As a "wannabe" who "neverwill" I've seen enough MS Flight Sim screens to know one when I see one (the 737 cockpit at that). Special software- what a crock!

I dont think anyone was trying t hide the fact they used a MS flight sim

The report does imply that the cockpit was that of the CRJ. Either way, I think that it's bad form for the news to be recreating the cockpit views using something that isn't 100% accurate, particularly this early on in the investigation.

It serves absolutely no purpose other than to judge the flight crews actions with an incomplete picture of what happened. I'm even more disappointed that a former member of the NTSB would be party to such a display. He of all people should realize that there is more to this accident than appears on the surface.

I've even heard some additional (unconfirmed) info about crew actions upon arriving at the airport that might have contributed to cockpit distractions. The fact is, that while it was a mistake, unless we know the ENTIRE chain of events and conditions that the crew saw, we can't make any rational conclusions.

This is accident is unfortunately an excellent opportunity for all of us to look at our own operating practices and learn from. It shows that even experienced and professional crews can make minor mistakes with disasterous consequences. Media judgement, conjecture, and speculation does nothing to improve our safety, or honor the deceased.

If they had convinced someone with a CRJ-200 ful motion sim to recreate the known parameters- that's one thing.

To use a "toy", however accurate in some respects, is insulting.

The MS program does not provide much detail after "you leave the runway".
Elevations, buildings, fences, runway conditions, lighting, etc are not entirely accurate. I don't want to get into the merits/faults of MS FlightSim; but to use it to "show what might have been seen or happened" is sensationalism and bad journalism.

I don't find the media as disgusting as this: Did a Google search for Comair 5191 trying to find the latest news Sunday afternoon and yesterday. On the right side of the Google page, there were 8 commercial websites. All were law firms trolling for families of the victims. I guess Google has had a rare moment of good taste. When I checked a few minutes ago, there are no commercial websites listed. And lawyers can't understand why most folks would'nt **** on them if they caught fire.

As distasteful as those advertisements may be, it should not be up to Google to filter ANYTHING out...freedom of speech is an absolute, and sometimes the cost of freedom is hearing and reading things we don't like or find distasteful. If someone pays for ad space, they get to use that ad space for their purposes.

Does anyone know if Comair cockpits have the Jeppesen Sanderson airport diagrams??? If not, what do they use???

Thanks!

This is all why I give absolutely NO CREDIT to CNN aviation news reporting.... This reminds me of a time last year when they were live filming a C-90 kingair that got its gear stuck up.... And their so called "aviation expert" who was making all the commentary on live TV was a 60 hour private pilot with no other aviation related experience.... WHAT A JOKE.... That would be like saying I'm a legal expert since I had to take a 3 credit hour business law course when I was in college.....

By its very nature, the news business is reactionary. Something happens, and the reporters go scrambling around to "cover" it. They ask all sorts of weird questions (which sometimes give you a clue as to how the story will be written) in an effort to get a newsworthy "angle" on the subject. They attempt to find "experts" to comment on a situation that are available on their schedule. Sometimes these people are aknowledged experts, sometimes they are just interested observers. The general public rarely knows the difference or cares.

Does anyone remember the lyric from that old Don Henley song? "I just have to look good, I dont have to be clear."