Grob 115
The RAF has not light aircraft maintenance experience what so ever and the contractor who supplies the fleet is not approved for major repair of the aircraft.
The difference between the former glider contractor ant the contractor who supplies the Grob Tutors is that the glider contractor did not recognise the need to go out of house when a problem got to specialised for them, the contractor who supplies the Grob Tutors has the nouse to contract in specialist help when they don't have the capacity or expertees to do the job. An example of this was when the Tutor needed a traffic system fitted they got Grob to design the modification and Gama to do the Avionic fit.
The cadet glider grounding is an issue of poor management not a technical issue, the contractor did not put the right people in post and the reason for this they are not prepared to pay the rate for the job............and by the looks of things are still not able to see the results of not paying the going rate !
Flugplatz.
The glider and G115 construction is identical, but I don't see the need to sacrifice an airframe for maintenance training, there are enough bits of broken glider in the civil system that the clubs would part with for not a lot of money if training is needed.
Longer Ron.
The Viking fleet is basically sound from a technical point of view and with the right people put in place the airworthiness issues can be addressed at modest cost however those who undertake the task must have a clean sheet to deal with the issues and the previous contractor must have no input whatsoever.
The Grob 105 fleet is another matter, it has a very expensive engine retrofit needed and the replacement of these ( along with the maintenance cost saving ) may well favour replacement with new conventional gliders.