You don't really need an accident to demonstrate the Reason Model - the fact that an accident didn't occur in serious circumstances can also be linked to organisational, workplace, team and personal failures that were otherwise defended by one of the other layers.
The (relatively) recent series of QF incidents (QF 32, 70 etc) demonstrate one or many "holes in the swiss cheese" which were ultimately defended at another layer. Apply the same logic to any number of near misses - anything that could have resulted in a hull loss - and you've got thousands of examples every single day.
I doubt very much Professor Reason wanted his model to be used just to explain accidents. The whole point is to assist in identifying active/latent failures at any level.