12 ms·

This same thing can be said of auto-pilot in planes. Not saying it invalidates your argument, just that there are pretty wide-reaching consequences to that ide

This same thing can be said of auto-pilot in planes. Not saying it invalidates your argument, just that there are pretty wide-reaching consequences to that idea.

mrguyorama 8y ago
Which is why pilots are still in control of the plane while autopilot is active. Even while active, there is still a "pilot flying" and pilots are still responsible for scanning gauges and readouts and verifying the autopilot is doing what they expect. They do not just turn on autopilot and goof off
- netc 8y ago
  they are expected to remain in control of the plane, not necessarily they do: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Pilots-sleep-as-flight-attendant-turns-off-autopilot-on-Bangkok-Delhi-flight/articleshow/19860300.cms https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Pilots-sleep-as-fl...
- Johnny555 8y ago
  Just like Tesla's auto pilot? Drivers are supposed to be "flying", scanning gauges and the road ahead to ensure the autopilot is doing what they expect... I think people that say that "autopilot" is a bad name for this feature don't really understand what an "autopilot" does.
  - mannykannot 8y ago
    An airplane under autopilot is not a second or two away from a fatal crash.
    - Johnny555 8y ago
      If the pilots are not flying, then it can be just a short time away from a crash. Like when the pilot is not paying attention and by the time the auto pilot can no longer fly, the pilot doesn't have enough situational awareness to take over. http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_eye/2015/06/25/air_france_flight_447_and_the_safety_paradox_of_airline_automation_on_99.html http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_eye/2015/06/25/air_france_fli...
      - mannykannot 8y ago
        That is very much an outlier, and if it were at all relevant to the issue it would further weaken your case, as these three pilots had several minutes to sort things out. Questioning the assumptions underlying the assumed safety of airplane autopilot use can only weaken the claim that Tesla's 'autopilot' is safe.
    - mulmen 8y ago
      The fatal impact may not be seconds away but the event that sets in motion the series of actions that results in that fatal impact may take only seconds.
      - mannykannot 8y ago
        The issue is how long between the problem first manifesting itself and a crash becoming inevitable. Note that even as short a time as ten seconds is an order of magnitude longer than one second. There are at most only a few rare corner cases in aviation where proper use of the autopilot could take the airplane within a minute of an irretrievable situation that would not have occurred under manual control.
        mulmen 8y ago
        I'm not a pilot so I do not know the most dangerous situations when flying under autopilot. What I was trying to emphasize is that even under autopilot airplanes require constant attention. My understanding is that if the pilot or co-pilot leaves the cockpit for any reason the remaining pilot puts on an oxygen mask in case of decompression because the time frame before blackout is so tiny. The point is that autopilot in aviation is a tool that can be employed by pilots but cannot function safely on its own. From this viewpoint Tesla's Autopilot is accurately named although the public does not have the same understanding.
        mannykannot 8y ago
        There are a lot of things in aviation that are done out of an abundance of caution (and rightly so) rather than because flights are routinely on the edge of disaster. Depressurization is not an autopilot issue, and putting on a mask is not the same as constant vigilance. Even when not using autopilot, pilots in cruise may be attending to matters like navigation and systems management that would be extremely dangerous if performed while driving. Personally, I do not think calling Tesla's system 'autopilot' is the issue, but your claim that it is accurate is based on misunderstandings about the use of autopilots in aviation. It is not the case that their proper use puts airplanes on the edge of disaster were it not for the constant vigilance of the pilots.
  - danso 8y ago
    The text at the top of the homepage for Tesla Autopilot is this: > Full Self-Driving Hardware on All Cars > All Tesla vehicles produced in our factory, including Model 3, have the hardware needed for full self-driving capability at a safety level substantially greater than that of a human driver. Whatever theory you have for Tesla's naming of their feature, it doesn't match with their marketing.
    - kolpa 8y ago
      If autopilot crashes at a lower rate than the average driver, they are correct, but autopilot+attentive driver would still be better than either alone.
