Flight-Sim Enthusiasts Confident of Real-World Skills Sarah N. WSJ

[Indy511 686]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/flight-simulator-enthusiasts-confident-of-real-world-skills-1534446556
Need a subscription to WSJ to read article. ☹️ 

[John_Cillis 2,406]

Just now, Bills511 said:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/flight-simulator-enthusiasts-confident-of-real-world-skills-1534446556
Need a subscription to WSJ to read article. ☹️ 

I interviewed with the kindhearted Sarah, but after she published the article.  Sadly I do not have a subscription, maybe you can summarize what she wrote.  Hopefully she portrayed our hobby in a fair point of view, we have extremists among us who take it to the max, get in too deep but most of us are just a loose bunch of armchair pilots, many like me with real flight time at least as students, and in my case heavily as a commercial air traveler for business over my thirty year career in the hotel, retail, airline, medical and insurance industry.

John

[Indy511 686]

12 minutes ago, Cactus521 said:

maybe you can summarize what she wrote.

I don't have a subscription either. Maybe Sarah, WSJ will allow the article to be posted on AVSIM's front page but I doubt it.

Edited August 17, 2018 by Bills511

[Wise87 1,281]

After copying the title of the  article and searching Google, the first link it gave took me to the WSJ to read the full artical on the main page without a subscription.

Edited August 17, 2018 by Wise87

[Indy511 686]

9 minutes ago, Wise87 said:

After copying the title of the  article and searching Google, the first link it gave took me to the WSJ to read the full artical on the main page without a subscription.

Thanks Dan.

[John_Cillis 2,406]

I tried but failed to pull up the article, but feedback I've seen on it makes it sound a bit sensationalist.  The media does not understand the hobby, looks to the fringes instead and generalizes them as our hobby, which just is not true.  Most of us just have a monitor, controller, and computer plus good speakers and of course our handy mouse to click controls when we need to, thank heaven for virtual cockpits.  But there is no way I could learn how to fly a Commuter Tprop, or fancy jet, from a simulator alone.  I was a simple steam gauge prop and trike student, more interested in the view of the world below than flipping switches and looking at gauges and worrying about my fuel.  I would just fill 'er up and go out with my CFI, and in Trikes, the tanks were translucent, you could see the fuel level by sight.  I sim, but sim moderately, an hour or so every other day, always trying a new pair of airports to keep the hobby interesting, switching between Xplane and P3d depending on whether I want to fly low, or fly high over photoreal.  We are all people from all walks of life, some young, some old, or in betweenie like me (or so I like to pretend).  We have our hobby because we love to experience this part of life, and computers allow us to do so.  I will leave it at that, for Sarah to read here.

John Cillis

[Indy511 686]

@Cactus521
This worked for me. https://www.wsj.com/articles/flight-simulator-enthusiasts-confident-of-real-world-skills-1534446556

Or this. https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=nUB2W8W6FsvYtAXtsJWYDw&q=Flight-Sim+Enthusiasts+Confident+of+Real-World+Skills&oq=Flight-Sim+Enthusiasts+Confident+of+Real-World+Skills&gs_l=psy-ab.12...23007.23007.0.24438.1.1.0.0.0.0.228.228.2-1.1.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..0.0.0....0.xZAcxCvmbLs

Edited August 17, 2018 by Bills511

[Indy511 686]

The comments section was a good read.

[Chock 17,769]

Sarah Needleman, the WSJ main writer for the article (also contributed to by Andy Pasztor), was kind enough to email me a notice of the article's publication, but prior to this I had taken out a subscription with the WSJ in order to read the article anyway.

Whilst the article contains a pretty fair and accurate appraisal of the world of flight simulation which I doubt anyone into flight simulators would object to, the issue I have with it is the reasoning behind the article's existence itself, in connecting flight simulation with the incident at Seattle. To make such a connection takes a leap of logic which is entirely fallacious, in concluding flight simulators of the kind we as flight sim enthusiasts enjoy, are what Richard Russell was making reference to when he commented that he had 'played some video games'. Do you know anyone into flight sims who spends money on things such as the Majestic Dash 8 or the PMDG 747 who refers to it as a 'video game'?

But beyond making reference to a video game, there are numerous additional clues in Russell's transmissions to indicate he wasn't referring to a realistically system-focused flight simulator at all, more likely a game which features a bit of flying, but not much in the way of systems simulation.

As much as we like details such as pressurising an aeroplane or programming its FMC, these are hardly the stuff of thrilling XBox game content, thus it seems to me that not being familiar with the autopilot on a Q400 (which let's be honest is a fairly generic autopilot that would hardly confuse most flight simmers), nor how to pressurise the aircraft (again not a mystery to most flight simmers, and actually not even really necessary below 8,000 feet) points to Russell not being a big flight sim fan but probably familiar with the gist of flying from such a video game which covers the basic axis controls of an aircraft and, coupled with knowing enough to shove the throttle and condition levers forward to get airborne, would do the job.

