4 ms·

It’s clear the Tesla is dealing with this as a PR/marketing problem, but the fail miserably even at that. If you think it’s a PR/marketing problem and the syst

It’s clear the Tesla is dealing with this as a PR/marketing problem, but the fail miserably even at that. If you think it’s a PR/marketing problem and the system operates as it should, then stop calling it Autopilot and stop advertising cars with full autopilot capabilities* * “Theoretically the hardware should be enough to enable full auto pilot some time in the future. At the moment use this other Autopilot, which is not really autopilot. Btw we made this really cool autopilot video, but it’s not the Autopilot you have in your car.”

manicdee 8y ago
The marketing problem is lay people thinking that aircraft autopilots are magical self flying machines when they often require the pilot to provide corrective input, especially during “autoland.” If you think Tesla Autopilot needs another name, stop operating on mystical beliefs like Rei-Ki and magical self-flying autopilot and learn what any aircraft autopilot is actually capable of.
- dingaling 8y ago
  An aircraft does not require any corrective inputs during autoland, in fact it is the opposite; inputing any control action will abort the autoland. It just needs the pilots to make a land / no-land decision at the specified altitude. Can they see the runway lights within the specified distance and is the crosswind-component within the acceptable range? If they choose to continue the landing then they don't touch the controls. Imagine you're coming in to a wet runway with 20kt crosswind and one engine inoperative. Sounds like a nightmare; but in that case autoland will do a better and more consistent landing than most pilots. Can we say that about car self-driving systems yet?
  - manicdee 8y ago
    Here's a discussion of flying a plane on a Cat III ILS autoland: https://youtu.be/UO2K4-zRubA https://youtu.be/UO2K4-zRubA Note all the crosschecking between the human operators and the two autopilots. Mentour speaks almost exclusively about flying the Boeing 737, a very reliable aircraft. Even on this aircraft the human pilots are ready to take over from the autopilot at a moment's notice. Here is an auto land using Cat III ILS in an Airbus 320, with the humans invigilating at all times, ready to go around if anything appears off nominal https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSNE3SmYA-8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSNE3SmYA-8 So to a naive observer, it may appear that you are correct: planes can land themselves without intervention. But that is only true for airport, aircraft and conditions qualified for Cat III approaches (i.e.: ideal conditions) and remain that way throughout the procedure. If the airport, aircraft or environment are not qualified for Cat III approach, you don't get this ultra-precise auto land capability. If anything goes wrong with any equipment during approach, you don't get the auto land capability (and indeed a go-around is required). If there is anything outside spec (e.g.: aircraft manoeuvring on the taxiway can distort the ILS beam, thus Low Visibility Procedures), things will go wrong and the pilot needs to intervene. At no point is it safe for a pilot to let the plane do the flying and sit back to have a cup of tea. The captain and first officer have their assigned tasks: be ready to land the plane and be ready to go around (respectively). Intervention is required from time to time, so they need to be ready to intervene every time. Cars do not have the option of "going around". Every action has the potential to cause fatality within seconds. There's even less room for inattentiveness when using a car on autopilot. The OP suggested that autopilot should be able to drive the car without any human intervention, but they have confused autopilot with autonomous driving, probably because of the "auto" prefix, yet they've never been confused about an automobile requiring constant human attention. It's clear that Tesla have a PR/marketing problem, when the population is happy to drive an auto with auto, but can't differentiate between autopilot and autonomous.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]

manicdee 8y ago

The marketing problem is lay people thinking that aircraft autopilots are magical self flying machines when they often require the pilot to provide corrective input, especially during “autoland.” If you think Tesla Autopilot needs another name, stop operating on mystical beliefs like Rei-Ki and magical self-flying autopilot and learn what any aircraft autopilot is actually capable of.

dingaling 8y ago
An aircraft does not require any corrective inputs during autoland, in fact it is the opposite; inputing any control action will abort the autoland. It just needs the pilots to make a land / no-land decision at the specified altitude. Can they see the runway lights within the specified distance and is the crosswind-component within the acceptable range? If they choose to continue the landing then they don't touch the controls. Imagine you're coming in to a wet runway with 20kt crosswind and one engine inoperative. Sounds like a nightmare; but in that case autoland will do a better and more consistent landing than most pilots. Can we say that about car self-driving systems yet?
- manicdee 8y ago
  Here's a discussion of flying a plane on a Cat III ILS autoland: https://youtu.be/UO2K4-zRubA https://youtu.be/UO2K4-zRubA Note all the crosschecking between the human operators and the two autopilots. Mentour speaks almost exclusively about flying the Boeing 737, a very reliable aircraft. Even on this aircraft the human pilots are ready to take over from the autopilot at a moment's notice. Here is an auto land using Cat III ILS in an Airbus 320, with the humans invigilating at all times, ready to go around if anything appears off nominal https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSNE3SmYA-8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSNE3SmYA-8 So to a naive observer, it may appear that you are correct: planes can land themselves without intervention. But that is only true for airport, aircraft and conditions qualified for Cat III approaches (i.e.: ideal conditions) and remain that way throughout the procedure. If the airport, aircraft or environment are not qualified for Cat III approach, you don't get this ultra-precise auto land capability. If anything goes wrong with any equipment during approach, you don't get the auto land capability (and indeed a go-around is required). If there is anything outside spec (e.g.: aircraft manoeuvring on the taxiway can distort the ILS beam, thus Low Visibility Procedures), things will go wrong and the pilot needs to intervene. At no point is it safe for a pilot to let the plane do the flying and sit back to have a cup of tea. The captain and first officer have their assigned tasks: be ready to land the plane and be ready to go around (respectively). Intervention is required from time to time, so they need to be ready to intervene every time. Cars do not have the option of "going around". Every action has the potential to cause fatality within seconds. There's even less room for inattentiveness when using a car on autopilot. The OP suggested that autopilot should be able to drive the car without any human intervention, but they have confused autopilot with autonomous driving, probably because of the "auto" prefix, yet they've never been confused about an automobile requiring constant human attention. It's clear that Tesla have a PR/marketing problem, when the population is happy to drive an auto with auto, but can't differentiate between autopilot and autonomous.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]