To my mind, setting the bar high at a point where everything is known about the serviceability and maint. record of these aircraft is one thing - but then maintaining it there will be another real challenge.
The volunteer staff include an EngO, who is not a qualified engineer and defects etc are reported by other volunteers. Sqn staff have only a limited degree of authority for sign-offs (rigging and de-rigging etc). Serious problems are then passed on to Serco (or whoever takes on the contract). The paperwork trail at all these points does not always have Is dotted and Ts crossed, but then you are relying on volunteers (the same people who are flying them!). This has worked reasonably well and I certainly have confidence in the people doing it.
If the paperwork and inspection bar is to be reset to a higher standard; would it not make sense to think about a RAF full-time engineer or two being apointed to go around the VGSs and coordinate on a full-time basis? Otherwise you are relying on volunteers, who come and go (I am one) to get it right every time in every way with the paperwork. Just saying that if you are doing this every day you would soon get to know the fleet and can be there to advise the volunteers when they need help.
In civvy street, there are a whole range of aicraft airworthiness certifications, starting at EASA and going down to Permit to Fly or even none at all. One size does not fit all but it seems the RAF may be falling into that trap. These are not public transport category aircraft - they are light instructional aircraft with students who have been briefed etc.
Flug