I suggest this is not exactly the same issue, although related, as the "duty of care" question considered in the Snatch Landrover case.
I referred to the Snatch Land Rover case becuase Lord Neuberger made it clear that members of the armed services are "employees", somthing that the Crown Office refuse to accept. Neuberger said;
"The duty of care owed by the Ministry of Defence, as employer, to the members of the armed forces, as employees, does exist and has been recognised, without demur, by the courts. It includes a duty to provide safe systems of work and safe equipment."
Taking up DV's point, if it is not too off-topic I would be very interested to know whether the experts here consider that a fatal service flying accident in the United Kingdom should lead to a MANDATORY inquest/FAI, or not.
I do not regard myself as an expert, but in my opinion they should be mandatory. In the event of an accident the SI team is bounded by the TOR set by the convening authority, an FAI/Inquest can operate outside this constraint. It is easy to think that an SI will address all the problems, but experience tells me otherwise. The coroner at the Nimrod inquest uncovered several important facts, overlooked by the Board of Inquiry (now SI), which resulted in him ruling that the Nimrod Mk2 fleet was not airworthy and should be grounded until risks were made ALARP. In the Red Arrow ejection seat case, it became clear during the course of the inquest the the Mk10 ejection seat does not have a safety case.
DV