      - danso 8y ago
        The current thread is about what Tesla means by use of "autopilot". The parent commenter was telling us that Tesla only intends for it to have the same meaning as it does in aviation. My response is pointing out how Tesla seems to imply "autopilot" involves "full self-driving".
      - vkou 8y ago
        At what point is an attentive driver expected to notice that autopilot has silently failed? The video linked at the top of the thread has a <1 second interval between the car failing to follow its lane, and plowing into a concrete barrier. This is actually harder to do then just driving the car.
    - slg 8y ago
      You are reading into that text more than you should. Autopilot and full self-driving are two separate features. Autopilot can be used today. Full self-driving can be purchased today but won't be activated until some unknown future date. Those features are separate configurable options when purchasing the car that come with their own prices. Tesla makes it clear enough that any owner should know those are two separate features. The text you highlighted is simply promising that any car purchased today can activate full self-driving down the line with no additional hardware costs.
  - moogly 8y ago
    And Tesla is relying on Joe Sixpack's Hollywood understanding of autopilot functionality. They're very well aware of that.
    - greglindahl 8y ago
      So you’re saying that Tesla drivers are only educated by marketing materials and ignore what the car says every time they engage the autopilot feature?
      - buvanshak 8y ago
        They are saying that Tesla drivers are not super humans, and only average every day, garden variety human beings... The funny thing is that it is the same people who are arguing for self driving tech by saying that "Humans will do dumb shit", is the same ones who justify Tesla by saying "Humans should not do stupid things (like ignoring the cars warning)"..
  - bunderbunder 8y ago
    This isn't a debate about dictionary definitions, it's a debate about human behavior. People who say that "Autopilot" is a bad name for this feature aren't basing it on an imperfect understanding of what autopilot does in airplanes. They're basing it on how they believe people in general will interpret the term.
- stale2002 8y ago
  Uhhhhh, I think you are misinformed. They aren't going to literally fall asleep, but much of the time pilots are reading a book and not directly paying attention in the same way that a driver is.
krrrh 8y ago
This comparison really only works if you mean engaging autopilot with a bunch of other planes flying in close formation and if clouds were made of steel and concrete. Most of the time that autopilot is engaged on a flight there is next to zero risk of a collision. Commercial pilots also get a lot of training specifically related to what autopilot is and isn’t appropriate for.
- laythea 8y ago
  That is a valid counterpoint in my opinion.
- nightski 8y ago
  Even as a private pilot you are taught to continuously scan your instruments and surroundings as you fly through the air with autopilot enabled. Flight training is much more extensive than driving tests (although still not too bad) and they really drive procedures into you.
skrause 8y ago
Planes don't suddenly crash into a mountain because you have looked away for two seconds, there is much more time to react in case the autopilot doesn't behave correctly.
- z3t4 8y ago
  once you see the mountain it will be too late. think of big airplannes as trains.
- ptaipale 8y ago
  They can very suddenly crash into another plane because you have looked away for two seconds. It has actually happened (though nowadays, technology has made it easier to avoid these accidents).
  - AnimalMuppet 8y ago
    Planes are supposed to maintain a 5 mile separation distance. You aren't going to break that down in two seconds. (But head on, with both planes traveling 600 MPH, you can do it in 15 seconds. But both pilots would have to be inattentive for that time.)
    - ptaipale 8y ago
      They are supposed to, but if flight control doesn't help them do it, pilots have only very little time to react to what they meet. This was demonstrated in the Hughes Airwest collision with an F-4 in 1971. Since then, air traffic control procedures have been improved to avoid these situations, but nowadays e.g. over the Baltic Sea, Russian military planes are routinely flying with their transponder turned off so that flight control does not know where they are. So, this risk is still there. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hughes_Airwest_Flight_706#Probable_cause_and_recommendations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hughes_Airwest_Flight_706#Prob...

