LEX ASTRA ACADEMY FO 220 / Ship systems and emergency coordination Lex Astra · School of Fleet Studies Teaching edition 2956.3 / Hybrid ———————————————————————————————————————————————— LEARNER WORKSHEET For bridge and systems coordinators; physical repair is assessed separately. This is a private working copy. Downloading submits nothing and records no completion. Use exercise identifiers, not private player information. ———————————————————————————————————————————————— SESSION DETAILS Learner identifier: ____________________________________________________________ Instructor / assessor: ____________________________________________________________ Session date / agreed role or variant: ____________________________________________________________ Vessel, configuration and equipment: ____________________________________________________________ LIVE build / capability test date / tested by (if practical): ____________________________________________________________ Stop signal / recovery contact / communication arrangement: ____________________________________________________________ ———————————————————————————————————————————————— PURPOSE Use available ship-status information to coordinate a crew’s response to a fault. COURSE CONTEXT The watch leader must decide whether a vessel can continue even when the crew cannot establish that an intervention worked. Fleet Studies teaches the coordination decision here. ———————————————————————————————————————————————— ENTRY Complete: FO 150, FD 140 Equipment: Available ship-status displays or a clearly labelled tabletop fault packet. ———————————————————————————————————————————————— CASE: The intervention did not clear the indication 1. The station reports indication F1. The facilitator separately supplies a reduced-capability condition. 2. One operator can perform the session-checked action; a second observes status. 3. After the action, no improvement is confirmed. ———————————————————————————————————————————————— TECHNICAL KNOWLEDGE AND GAME SKILLS Abnormal flight and damage response Practical instruction revision 1 / 9 October 2026 Stabilise before troubleshooting When thrust or attitude response changes, reduce the task to maintaining a clear flight path. Compare commanded input with velocity and rotation; asymmetric thrust may make the usual correction excessive. Move away from terrain and traffic if control allows. Do not shut down the whole vessel in atmosphere as a generic reset: the loss of lift can turn a manageable fault into impact. Separate power, component and interface faults Ask engineering for the relevant component state and supply path while the pilot checks engine and mode indications. A dark display, an unpowered component and a damaged thruster are different observations. Make one authorised intervention, then compare the same indication. Repeated blind toggling removes the ability to determine which action affected the fault. Fly the reduced capability After an apparent recovery, test small inputs in clear space before returning to an approach. Reassess stopping, vertical support and turn response, allowing larger margins. If the ship cannot sustain the required landing profile, select a suitable alternate or arrange recovery rather than continuing because the route was already briefed. Inform passengers before movement or evacuation changes. PRACTICAL DRILL Use a reversible, instructor-tested configuration change to simulate reduced capability in clear space. Stabilise, report the symptom, restore or isolate the tested cause, and demonstrate the revised handling envelope before recovery. OBSERVED-SKILL CHECKS The pilot preserves clearance while diagnosing. My action / observed result / assistance / evidence reference: ____________________________________________________________ Live, simulated or unobserved: ____________________________________________________________ The crew distinguishes observation, hypothesis and intervention. My action / observed result / assistance / evidence reference: ____________________________________________________________ Live, simulated or unobserved: ____________________________________________________________ Continuation is based on a handling recheck, not merely a cleared warning. My action / observed result / assistance / evidence reference: ____________________________________________________________ Live, simulated or unobserved: ____________________________________________________________ Apply the technical checks in the agreed role. Discussion and simulation do not certify live handling; Crew Support evidence does not confer Pilot qualification. GAME REFERENCES The linked pages were read for this revision. Community references mix release eras; each source note identifies what is used and what is excluded. Technical explanations below are an Academy synthesis, and drills and performance checks are Academy-designed. Before practice, compare the named actions with the installed LIVE build and actual equipment. Bind actions by name rather than copying old default keys. Research is not an in-game validation. Star Citizen Wiki — Controls https://starcitizen.tools/Guide:Controls Control categories, movement axes and targeting concepts. The page contains legacy bindings and flight-system descriptions; use the installed game’s bindings, not its key table. Star Citizen Wiki — Engineering https://starcitizen.tools/Engineering Engineering terminals, components, fuses, heat and fires. This community overview is incomplete; verify each interaction and vessel’s support in the session. Official LIVE release check: https://robertsspaceindustries.com/patch-notes ———————————————————————————————————————————————— METHOD 1: Identify the source of the fault report Write down the indication, where it appeared and who observed it. If the facilitator supplied the fault, label it as a scenario condition rather than a display reading. This distinction tells the crew what can actually be checked. Describe the operational consequence before naming a presumed cause. “This station no longer provides the required indication” is actionable even when the crew cannot establish why. Compare independent observations where available, but do not mistake several people reading the same display for independent confirmation of the underlying fault. Practise: Compare a station report with an exercise fault notice. Ready when: Each fault entry identifies its source and what remains unverified. My action and observed result: ____________________________________________________________ Evidence reference: ____________________________________________________________ ———————————————————————————————————————————————— METHOD 2: Assign work that the crew can perform Check the crew’s position and the mission’s stop conditions before assigning an intervention. Give each task to someone with the right station, tools and preparation. Keep a monitoring role separate from