Real World - why people + computers make best combination

[phavoc]

There have been some recent accidents involving aircraft that showcase the illustration of how important the man + machine combination is the superior one. Automation has made aircraft safer, but changes have also been reducing the skill level of pilots who rely more and more upon automation. http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-lion-air-crash-20190204-story.html

Something to think about whenever there is a Pilot skill roll. If you read the article you'll see that the pilots did not have the experience to know how to understand the problem and go back to manual flight mode. They had the necessary skills to do basic (so maybe Pilot-1?) piloting, but in an emergency they failed and their craft crashed.

How would other referee's handle such a thing? Do you feel that in the heavy automation of the future Pilot-1 is sufficient to handle emergencies, or would it be similar to what these pilots did and were unable to save their craft? The United Flight 232 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_232) illustrates how experienced flight crew can use skills to land (controlled crash) a heavily damaged craft using their skill.

If nothing else I think it provides some perspective on what Level-1 skills might provide.

 

[Annatar Giftbringer]

My first, spontaneous thought is that no, pilot-1 is not enough to handle a sudden emergency.

Pilot-1 is enough to handle regular flying, and helps the pilot pass average (8+) skill rolls, but the necessary steps to avoid disaster might be a 10+ roll or more, meaning the pilot would fail (on average).

Automation of the future could help, of course. A good enough autopilot, control system or droid brain can give massive bonus DMs for vehicles, and intellect or virtual crew software could aid a spaceship pilot.

So, with the right tools available, a pilot-1 character could handle the emergency, but if part of the emergency is that the automated systems fail or are unable
to handle the situation (expert programs for instance, can only handle tasks up to a certain level, the pilot only has that skill level 1 to rely on, and they’d better pray for a good dice roll.

EDIT: imagine something as simple as driving a car today. Drive-1 means I have a driver’s license and some training. I can drive. Imagine my car has gps navigation, 4WD, anti spin, ABS breaks, the whole package.

It starts to snow. A lot. The road’s covered in slimy wet snow. All the tools in the world won’t help me if I can’t understand the situation and the potential dangers it presents. If I just accelerate and drive as if it was a hot summer day, I’m gonna lose control and crash, especially if we add an emergency like the car computer malfunctioning and all the flashy toys and adding stop working.

A better driver, 1 or 2 skill levels higher, could analyze the situation better and adapt their driving style, and could probably even save the vehicle from what would otherwise be a crash.



Future tech will help a lot, but there will be situations when the tools and computers aren’t enough, and that’s when a skilled pilot will still be needed.

 

[Condottiere]

Considering Sullenberger's years of experience and in hindsight, the result, he probably had pilot/flyer four.

Zero would be academic knowledge, one would be had some practical experience.

Three could be ten thousand hours rule.

 

[ShawnDriscoll]

If nothing else I think it provides some perspective on what Level-1 skills might provide.

Same goes for auto-cars.

 

[Linwood]

I’ve been thinking of level zero as basic knowledge and training. Given that the untrained penalty is DM-3 that’s a pretty substantial boost.

In this example I would think of level zero being a typical recreational pilot, a weekend flyer averaging maybe 20 flight hours a year.

We should also take into account INT vs EDU. EDU may represent knowledge of standard practice, including the “by the book” procedures to follow in the event of a problem. INT may represent the ability to improvise or instinctively react in an event the book doesn’t cover.

As my RL job involves functional safety I look at “automated systems” somewhat differently. From that viewpoint the goal of the automation is to bring the vehicle or system to a safe state. This can mean making conscious choices in the strategy to accept a less severe hazard to mitigate a greater one. For example, automatically ejecting a reactor going critical to prevent a ship’s destruction but leaving the ship and crew with only emergency power. As these systems get more sophisticated the role of the pilot may change - it may become as much about making choices about managing those systems in emergencies as it does physically controlling the craft.

 

[baithammer]

Doesn't help that there are conflicting rules about npcs.

1.) Main Book

Average Non-combatant Drive/Flyer, Profession 1
Average Combatant Drive/Flyer, Gun Combat, Melee, Recon 1

2.) High Guard

skill level 2 represents trained
or experienced crew

 

[Anonymous]

Doesn't help that there are conflicting rules about npcs.

1.) Main Book

Average Non-combatant Drive/Flyer, Profession 1
Average Combatant Drive/Flyer, Gun Combat, Melee, Recon 1

2.) High Guard

skill level 2 represents trained
or experienced crew

Because it's high guard I think that's based on the assumption that navy has higher standards than civilian. Which might, or might not be true, depending on whose military it is, and what the year is. USN used to be pretty good, then they let standards slip and crashed 4 ships in 2017 due to poor seamanship. Now they're training it again, and they'll be good again until the cycle repeats.

