US NTSB Shakes Finger at Tesla, but Why?

[FrgMstr]

The U.S. National Transportation Safety Board is pissed about Tesla releasing crash information about the recent fatality in a Tesla Model X while the company was using Autopilot and adaptive cruise control. However, the US NTSB did not say why it had issue with the release of the information. I guess not calling it "Autopilot" would likely be a good start to people understanding that Autopilot is not actually autopilot.


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. National Transportation Safety Board said on Sunday it was “unhappy” that electric car maker Tesla Inc (TSLA.O) made public information about the crash of its Model X vehicle on Autopilot that killed the driver last month.

 

[Verge]

The term autopilot should be 100% banned.

Unfortunately Tesla can only stay in business with hype, so they have to use marketing in this way.

 

[ThatsAgood1jay]

Netflix didn't have a streaming service until 2007, ten years after it was founded. If we're stuck on calling things by what they are, 'Mailflix' sounds a whole lot lamer.

Autonomous cars are in their infancy, are they dangerous? absolutely, more dangerous than driving yourself? highly debatable.

 

[WhoMe]

To be fair the autopilot they've had in air planes for decades was not true auto-pilot either, it just relieved the pilot of details so they could spend more time watching for other traffic. But only pilots (or arm chair pilots) would no that. In a car, driven by ordinary non tech understanding people, it is truly a bad idea for a name.

Back in the early 70's a Japanese tourist rented a Winnebago. He was driving it up the Feather River canyon. He was impressed with American know how and set the cruise control thinking it was auto-pilot. He then went in the back. Needless to say he ended up in the river, I talked to someone who was on the scene he was lucky and not hurt badly...this was also probably partly a language misunderstanding.

 

[kju1]

Maybe they were just pissed at getting scooped?

To be fair the autopilot they've had in air planes for decades was not true auto-pilot either, it just relieved the pilot of details so they could spend more time watching for other traffic. But only pilots (or arm chair pilots) would no that. In a car, driven by ordinary non tech understanding people, it is truly a bad idea for a name.

Back in the early 70's a Japanese tourist rented a Winnebago. He was driving it up the Feather River canyon. He was impressed with American know how and set the cruise control thinking it was auto-pilot. He then went in the back. Needless to say he ended up in the river, I talked to someone who was on the scene he was lucky and not hurt badly...this was also probably partly a language misunderstanding.

It still isnt really except in some rather advanced cases.

On the cruise control thing I will admit that when I was a kid I had the same impression. It wasnt until I saw it being used that I realized otherwise (still as a kid).

It can be hard without context to know what a particular function is.

 

[Verge]

To be fair the autopilot they've had in air planes for decades was not true auto-pilot either, it just relieved the pilot of details so they could spend more time watching for other traffic.

This is not true. It requires no hands, and does not require the pilot to look out of the cockpit. These are quintessential to the term "autopilot." If it requires hands and attention, then you might as well fly/drive the damn thing yourself.

 

[gxp500]

If only that barrier was replaced before the accident the owner could of been alive, wonder how long ago the previous accident was. Could the city be sued for not replacing it in a timely manner?

 

[kju1]

This is not true. It requires no hands, and does not require the pilot to look out of the cockpit. These are quintessential to the term "autopilot." If it requires hands and attention, then you might as well fly/drive the damn thing yourself.

Are you a pilot?

 

[Verge]

Are you a pilot?

You apparently are not:

https://www.faa.gov/regulations_pol...advanced_avionics_handbook/media/aah_ch04.pdf

One of the most valuable benefits of using the FD/autopilot is delegating the constant task of manipulating the aircraft’s controls to the equipment, which do nothing other than comply with the pilot’s programming. This allows you more time to manage and observe the entire flight situation. Managing the flight versus actually moving the controls allows more time for:

1. Programming. Especially when flying under IFR, changes to a route are inevitable. Even when the pilot is proficient in using FMS/RNAV, this task requires focusing some attention on the programming task. The FD/autopilot keeps the aircraft on the programmed heading or course and altitude while the pilot makes the necessary changes to the flight plan. If programmed correctly, the aircraft maintains the correct track and altitude.

