GeoIntel
The RAF DOES have a "duty of care" under the Health & Safety at Work Act (1974), in fact your place of work should have a copy of the HSE poster prominently displayed, along with a H&S policy statement from the Secretary of State and another signed by the Station Commander.
However, the Act states that "reasonable" measures should be taken to provide for a safe working environment.
It cannot define what "reasonable" means in every circumstances and I'm sure that NOBODY on this forum would take that to include NOT sending our armed forces into hostile situations, it's the nature of their job when all else, particularly political action, has failed.
However, if there are circumstances of inadequate protection, inadequate maintenance (for whatever reason - and I'm not having a pop at the servicing people here, under resourcing is the significant factor), then there may be a case to answer, but only the legal eagles can sort that one out.
TD, you are quite right, as well you know, to pursue answers, otherwise "silence gives consent", if you don't ask the tough questions, then, by implication you are content, that's the way politics works.
On the subject of dropping parachutists out of the back of a Nimrod, that suggestion lasted until it was pointed out that letting people fall through the jet eflux of 2 Spey 250s (4 if both doors were used) was probably not a good idea!
It, fortunately, went the same way as dropping SF troops, in a "container" from the bomb bay, or a GPMG through a gland in the port beam window (right across the intakes and a couple of fuel tanks - wonderful idea), or the same GPMG attached to a swinging cradle, firing out of the port rear door - the assembly for that one was tried out of a Puma on Aberporth range; the way that was supposed to be aimed was pure Marx Brothers (no, not Karl).
There were, however, several configurations touted by BAe when the MR1 first came into service, in addition to the MR and R variants, there was a tanker version, an AEW version with guess what, an overhead rotating scanner, not an easter egg at either end, and even a passenger version - guess you could have called that a Comet!
BAe produced a very pretty glossy pamphlet at the time, showing all of the possible variations, sadly, I did not hang onto it.
I'm sorry if this has drifted off topic and I wouldn't want it to detract in any way from the prime aim of getting answers as to why that tragedy ocurred, nor to trivialise the aims of this forum, but it does show that the grasp that some VSOs have on reality is, at best, tenuous.
Sloppiness and self-interest are not tolerated at the lower end of the food chain, so why should those at the top not be held accountable? After all they receive their not inconsiderable salaries on the basis that they are "responsible" for the armed forces, well let them take some responsibility.