Fitter and others:
Having followed this saga fairly closely, and having obtained a number of documents under FoI, I've learned to look hard at any public statements about it. For what they're worth, my observations on the 'Pilot' Magazine piece:
The 'Pilot' piece aligns with a (generally helpful to the RAF) view that the problem was caused by failures by civilian contractors, which were discovered by the RAF. Simply not true. The 'pause' followed a December 2013 MAA audit of 2FTS, not an 'RAF engineering audit of civilian company Serco". Indeed, the MAA audit noted that proper engineering audits hadn't been carried out by 2FTS and other Mod/RAF departments.
It also aligns with a view that the problems were 'paperwork' issues, and that 'the problem arose not because the Vikings ad Vigilants were actually unfit to fly". The piece describes the 2FTS driven recovery programme as 'an attempt to put right all this nonsense'. Again, not accurate. What happened with the ATC fleet was not paperwork 'nonsense' keeping serviceable aircraft grounded. At the risk of repetition, if the paperwork is not right, an aircraft is non-airworthy. It is unserviceable. You don't know what its material state is. For the ATC, this was the end result of a long period of bad execution of basic engineering and airworthiness management responsibilities.
The 'Pilot' piece asks why the MoD and its contractors have failed to get the Vigilants back in the air, mentioning a '(surely arbitrary) airframe life limitation'. It is, apparently, 'hard to see' how re-engining the fleet 'would have been much of a problem'. First, re-engining the Vigilants was not part of the 'innovative solution' announced just two years ago. Putting new engines into 15 aircraft with an OSD of November 2019 was always a financial impossibility. Second, airframe life limitations aren't usually 'arbitrary'. Of course, if you rushed the aircraft into service using an underspend without doing the proper technical work to substantiate the airframe in the first place it's possible that the airframe life limitation might be seen as 'arbitrary'. Then you start asking who signed off on the RTS.
However, the 'Pilot' gets it absolutely right is at the end - 'It is hard to see this entire affair as anything less than an absolute scandal. While Babcock seems to have done the right thing, the MoD, the RAF and Serco should not be allowed to get away with it!'. Amen to that. House off Commons Defence Committee investigation anyone?
Just a final observation. In November 2016, the RAF announced its 'innovative proposal' to recover 15 Vigilants to flight by giving away 65 aircraft to Grob. OSD was November 2019, just 36 months away. It apparently takes 2FTS 18 months (half of the expected remaining service life) to realise this is a non-starter, so it pulls the plug over a weekend. My opinion, and that's all it is, is that something safety related happened this May to force OC 2FTS to ground the Vigilants. Are there any PPruners out there in possession of any of the related instructions? Just asking....
Best regards as ever to all those dedicated people who worked, and those who still support the ATC cadets
Engines