This same thing can be said of auto-pilot in planes. Not saying it invalidates your argument, just that there are pretty wide-reaching consequences to that idea.

mrguyorama 8y ago

Which is why pilots are still in control of the plane while autopilot is active. Even while active, there is still a "pilot flying" and pilots are still responsible for scanning gauges and readouts and verifying the autopilot is doing what they expect. They do not just turn on autopilot and goof off

netc 8y ago
they are expected to remain in control of the plane, not necessarily they do: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Pilots-sleep-as-flight-attendant-turns-off-autopilot-on-Bangkok-Delhi-flight/articleshow/19860300.cms https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Pilots-sleep-as-fl...
Johnny555 8y ago
Just like Tesla's auto pilot? Drivers are supposed to be "flying", scanning gauges and the road ahead to ensure the autopilot is doing what they expect... I think people that say that "autopilot" is a bad name for this feature don't really understand what an "autopilot" does.
- mannykannot 8y ago
  An airplane under autopilot is not a second or two away from a fatal crash.
  - Johnny555 8y ago
    If the pilots are not flying, then it can be just a short time away from a crash. Like when the pilot is not paying attention and by the time the auto pilot can no longer fly, the pilot doesn't have enough situational awareness to take over. http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_eye/2015/06/25/air_france_flight_447_and_the_safety_paradox_of_airline_automation_on_99.html http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_eye/2015/06/25/air_france_fli...
    - mannykannot 8y ago
      That is very much an outlier, and if it were at all relevant to the issue it would further weaken your case, as these three pilots had several minutes to sort things out. Questioning the assumptions underlying the assumed safety of airplane autopilot use can only weaken the claim that Tesla's 'autopilot' is safe.
  - mulmen 8y ago
    The fatal impact may not be seconds away but the event that sets in motion the series of actions that results in that fatal impact may take only seconds.
    - mannykannot 8y ago
      The issue is how long between the problem first manifesting itself and a crash becoming inevitable. Note that even as short a time as ten seconds is an order of magnitude longer than one second. There are at most only a few rare corner cases in aviation where proper use of the autopilot could take the airplane within a minute of an irretrievable situation that would not have occurred under manual control.
      - mulmen 8y ago
        I'm not a pilot so I do not know the most dangerous situations when flying under autopilot. What I was trying to emphasize is that even under autopilot airplanes require constant attention. My understanding is that if the pilot or co-pilot leaves the cockpit for any reason the remaining pilot puts on an oxygen mask in case of decompression because the time frame before blackout is so tiny. The point is that autopilot in aviation is a tool that can be employed by pilots but cannot function safely on its own. From this viewpoint Tesla's Autopilot is accurately named although the public does not have the same understanding.
        mannykannot 8y ago
        There are a lot of things in aviation that are done out of an abundance of caution (and rightly so) rather than because flights are routinely on the edge of disaster. Depressurization is not an autopilot issue, and putting on a mask is not the same as constant vigilance. Even when not using autopilot, pilots in cruise may be attending to matters like navigation and systems management that would be extremely dangerous if performed while driving. Personally, I do not think calling Tesla's system 'autopilot' is the issue, but your claim that it is accurate is based on misunderstandings about the use of autopilots in aviation. It is not the case that their proper use puts airplanes on the edge of disaster were it not for the constant vigilance of the pilots.
- danso 8y ago
  The text at the top of the homepage for Tesla Autopilot is this: > Full Self-Driving Hardware on All Cars > All Tesla vehicles produced in our factory, including Model 3, have the hardware needed for full self-driving capability at a safety level substantially greater than that of a human driver. Whatever theory you have for Tesla's naming of their feature, it doesn't match with their marketing.
  - kolpa 8y ago
    If autopilot crashes at a lower rate than the average driver, they are correct, but autopilot+attentive driver would still be better than either alone.
    - danso 8y ago
      The current thread is about what Tesla means by use of "autopilot". The parent commenter was telling us that Tesla only intends for it to have the same meaning as it does in aviation. My response is pointing out how Tesla seems to imply "autopilot" involves "full self-driving".
    - vkou 8y ago
      At what point is an attentive driver expected to notice that autopilot has silently failed? The video linked at the top of the thread has a <1 second interval between the car failing to follow its lane, and plowing into a concrete barrier. This is actually harder to do then just driving the car.
  - slg 8y ago
    You are reading into that text more than you should. Autopilot and full self-driving are two separate features. Autopilot can be used today. Full self-driving can be purchased today but won't be activated until some unknown future date. Those features are separate configurable options when purchasing the car that come with their own prices. Tesla makes it clear enough that any owner should know those are two separate features. The text you highlighted is simply promising that any car purchased today can activate full self-driving down the line with no additional hardware costs.
- moogly 8y ago
  And Tesla is relying on Joe Sixpack's Hollywood understanding of autopilot functionality. They're very well aware of that.
  - greglindahl 8y ago
    So you’re saying that Tesla drivers are only educated by marketing materials and ignore what the car says every time they engage the autopilot feature?
    - buvanshak 8y ago
      They are saying that Tesla drivers are not super humans, and only average every day, garden variety human beings... The funny thing is that it is the same people who are arguing for self driving tech by saying that "Humans will do dumb shit", is the same ones who justify Tesla by saying "Humans should not do stupid things (like ignoring the cars warning)"..
- bunderbunder 8y ago
  This isn't a debate about dictionary definitions, it's a debate about human behavior. People who say that "Autopilot" is a bad name for this feature aren't basing it on an imperfect understanding of what autopilot does in airplanes. They're basing it on how they believe people in general will interpret the term.
stale2002 8y ago
Uhhhhh, I think you are misinformed. They aren't going to literally fall asleep, but much of the time pilots are reading a book and not directly paying attention in the same way that a driver is.

krrrh 8y ago

This comparison really only works if you mean engaging autopilot with a bunch of other planes flying in close formation and if clouds were made of steel and concrete. Most of the time that autopilot is engaged on a flight there is next to zero risk of a collision. Commercial pilots also get a lot of training specifically related to what autopilot is and isn’t appropriate for.

laythea 8y ago
That is a valid counterpoint in my opinion.
nightski 8y ago
Even as a private pilot you are taught to continuously scan your instruments and surroundings as you fly through the air with autopilot enabled. Flight training is much more extensive than driving tests (although still not too bad) and they really drive procedures into you.

skrause 8y ago

Planes don't suddenly crash into a mountain because you have looked away for two seconds, there is much more time to react in case the autopilot doesn't behave correctly.

z3t4 8y ago
once you see the mountain it will be too late. think of big airplannes as trains.
ptaipale 8y ago
They can very suddenly crash into another plane because you have looked away for two seconds. It has actually happened (though nowadays, technology has made it easier to avoid these accidents).
- AnimalMuppet 8y ago
  Planes are supposed to maintain a 5 mile separation distance. You aren't going to break that down in two seconds. (But head on, with both planes traveling 600 MPH, you can do it in 15 seconds. But both pilots would have to be inattentive for that time.)
  - ptaipale 8y ago
    They are supposed to, but if flight control doesn't help them do it, pilots have only very little time to react to what they meet. This was demonstrated in the Hughes Airwest collision with an F-4 in 1971. Since then, air traffic control procedures have been improved to avoid these situations, but nowadays e.g. over the Baltic Sea, Russian military planes are routinely flying with their transponder turned off so that flight control does not know where they are. So, this risk is still there. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hughes_Airwest_Flight_706#Probable_cause_and_recommendations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hughes_Airwest_Flight_706#Prob...