Vector control
A320 systems decision game: dual-pilot asymmetric conflict resolution under abnormal operations.
Vector Control
A320 Systems Decision Trainer
Combining dual-pilot conflict resolution, QRH procedure sequencing, and resource management for abnormal operations.
Vector Control
A320 Systems Decision TrainerVector Control
Lead an A320 flight from dispatch to landing. Every system decision affects fuel, time, safety, and crew workload.
Captain and First Officer receive different information. When you disagree, conflict resolution is required before executing any procedure.
The Scenario
You are the Captain of an Airbus A320. Your First Officer (F/O) is flying. A critical system failure occurs. You must work together to manage the emergency and land safely.
Each round presents a new ECAM alert or system degradation. You and the F/O each choose a procedure. The combined outcome determines whether your resources improve or deteriorate.
Game Flow
- Read the ECAM alert — understand what system has failed.
- Review your options — each has different resource costs and benefits.
- Choose your action — click a procedure card. Your choice is final.
- Wait for the F/O — the First Officer selects independently. You will not see their choice until both have committed.
- Conflict or Merge? —
- Conflict: You chose different procedures. You must agree on one, or keep your own at a penalty.
- Merge: You chose the same procedure. It executes with a bonus.
- See the results — resources update, the flight log records the event, and the next round begins.
Your Resources
Four gauges track your flight state. Let any reach zero and the outcome becomes dire.
| Resource | Icon | What It Means |
|---|---|---|
| Crew Workload | 🧠 | Mental bandwidth. Low = task saturation, errors. |
| Fuel | ⛽ | Remaining fuel. Dumps, burns, or holding drain this. |
| Passenger Trust | 👥 | Confidence in the crew. Panic drops this fast. |
| System Integrity | ⚙️ | Aircraft systems health. Cascading failures erode this. |
Tip: Each procedure card shows exactly how it affects resources. A bold red number means a heavy cost.
Scoring & Outcomes
Completed — Safe Landing
Achieved when all rounds are resolved, no resource drops to zero, final Crew Workload is above 30%, and final System Integrity is above 20%.
Failed — Incident or Hull Loss
Triggered when any resource hits zero at any point, or if in the final round Fuel drops below 5%, Crew Workload below 15%, Passenger Trust below 10%, or System Integrity below 10%.
| Resource at Zero | Consequence |
|---|---|
| Crew Workload | Task saturation. A fatal procedure error occurs. |
| Fuel | Flameout. Emergency landing off-airport or ditching. |
| Passenger Trust | Cabin panic. Evacuation injuries, secondary damage. |
| System Integrity | Cascading systems failure. Loss of controlled flight. |
Post-Flight Analysis
After the scenario ends, a detailed breakdown is generated.
Individual Performance Score (0–100)
| Factor | Weight | How It Is Calculated |
|---|---|---|
| Resource Preservation | 35% | Average of final resource percentages. Higher is better. |
| Procedure Efficiency | 25% | Points for correct ECAM match, minus points for critical errors. |
| Conflict Resolution | 20% | Penalty for unresolved conflicts; bonus for merges. |
| Speed | 10% | Faster completion earns more; timeouts reduce score. |
| Workload Balance | 10% | Keeping Crew Workload above 40% throughout the scenario. |
ECAM Accuracy Bonus
Each round, if your chosen procedure matches the ECAM-recommended action, you earn +10 points if merged with F/O, or +5 points if chosen solo or won the conflict. Incorrect procedures earn 0 and may accelerate resource loss.
Comparative Analysis
- Captain vs. F/O score — side by side
- Round-by-round timeline — who chose what, conflicts, merges
- Resource trajectory graph — visual trace of all four gauges across the flight
- Error log — every critical mistake, wrong ECAM response, and unresolved conflict
Rank Classification
| Score | Rank | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 90–100 | 🏆 Gold Standard | Exceptional airmanship. All resources preserved. Zero errors. |
| 75–89 | 🥈 Solid Performer | Safe outcome. Minor inefficiencies or one conflict. |
| 60–74 | 🥉 Operational | Landing achieved, but significant resource drain or multiple conflicts. |
| 40–59 | ⚠️ Below Standard | Landing achieved with a resource at critical low or unresolved conflict. |
| 20–39 | 🔴 Marginal | Resource hit zero but recovered; or forced landing with damage. |
| 0–19 | 💀 Unsatisfactory | Hull loss, loss of life, or complete task saturation. |
Key Rules
- No take-backs. Once you click a procedure, it is locked.