2. Distracting tasks/workload. Similarly, the FD/ autopilot is used to control basic aircraft movement while the pilot focuses attention on tasks such as reviewing charts, briefing and configuring for an instrument approach, updating weather information, etc. The FD/autopilot can also be a great help in other high workload situations, such as flying in a busy terminal area or executing a missed approach in adverse weather conditions.

 

[kju1]

You apparently are not:

https://www.faa.gov/regulations_pol...advanced_avionics_handbook/media/aah_ch04.pdf

I am and I have posted my cert here before. So so show yours. As any REAL pilot would know you've misinterpreted their statement. It does not obviate the pilot from the responsibility to control the aircraft. NOR does it remove the need to avoid other aircraft. If you are not on an IFR flight plan it is the PILOTS responsibility to see and avoid. If you are on an IFR flight in visual conditions you still have to see and avoid.

Here let me quote parts you left out:

How To Use an Autopilot Function
The following steps are required to use an autopilot function:
1. Specify desired track as defined by heading, course,
series of waypoints, altitude, airspeed, and/or vertical
speed.
2.
Engage the desired autopilot function(s) and verify
that, in fact, the selected modes are engaged by
monitoring the annunciator panel.
3.
Verify that desired track is being followed by the
aircraft.
4.
Verify that the correct navigation source is selected
to guide the autopilot’s track.
5. Be ready to fly the aircraft manually to ensure proper
course/clearance tracking in case of autopilot failure
or misprogramming.
6. Allow the FD/autopilot to accomplish the modes
selected and programmed without interference, or
disengage the unit. Do not attempt to “help” the
autopilot perform a task. In some instances this has
caused the autopilot to falsely sense adverse conditions
and trim to the limit to accomplish its tasking. In more
than a few events, this has resulted in a total loss of
control and a crash.

...


Common Error: Blindly Following Flight Director
Cues
The convenience of flight director cues can invite fixation or
overreliance on the part of the pilot. As with all automated
systems, you must remain aware of the overall situation.
Never assume that flight director cues are following a route
or course that is free from error. Rather, be sure to include
navigation instruments and sources in your scan. Remember,
the equipment will usually perform exactly as programmed.
Always compare the displays to ensure that all indications
agree. If in doubt, fly the aircraft to remain on cleared track
and altitude, and reduce automation to as minimal as possible
during the problem processing period. The first priority for
a pilot always is to fly the aircraft.


....

4.
Possible malfunction. If at any time the pilot observes
unexpected or uncommanded behavior from the
autopilot, he or she should disengage the autopilot
until determination of the cause and its resolution.
Most autopilot systems have multiple methods of
disengagement; you should be immediately aware of
all of them. Also be aware of the methods to cancel
the FD display to avoid confusing information.

 

[sirmonkey1985]

This is not true. It requires no hands, and does not require the pilot to look out of the cockpit. These are quintessential to the term "autopilot." If it requires hands and attention, then you might as well fly/drive the damn thing yourself.

While I'm not going to argue the names wrong.. we've been using the term since 1912 back when "autopilot" literally just followed a specific compass course. 35 years later it improved enough to take off and land without the pilot needing to take control. That being said it doesnt mean the pilot can go to sleep in their chair either and let the computer do everything.

As far as tesla goes the problem isn't the name so much as tesla thinking there's no way people could be as dumb as they really are. Tesla has done what took 35 years to do in planes in less than 4 years for cars.

 

[FrgMstr]

 

[Verge]

I am and I have posted my cert here before. So so show yours. As any REAL pilot would know you've misinterpreted their statement. It does not obviate the pilot from the responsibility to control the aircraft. NOR does it remove the need to avoid other aircraft. If you are not on an IFR flight plan it is the PILOTS responsibility to see and avoid. If you are on an IFR flight in visual conditions you still have to see and avoid.

Here let me quote parts you left out:

Thanks.

Does it require you to have your hands on the stick, and eyes out the cockpit at all times? Yes or no. You are making a meal out of this bro.