And to be honest, I think pretty much anyone could figure that part of flying an aeroplane out, whether they'd played a video game or not. I bet if you asked your grandma 'what happens when you push the stick forward on an aeroplane?' she'd know the answer.

Edited August 17, 2018 by Chock

[John_Cillis 2,406]

25 minutes ago, Chock said:

Sarah Needleman, the WSJ main writer for the article (also contributed to by Andy Pasztor), was kind enough to email me a notice of the article's publication, but prior to this I had taken out a subscription with the WSJ in order to read the article anyway.

Whilst the article contains a pretty fair and accurate appraisal of the world of flight simulation which I doubt anyone into flight simulators would object to, the issue I have with it is the reasoning behind the article's existence itself, in connecting flight simulation with the incident at Seattle. To make such a connection takes a leap of logic which is entirely fallacious, in concluding flight simulators of the kind we as flight sim enthusiasts enjoy, are what Richard Russell was making reference to when he commented that he had 'played some video games'. Do you know anyone into flight sims who spends money on things such as the Majestic Dash 8 or the PMDG 747 who refers to it as a 'video game'?

But beyond making reference to a video game, there are numerous additional clues in Russell's transmissions to indicate he wasn't referring to a realistically system-focused flight simulator at all, more likely a game which features a bit of flying, but not much in the way of systems simulation.

As much as we like details such as pressurising an aeroplane or programming its FMC, these are hardly the stuff of thrilling XBox game content, thus it seems to me that not being familiar with the autopilot on a Q400 (which let's be honest is a fairly generic autopilot that would hardly confuse most flight simmers), nor how to pressurise the aircraft (again not a mystery to most flight simmers, and actually not even really necessary below 8,000 feet) points to Russell not being a big flight sim fan but probably familiar with the gist of flying from such a video game which covers the basic axis controls of an aircraft and, coupled with knowing enough to shove the throttle and condition levers forward to get airborne, would do the job.

And to be honest, I think pretty much anyone could figure that part of flying an aeroplane out, whether they'd played a video game or not. I bet if you asked your grandma 'what happens when you push the stick forward on an aeroplane?' she'd know the answer.

Agree, I have always maintained this philosophy and so did my CFI, who said anyone can fly, but not everyone can be a pilot.  Anyone who watches a youtube video for that matter can learn the basics of aircraft control, they do not even need a simulator.  It is wrong for journalists to ask questions with their assumptions already in place and minds already made up.  It becomes titillation, they assume they are more intelligent than those they interview, and they ask loaded questions.  It sells Newspapers, and to top it off, to ask us for our comments and not give us a pdf of the article written (despite my best efforts and googling it I still cannot read it), I think it was just an intrusion on our hobby, looking to blame a hobby for a man who was mentally unhinged, so obvious in his interaction with ATC.

John

[HiFlyer 9,360]

1 minute ago, Cactus521 said:

It is wrong for journalists to ask questions with their assumptions already in place and minds already made up. 

Honestly, it seems our minds are just as made up about journalists.

I don't really see either "side" as having a hard lock on the truth.

[Chock 17,769]

As I said, I think the article in itself is fair to flight sim enthusiasts and I was generally impressed with how it covered this, just not so much impressed by the raison d'etre for the article in the first place and more specifically, the somewhat dubious path of logic which linked the incident to detailed flight simulators.

Being a journo is a job like any other, you are told what your task is and are expected to do that task, and if you don't like it, you don't have do the job, but whilst it is your job, it is a case of, when your editor says write me 500 words on this story, you can to some extent choose the angle you want to go at it from, but you can't really argue that you don't want to do it. So you (to some extent) can try to inject your integrity into the task of writing, but ultimately there is a limit to how much that is possible, particularly if your efforts at integrity are at odds with the editorial stance of the publication and its mission to attract readers of whatever demographic it aims itself at. I know this from personal experience of having been a writer at several daily newspapers and it was ultimately one of the reasons why I chose to leave the profession, when I started to argue for more integrity and to trust the reader's intelligence a bit more, but was roundly blocked from being able to do that despite arguing that it could be done without being at odds with wider editorial goals.

Newspapers, whether online or printed, exist as a business, and a business has to make money, which for newspapers is largely through advertising revenue. Yes they have a cover price, or in the case of an online presence, a subscription fee, but in the main it is advertising revenue which they rely upon, and in the case of online publications, this is itself based upon 'click bait', so it is hardly surprising that an editor of a publication will want to focus on the hot story of that week. We know this from Sarah's comment where she said she had a tight deadline; a story about this incident in two months' time will not generate anywhere near as many clicks to a link when people are no longer hungry for information about the story as it breaks.