- The F/O is not a mirror. They see different information and may disagree.
- Merging is powerful. Identical choices yield bonus resource preservation.
- Conflicts cost you. Unresolved disagreements drain Crew Workload and Passenger Trust.
- Not every procedure is correct. The ECAM alert hints at the ideal response.
Fly safe. Communicate. Decide.
A320 Systems Decision Trainer
Technical Foundation
Flight Deck Syndicate addresses a gap in pilot training technology: the transition from rote QRH memorisation to systems-thinking under asymmetric information and time pressure. While cabin crew training has benefited from scenario-based CRM games (Crew Reign), cockpit abnormal-operations training remains dominated by static computer-based training modules and expensive full-flight simulators.
This prototype demonstrates that a web-based, technically credible decision game can occupy the middle ground: more interactive than CBT, more accessible than FFS, and specifically designed for the cognitive patterns required in A320 abnormal operations.
Core Mechanics
Dual-Pilot Asymmetric Information
Each procedure presents the same ECAM alert to Captain and First Officer, but with different observational details. The Captain receives systems-level data (N1, EGT, hydraulic pressure); the F/O receives operational context (ATC constraints, fuel predictions, passenger impact). Neither has the complete picture. Agreement requires communication; disagreement triggers a “merge conflict” requiring explicit resolution.
This mechanic translates the aviation concept of “challenge and response” into an interactive format where both roles must actively reconcile divergent perspectives before executing any procedure.
QRH Procedure Sequencing
Every decision option embeds actual QRH-style action sequences (not proprietary memory items, but publicly documented normal and emergency procedures). Players see the steps their chosen path requires, reinforcing the principle that in aviation, the correct sequence matters as much as the correct diagnosis.
The QRH panel is always available but optional, allowing instructors to assess whether a player is relying on reference material appropriately or executing from understanding.
Resource Management
Four meters track the flight’s viability:
- Fuel — burn rate increases with altitude changes, holds, and diversions
- Time — delay costs compound, but rushing procedures creates errors
- Safety — the non-negotiable margin; zero means catastrophic failure
- Crew Workload — high workload degrades subsequent decision quality
These resources interact: accepting a fuel-saving altitude may increase workload; choosing a longer QRH sequence improves safety but consumes time. The optimal path is rarely obvious and never cost-free.
A320 Technical Scope
Scenarios cover the major abnormal-operation categories documented in publicly available training frameworks:
- Engine: stall, oil system degradation, APU fire
- Hydraulics: dual-system loss, landing gear gravity extension
- Pressurization: excess cabin altitude, pack failures
- Navigation: ADR failures, FMS faults, TCAS resolution advisories
- Flight Controls: slat/flap locked, alternate law transitions
- Ice & Weather: pitot icing, anti-ice failures
All system names (ECAM, QRH, FMA, ADR, IRS, PTU) use standard Airbus terminology without reproducing proprietary checklist wording or memory-item sequences protected by airline operations manuals.
Design Language
- Palette: Industrial dark (#0F1419 background, #1A1F26 cards, #2A3038 borders) with amber (#D4A030) for primary actions and system alerts
- Typography: JetBrains Mono for all UI elements, reinforcing the technical, systems-monitor aesthetic
- Layout: Three-panel cockpit-inspired grid — procedure main panel, resource status bar, QRH reference side panel
- Visual Identity: Entirely distinct from Crew Reign’s pastel cabin aesthetic
Academic & Industry Positioning
This project sits conceptually between:
- Lufthansa Aviation Training’s Virtual Procedure Trainer (VR cockpit, procedural fidelity)
- GameStrategies’ serious-game training methodology (engagement-first, abstraction)
- NLR/NLR-ATSI game-based pilot training research (decision-making under uncertainty)
The contribution is showing that asymmetric information + explicit conflict resolution can be game mechanics that directly map to CRM/CRM-E training objectives, while remaining implementable in a browser with no specialized hardware.
Technical Stack
- Svelte components with reactive resource state
- JSON-driven scenario engine (15 A320 abnormal procedures)
- Role-specific asymmetric data rendering
- Merge-conflict resolution state machine
- QRH step sequencer with deduplication