most recent airworthiness related fatal air accident thread on this forum relates to Sean Cunningham's tragic death in a MB Mk10 seat. The SI to its credit determined that the seat (and all the others of that particular type) lacked a Safety Case. It did not then go on to reveal that it was therefore unairworthy. Nor did it reveal that as a consequence the aircraft it was fitted in was unairworthy.
I suggest that the lack of a Safety Case doesn't have the same impact as simply saying that both aircraft and seat were unairworthy. The former sounds as though some back office apparatchik had slipped up in their bureaucratic duties, the latter immediately points to the Air Regulator having failed in its duty. The SI didn't say so clearly though.
The wiring diagram this week puts the Defence AIB (DAIB) and the Military Aviation Authority (MAA) under the Defence Safety Authority:-
https://www.gov.uk/government/organi...fety-authority
and thus both report to its Director General, although where an Accident Report reflects on the MAA then that must be referred to PuS MOD. That may mean they are independent of each other in MOD speak but others may differ. Interestingly this site says that the DAIB is actually a part of the MAA!
https://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/...aib&gsc.page=1
or was that last week?