Now my argument against that when I was a writer, was that rather than relying upon this, we should have been endeavouring to set ourselves apart from it, raising our journalistic standards and integrity and in doing so, become the trusted source of more intelligent comment on matters, which of itself would become a reason for attracting readers. But it was an argument which fell on the deaf ears of people who lacked the imagination to realise such a stance would ultimately increase the readership by increasing the reputation of the publication, and as a result its attraction to clients wishing to advertise in the publication in the first place. Therefore was not at odds with the goals of the business, quite the contrary in fact, but some people are too stupid to see beyond what is right in front of them, and that included some of the editors I worked with, who were too interested in playing it safe for their own job rather than trying to push the envelope to greater heights.

Edited August 17, 2018 by Chock

[ShawnG 1,823]

Sheesh.  as for a lot of the comments from folks who haven't read the article complaining about journalists having bias,  I will just let the Irony of those statements gently wash over them...

 

This piece is just an informational piece,  It does a pretty decent snapshot of the flight simming world with quotes from a few simmers,  one quote from a guy in the NTSB, and a quote from a cockpit maker explaining some of the differences between sim and real operation.  It's balanced and fair, from a reporter who covers the videogame industry,  not some political desk reporter.  There is no editorial position expressed in the article one way or another.

When I talked to her, her main question was "could you possibly operate an airplane based on the knowledge you have gained from flight sims?"  This is a discussion we have here constantly, and the answer is "yes we probably could."  That doesn't minimize some of the substantial differences in stress level, workload, and physical muscle memory possessed by a real world pilot,  that you cannot get from a sim, and of course the level of engineering knowledge involved in obtaining a real world type rating is well superior to simply knowing which buttons to push to get the systems up and running, which is where many simmers' interests tail off.  The point though is fair.  A lot of us, If we had access to a fueled up commercial airplane could get it in the air and operate it to some level.

I've been a simmer for a long time, I love the hobby.  When the news of this incident came out, my initial thought was along the lines of "hmm,  that guy probably spent time on the Majestic Q400"  Later information caused me to modify that opinion.  He probably did some simming, but as I explained to Sarah,  If he had spent a lot of time using sims,  he could have done stuff a whole lot more competently.  But how would I be upset if people immediately draw a line from this incident to sim use, when I did the same thing?  It's a reasonable supposition.  It's also a reasonable conversation to have when something like this happens.  hyper defensiveness does not help the argument.  I'd take the professionalism of a journalist like Sarah, who contacted me back several times seeking clarification on different points, over the paranoia of a large portion of this forum any day of the week.

 

 

 

[cmpbellsjc 2,963]

6 hours ago, Bills511 said:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/flight-simulator-enthusiasts-confident-of-real-world-skills-1534446556
Need a subscription to WSJ to read article. ☹️ 

I don’t have a subscription but was able to click the link and read the whole article.

[Chock 17,769]

1 hour ago, ShawnG said:

This piece is just an informational piece,  It does a pretty decent snapshot of the flight simming world with quotes from a few simmers,  one quote from a guy in the NTSB, and a quote from a cockpit maker explaining some of the differences between sim and real operation.  It's balanced and fair, from a reporter who covers the videogame industry,  not some political desk reporter.  There is no editorial position expressed in the article one way or another.

In part what you write is true, that is to say the treatment of the world of flight sims in the article is not in any way itself objectionable and is indeed a very balanced examination of it, however, the article does have an editorial position in that it is clearly a deliberate choice to cover content which is a 'hot topic' to the internet populace at large, yet makes no effort to even hint that the weight of evidence we have on the matter pretty much would force one to conclude that the link is unlikely.

Now the WSJ is a business, so I don't blame them for doing their job of trying to increase their readership, which indeed this article will achieve in receiving clicks from people seeking information about the Seattle incident. But the article solely relies on a dubious conclusion some will have drawn, that the connection between flight sims and this incident is a tenable one. We know this is far from a given and it is more likely that the video games reference is one referring to something along the lines of GTA as opposed to the Majestic Q400 or some such other 'study sim'.

Certainly a more respectable and truly balanced editorial position would have been to acknowledge that, since some have drawn a flight sim connection, it is of relevance to discuss this, but having done so, to weigh this suggestion against the likelihood of it being the case, based on the fact that there were several systems on the aeroplane which Russell - demonstrably from the ATC recordings - clearly had no clue about.

Thus a far more likely denouement that 'some video games' is almost certainly a reference to the fact that you can fly, and indeed steal and fly, an aeroplane in Grand Theft Auto 5 (and indeed quite a few other video games like it) would have been a more intelligent conclusion to draw. Because we are talking about someone stealing something here, which let's not forget, is the entire crux of what the GTA series of video games is about, and that's an undeniable similarity between 'some video game' and what transpired..

Edited August 17, 2018 by Chock