Keepittidy,
firstly I would like to say that as EX Nimrod aircrew (with many old friends still on them) I am glad to see that the groundcrew remain, as they were in my day (not THAT long ago) comitted to providing a service that far exceeds 'civvy' attitudes to earning a crust. Actually I think you'd find that the vast majority of current and ex Nimrod aircrew posting on here share that sentiment - and the temporary heightened level of 'bonding' (?) that occurs when a crew and a groundcrew were matched up for the duration of a Fincastle or Airde Whyte was quite something - in other words you don't have to persuade anyone who is or was Nimrod aircrew that the lineys have their hearts in the right place, none of us have ever (to my knowledge) ever held lineys in anything but the deepest respect.
There's always a 'but', isn't there?
Two points - one - a LOT of the people you are dismissing as Microsoft Flight Simmers are ex-aircrew, some with an awful lot of time on type. Having spent a lot of time in ops during my 23 yrs in the RAF I only have 3500 hrs on type - I was crewed up for a time with a guy who had 20,000 hrs - you can't casually dismiss everyone who disagrees with you, these aren't all Walts by a long chalk.
Two - the Mail photo and article that FG dismissed: As I understand it the tolerance on fuel pipe connections is supposed to be 1 degree? The photo - whether of 235 or another aircraft - clearly shows a connection that a blind Ukranian plumber's guide dog would bark at. Later posts include links to official RAF reports that confirm the hand built nature of each airframe's fuel system meant that (effectively) special training was required to ensure the groundcrew could maintain the fuel system correctly - and that this trainingt was NOT actually delivered. This isn't a dig at the groundies, the tradesmen concerned are blameless - it's the training system that let THEM down. The picture, unless photoshopped, clearly shows that the fuel system of THAT aircraft was not as it should be, and it's quite easy to understand how THAT fuel connection would quite possibly spray fuel if fuel (under pressure) passed through the pipe.
Please understand that current and previous aircrew have a deep respect and liking for the groundcrew - particularly the lineys. Many of those you seem to dislike on here have got a lot of Nimrod time, and sufficient understanding of the aircraft and systems to form a reasonably valid opinion that may well be different to yours.
People like DV, who may not have any prior experience, are often pointing out that the RAF, or somebody paid by MOD to investigate some aspect of the Nimrod, have themselves reported back to the MOD/RAF with critical comments. It isn't a case of spin, it's a case of the RAF/MOD setting a standard and being caught out, so it's unfair to suggest their comments are worthless - they're simply pointing out that QQ etc don't agree with the RAF...if the report is somehow 'wrong' due to QQ etc being numpties, then why were they asked to do the review in the first place? (Don't hire someone to investigate something then dismiss their report because it doesn't say what you wanted it to!)
As for FG - sir, I have a lot of respect for those still doing the job, but please remember that there are 7 NCOs behind you* who you share responsibility for, whose only option at the moment is to fly or find themselves a job outside at very little notice... Forget the histrionics, are the fuel couplings within 1 degree as per specs?
Dave
* and 1 in front, but the flashing lights usually keep him amused....