8 ms·

I see your point on calling it "Autopilot", but if you think about the application of the term in terms of aviation, I think it makes more sense. Autopilot in p

I see your point on calling it "Autopilot", but if you think about the application of the term in terms of aviation, I think it makes more sense. Autopilot in planes won't land the plane for you. It basically will just keep you at a certain elevation and direction. I think that Tesla's Autopilot function is comparable to planes. That's probably how they will justify it. However there might be a legitimate point in that people don't have that kind of understanding of what "Autopilot" means.

mikepurvis 9y ago
Aviation autopilots handle flying duties in a giant expanse of open sky. It's a way, way easier job to do than navigating a highway from behind a steering wheel. So even if the "capabilities" may be comparable between the two systems, the amount of supervision they require is not, so I don't think they should use the term. It may be "lane-keeping cruise control" isn't nearly as sexy, but it doesn't establish unrealistic expectations which get people killed.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
slavik81 9y ago
> Autopilot in planes won't land the plane for you. For unmanned aircraft, autoland is an safety feature. After loss of link, an autopilot might be configured to land at a designated location, rather than just circling until it runs out of fuel and drops out of the sky. Though admittedly, crashing in a safe place is less serious when the vehicle has no people in it. The Tesla autopilot needs much closer supervision than any of the autopilots I've worked with. That's more a result of its domain than of its sophistication, but it still makes me very uncomfortable with the name.
- chrisper 9y ago
  Autoland is also a safety feature for manned aircraft because it allows you to land in bad visibility or avoid accidents like the one at SFO a couple of years ago.
  - greglindahl 9y ago
    Excessive reliance on features like autoland was actually the cause of that SFO accident, according to the NTSB.
    - chrisper 9y ago
      But ILS (the autoland system on ground) was disabled that day. Are we talking about two different incidents?
      - greglindahl 9y ago
        No, did you read the accident report which talked about the pilots being unable to land the plane because they were used to the computer doing most of the work?
raverbashing 9y ago
Well, people in aviation are more aware (hopefully) of the limitations of the systems and even then gets on snags. I agree, Tesla shouldn't call it autopilot, call it Highway Assistance or something. Or even, at this point, I don't see why it should even exist, if it fails on basic situations.
greedo 9y ago
Actually autopilots in airliners, and some military jets ARE capable of landing aircraft.
- dingaling 9y ago
  And have been doing commercially so since 1966! First Cat III autoland aircraft was the Shorts Belfast freighter. Sud Caravelle and HS Trident airliners started at lower categories and worked up to III.
lifeformed 9y ago
In a domain like marketing, it doesn't matter what something technically means, but what people think it means.
gamblor956 9y ago
Autopilots can and do land planes; the first autopilot landing was decades ago! They simply don't as a matter of practice so that pilots can maintain their skills during landing, which is the most crucial and dangerous part of the flight. Additionally...Autopilot in planes is hands off. The pilots look at the gauges but they're not actively maintaining their grip on the controls.
- greglindahl 9y ago
  Now you're damning Tesla because of a safety feature: the point of keeping the hands on the wheel is that it's a way of keeping the driver alert.
  - gamblor956 9y ago
    No, I'm damning Tesla because they sell the vehicle as self-driving when it cannot, and moreover "require" the driver to maintain superficial alertness without actually enforcing alertness in a reasonable matter like all of their major competitors do.
    - greglindahl 9y ago
      Wow. You sure are an expert in alertness.

mikepurvis 9y ago

Aviation autopilots handle flying duties in a giant expanse of open sky. It's a way, way easier job to do than navigating a highway from behind a steering wheel. So even if the "capabilities" may be comparable between the two systems, the amount of supervision they require is not, so I don't think they should use the term. It may be "lane-keeping cruise control" isn't nearly as sexy, but it doesn't establish unrealistic expectations which get people killed.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

slavik81 9y ago

> Autopilot in planes won't land the plane for you. For unmanned aircraft, autoland is an safety feature. After loss of link, an autopilot might be configured to land at a designated location, rather than just circling until it runs out of fuel and drops out of the sky. Though admittedly, crashing in a safe place is less serious when the vehicle has no people in it. The Tesla autopilot needs much closer supervision than any of the autopilots I've worked with. That's more a result of its domain than of its sophistication, but it still makes me very uncomfortable with the name.

chrisper 9y ago
Autoland is also a safety feature for manned aircraft because it allows you to land in bad visibility or avoid accidents like the one at SFO a couple of years ago.
- greglindahl 9y ago
  Excessive reliance on features like autoland was actually the cause of that SFO accident, according to the NTSB.
  - chrisper 9y ago
    But ILS (the autoland system on ground) was disabled that day. Are we talking about two different incidents?
    - greglindahl 9y ago
      No, did you read the accident report which talked about the pilots being unable to land the plane because they were used to the computer doing most of the work?

raverbashing 9y ago

Well, people in aviation are more aware (hopefully) of the limitations of the systems and even then gets on snags. I agree, Tesla shouldn't call it autopilot, call it Highway Assistance or something. Or even, at this point, I don't see why it should even exist, if it fails on basic situations.

greedo 9y ago

Actually autopilots in airliners, and some military jets ARE capable of landing aircraft.

dingaling 9y ago
And have been doing commercially so since 1966! First Cat III autoland aircraft was the Shorts Belfast freighter. Sud Caravelle and HS Trident airliners started at lower categories and worked up to III.

lifeformed 9y ago

In a domain like marketing, it doesn't matter what something technically means, but what people think it means.

gamblor956 9y ago

Autopilots can and do land planes; the first autopilot landing was decades ago! They simply don't as a matter of practice so that pilots can maintain their skills during landing, which is the most crucial and dangerous part of the flight. Additionally...Autopilot in planes is hands off. The pilots look at the gauges but they're not actively maintaining their grip on the controls.

greglindahl 9y ago
Now you're damning Tesla because of a safety feature: the point of keeping the hands on the wheel is that it's a way of keeping the driver alert.
- gamblor956 9y ago
  No, I'm damning Tesla because they sell the vehicle as self-driving when it cannot, and moreover "require" the driver to maintain superficial alertness without actually enforcing alertness in a reasonable matter like all of their major competitors do.
  - greglindahl 9y ago
    Wow. You sure are an expert in alertness.