 

[Old School]

I dont think there is really a conflict there. Giving someone a car to drive or a gun to be in the infantry isn’t the same as putting them on a starship costing billions of credits in a totally unforgiving environment. Not denegrating the professional driver or soldier in any way to say that the average skill level on a starship would be higher. The relevant attribute may also be contributing to that +2 (yes, I know it specially says skill level, but that’s my interpretation of what is meant vs. what is specifically stated). The lead engineer or astrogator on a Navy vessel is more likely to be smart/educated. A fighter pilot is more likely to have expectional reflexes than a taxi driver. Gunners may be the exception. You need so many of them, level 2 might not be realistic for every turret.

 

[Condottiere]

Medical - two.

 

[phavoc]

Medical - two.

Lulz... +1!

 

[Condottiere]

And since I'm figuring this out how it might apply to my hobby horse, pilot zero has the fundamentals as to how spaceship flight controls function, and how the vessel reacts to that control; after which, you have to specialize in three different size classes in order to take advantage of that specific factor one knowledge and experience.

 

[phavoc]

I dont think there is really a conflict there. Giving someone a car to drive or a gun to be in the infantry isn’t the same as putting them on a starship costing billions of credits in a totally unforgiving environment. Not denegrating the professional driver or soldier in any way to say that the average skill level on a starship would be higher. The relevant attribute may also be contributing to that +2 (yes, I know it specially says skill level, but that’s my interpretation of what is meant vs. what is specifically stated). The lead engineer or astrogator on a Navy vessel is more likely to be smart/educated. A fighter pilot is more likely to have expectional reflexes than a taxi driver. Gunners may be the exception. You need so many of them, level 2 might not be realistic for every turret.

That's an interesting view. In this particular case what we are seeing is the aviation industry not wanting to pay pilots higher rates for experience, nor spending dollars to train them to higher standards. This article talked about the recent Lion air crash, but there have been others, such as the Korean airlines plane that crashed in SF due to pilot error and their inexperience and trusting of the autopilot to land the plane (the landing gear struck a wall just short of the runway and they never realized they were coming in too low).

You have a point about the average pilot being better than the average soldier ('basic' flight training is FAR longer than basic training that any soldier will encounter). But there is also a LOT more that a pilot of any type must learn to have 'basic' flight skills. So one may argue that the increase in time is a result of the complexity, not that their skill levels or basic flight competency will be any different.

Getting back to commercial pilots, this is probably a better analogue to general pilot skills in the far future because not everyone is going to be an ex-military pilot. The MSRP of a 737-MAX is about $110 million. As we have recently seen in the news, naval crews have had a rash of crashes that shouldn't have happened, but did. Many ship disasters have been crew errors (heck in the world of IT security it's no different. The $1billion dollar target breach was the result of human stupidity). In any case machines can be just as fallible as humans, so I don't think the future will be any different.

Which I guess leads us back to the idea that despite all the stuff you may have at your fingertips, basic skills won't always get your through things.

 

[NOLATrav]

Back in the CT High Guard days, when ship tonnages became astronomical, I required additional levels of Pilot as the tonnage increased. Pilot 1 was good enough for up to 5000 dtons, a million dton ship required Pilot 6. So you’d have three of four pilots on the largest vessels, working together, Port/Starboard Thrust pilots, Spin/Yaw pilots, etc.

Of course I didn’t break down what that meant in terms of accommodations, life support, budget, etc but it was fun and cool for the few times we played around with really big ships.

I guess what I’m saying is my solution was rather than unique highly skilled/trained hotshots we had ganged competent techs working in tandem, adding up to what was essentially very highly skilled individual positions. All of them coordinated by a dedicated flight computer.

 

[Old School]

Aren’t the large ships just background to most campaigns anyway? Does anyone run an adventure or campaign in which the travellers wander from system to system in a capital ship?

 

[Condottiere]

Autopilot.

 

[Linwood]

Aren’t the large ships just background to most campaigns anyway? Does anyone run an adventure or campaign in which the travellers wander from system to system in a capital ship?

Ummm - Shakedown Cruise?

 

[AndrewW]

Aren’t the large ships just background to most campaigns anyway? Does anyone run an adventure or campaign in which the travellers wander from system to system in a capital ship?

Ummm - Shakedown Cruise?

There's also Naval Adventure 2 Showing the Sunburst.

 

[NOLATrav]

Aren’t the large ships just background to most campaigns anyway? Does anyone run an adventure or campaign in which the travellers wander from system to system in a capital ship?

For my gang, indeed. Was just trying to throw out some alternate thinking.

 

[paltrysum]

Aren’t the large ships just background to most campaigns anyway? Does anyone run an adventure or campaign in which the travellers wander from system to system in a capital ship?

Ummm - Shakedown Cruise?

There's also Naval Adventure 2 Showing the Sunburst.

And a third one on the way: http://forum.mongoosepublishing.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=121862

Capital ships are finally put to use!

 

[RogerMc]

Medical - two.

In S01 they are interns who have completed at least 3 years of a pre-med degree and 4 years at medical school.

This is surely worth at least Medical-3 in Traveller terms?

(I see the Medic background in the Companion indeed has Medical-3)