Common sense
POBJOY,I have to agree that perfectly serviceable airframes with no "form" could have been largely singled out by a combination of paper trail, VGS enquiries, etc.
Notwithstanding limited rotation of aircraft due to routine maintenance and repair, most OC's and Eng O's would have known which aircraft they have had and this simply could be verified by ref to Log books. Not only this, they would know what accidental damage had occurred, and again this could have been verified by reference to local records, and in major incident cases by reference to accident reports in VGS files and at ACCGS.
As for standards locally at VGS units, whilst the "suits" may have thought that we were all rank amateurs, two of my former Eng.O colleagues were very amply qualified, one a licensed A/c engineer working every day in Army Aviation, whilst another was an ex Wg Cdr Eng on front line A/C. IMHO they operated to a totally professional standard, neither associated with anything other than the highest of standards.
As for "dodgy repairs " , I don't think that I have ever heard of anything carried out by VGS staff, the only repairs and servicing were ALWAYS carried by ACCGS Eng out working parties or at ACCGS base. During my time, this work was carried by RAF technicians under SNCO and RAF commissioned Eng.O control. Only in more recent years was the work subcontracted out.
Therefore in terms of accountability, we cannot allocate any blame upon VGS units, it is solely either RAF or Sub contractor, and in both cases, the activity was supervised by RAF Engineers in the higher management roles wherever they were located. Sadly in many areas of Her Majesty's government, there is a belief that sub contracting means risk transfer , ie, hand over and forget. However sub contracting may be the accountant's dream, but in reality, if it is to be an effective and professional drop in substitute, it STILL needs day by day hands on supervision.
What we now see before us, is the result of the RAF thinking that subcontracting works without getting involved. Un-announced QA visits including working practice and paper trails are a very useful tool to keep "subbies" on their toes !
I doubt that we will ever know the full unexpurgated truth, as there is no public disclosure on the grounds of commercial confidentiality . However when and if flying ever gets going again some freedom of information requests should be made. For instance, how many serious airworthiness issues were found, by category and aircraft type. How many were deemed to be caused by non standard / unauthorised repair method or components. Who was the RAF Eng authority having jurisdiction at the material times. This and many more. It can't be of any use to Mr Putin, thus cannot be bounced by Security !