the repair attempt so someone can assess the result. Prioritise maintaining control, accounting for the crew and preserving a recovery option before restoring the original schedule. Ask what an intervention may interrupt and notify those stations first. An operator sent to investigate cannot simultaneously be counted as continuously monitoring the station they have left. Practise: Allocate a status check and response to two competing faults. Ready when: Your assignments match the available capabilities and preserve crew accounting. My action and observed result: ____________________________________________________________ Evidence reference: ____________________________________________________________ ———————————————————————————————————————————————— METHOD 3: Check the result before continuing Compare the same indication before and after the action. If it has not improved, say so and consider withdrawal or a reset. “Action attempted” and “fault cleared” are different statements and lead to different movement decisions. Set a continuation condition before the attempt: which indication must change, who will verify it and which limitation would still prevent movement? This avoids redefining success after an inconclusive result. A reduced mission may be acceptable even when the original mission is not; state the new limit explicitly. Practise: Brief the decision after an intervention produces no confirmed improvement. Ready when: You report the observed result and justify continuation, withdrawal or reset. My action and observed result: ____________________________________________________________ Evidence reference: ____________________________________________________________ ———————————————————————————————————————————————— WORKED DECISION A scenario fault reduces available capability. The coordinator shortens the movement and records the limitation without claiming that a physical repair took place. 1. Enter the display report and facilitator condition as different sources. Ask which limits each one places on the movement. 2. Assign the checked action and keep someone watching the relevant indication. Notify affected stations before the attempt. 3. Record the unchanged or missing feedback. Compare it with the mission’s stop limit and recommend withdrawal or reset where continuation is unsupported. ———————————————————————————————————————————————— YOUR EXERCISE Produce the fault log and direct the response. State what the crew knows after the attempt and what evidence would permit continuation. WHAT CHANGES The proposed intervention produces no confirmed improvement. My decision and reason: ____________________________________________________________ ———————————————————————————————————————————————— YOUR WORKING RECORD Fault / source / indication / operational limit ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ Assigned action / operator / monitoring role ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ Before and after / uncertainty / continue or withdraw decision ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ———————————————————————————————————————————————— CHECK YOUR REASONING The operator completed the requested action. Is the ship ready to continue? My answer before consulting the explanation: ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ———————————————————————————————————————————————— EVIDENCE TO KEEP A source-labelled fault log and observed crew assignments and decisions. Criterion 1: Each fault entry identifies its source and what remains unverified. Individual evidence / finding / assessor's reason: ____________________________________________________________ Criterion 2: Your assignments match the available capabilities and preserve crew accounting. Individual evidence / finding / assessor's reason: ____________________________________________________________ Criterion 3: You report the observed result and justify continuation, withdrawal or reset. Individual evidence / finding / assessor's reason: ____________________________________________________________ ———————————————————————————————————————————————— FINDINGS AND NEXT ATTEMPT Demonstrated: observed work meets the criterion. Further practice required: an observed gap needs a specific practice task. Interrupted: conditions prevented valid assessment; not a failure. Not assessed: enough evidence has not yet been collected. All three criteria need individual evidence. A team result or quiz cannot replace an unobserved practical. Practice variant for a fresh attempt: Provide confirmed improvement on one indication but leave a second limit unresolved. Require a decision that considers both. My next practice task: ____________________________________________________________ Review contact: ____________________________________________________________ ———————————————————————————————————————————————— COMPARE AFTER ANSWERING Not yet established. Check the resulting indication and the mission’s limits. If the effect cannot be verified, report that uncertainty instead of treating effort as repair. ———————————————————————————————————————————————— SOURCE AND EDITION Case FO–7: the vessel that misses assembly /academy/archives/convoy-case Fleet Studies case issued by CAPT Renard Okonkwo in 2956. These new practice variants extend its receiving-window and watch-handover problem; their callsigns, quantities and times are teaching inputs, not additional historical facts. The lessons are current Academy teaching, not newly discovered historical records. Lex Astra opened in 2891. Historical sources keep their original issuer and date; all case callsigns, quantities, times and conditions are supplied for practice. Course text revised 8 October 2026; fictional teaching edition 2956.3. ———————————————————————————————————————————————— PROFESSIONAL REFERENCES Instruction revised 9 October 2026. Lex Astra cases supply the teaching situations. Professional references inform communication, decision-making and instructional design; they do not confer external qualifications. LIVE capabilities remain subject to the recorded session check. FAA · crew resource management (2004 reference) https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_120-51E.pdf IMO · competence and watchkeeping structure https://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/HumanElement/Pages/STCW-Convention.aspx RSI · verify release notes before live delivery https://robertsspaceindustries.com/patch-notes ———————————————————————————————————————————————— INSTRUCTOR CHECK Try the exercise with the ship and equipment you will use. Brief station assignments, callsigns, channel and recovery point. Explain the command “Stop exercise” before starting. If a bug prevents completion, repeat the affected task when it works. Ask before recording the session; use player handles in your notes. Review rules: /academy/archives/academy-ordinance Teaching basis: /academy/framework#research