Accountability
I'm curious, has it been clearly defined what the issues actually were that led to the aircraft being grounded for the past two years.
I understand there was an issue found with the controls of the aircraft, specifically connections between the cables and the control surfaces (rudder) cracking/failing. Is that the only issues or where there also others. I have read posts regarding possible incorrect/missing maintenance documentation and possibly that preventative maintenance had not being carried out - but what are the factual elements. If there was a lack of preventative maintenance as defined in the PM schedules, was that lack of maintenance attributable to the failing in the control components. Its the facts that are important.
The answer to these questions are really where the focus should be. I get that there is frustration in the way this entire issue is now being addressed and that the Vigilant fleet has been decimated - frustration I share having been a member of staff at a VGS, but that is more to do with the 'recovery', which may not be the most appropriate word given the plan that has now been presented and is a separate issue to that of 'Continued Airworthiness'
If there were indeed failings in the CA of the aircraft - that is what should be the focus of attention. The MAA Regulatory Articles are very clear in regard of an accredited Maintenance, Technical, Design or other such organization and their Accountable Executives and 'Nominated' Post Holders - be they military or civil.