 

[Verge]

That being said it doesnt mean the pilot can go to sleep in their chair either and let the computer do everything.

I never said that, kju1 put those words in my mouth.

I simply stated that you are not required to keep your hands in control, and eyes forward looking at all times. This is a fact. Tesla's autopilot instructs to keep hands on the wheel at all times.

 

[bigdogchris]

While I do believe Tesla in these cases of accidents, I do wonder, what if there is an issue where the car logs that drivers were warned, but they really were not? Devils-advocate here, but unless you have a video camera in the car that is recording the dash, how do you know for sure that the drivers are getting the alerts?

 

[Ididar]

It all depends on the autopilot. Early aircraft autopilot was crude as heck. Modern autopilots ... not so much. That said, even modern autopilots need you to pay attention. You might not need to pay attention at the same level during cruise that you would while driving a Tesla but ... then again ... little less traffic to deal with. As you get in higher traffic areas with an aircraft on autopilot you most assuredly do have to pay attention a LOT. You're constantly monitoring TCAS and listening to Comm Traffic. Are they a 1:1 comparison? No. But, an aircraft autopilot and Tesla are far closer to each other than they are to fully autonomous cars.

To be frank, people are just being morons and ignoring all the literature on the Tesla autopilot. Tesla has been pretty blunt in every press release since those things hit the road. They keep saying people need to keep their attention on the road but people who get in accidents are ignoring the warnings. People are idiots and we keep designing even better idiots.

 

[Tsumi]

from reading the article, i would have to say the reason why they are upset is because tesla went public with info BEFORE NTSB could finish their investigation and release their report.

but while i can understand NTSB wanting to do their work, i have to commend tesla for always, in my readings and understandings so far, being open and upfront on things. And while yes, some of it is clearly to guide public opinion, im not sensing any nefarious reasons.

and while i dont agree with musk on some of his big ideas, i do say kudos for at least trying to push the boundries, and keeping an open book about it all.

I have to agree with this. The NTSB does not like the release of information until they have completed their investigation, which is usually months after the fact, depending on the scale of the accident. Something about public bias tainting investigations, blah blah.

 

[PenGunn]

Why? For trying to spin the investigation. Its pretty simple.

 

[kju1]

I never said that, kju1 put those words in my mouth.

I simply stated that you are not required to keep your hands in control, and eyes forward looking at all times. This is a fact. Tesla's autopilot instructs to keep hands on the wheel at all times.

Nobody put words in your mouth. I am not going to continue debating it when its pretty clear its off topic.

I have to agree with this. The NTSB does not like the release of information until they have completed their investigation, which is usually months after the fact, depending on the scale of the accident. Something about public bias tainting investigations, blah blah.

Months or years after the fact if at all. Sometimes they dont even take it past the preliminary findings stage. But yeah I can see how they were miffed that someone decided to release their own "findings".

 

[Ocellaris]

Here is someone in their Tesla on Autopilot trying to recreate the problem at the same divider... Their Tesla is clearly confused on following lanes and almost hits the same barrier LOL

 

[WhoMe]

This is not true. It requires no hands, and does not require the pilot to look out of the cockpit. These are quintessential to the term "autopilot." If it requires hands and attention, then you might as well fly/drive the damn thing yourself.

I won't be flying with you. Sure there is instrument only flight, but you have to monitor the instruments.

 

[Semantics]

Here is someone in their Tesla on Autopilot trying to recreate the problem at the same divider... Their Tesla is clearly confused on following lanes and almost hits the same barrier LOL

That actually isn't the same. That gore point is missing a lane marking but still has chevrons which the cars should pick up sooner. The crash in mountain view's Gore point has no stripes or chevrons just lane markers, so in terms of confusing a robot it's more understandable. It's also the site of quite a few crashes because it's a poorly designed off ramp
If you're wondering what the gore point looks like in that model x crash
https://www.google.com/maps/@37.410...4!1sNrCppnEbkIT7JYlxtujW1Q!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Tesla calls it autopilot because that's their goal, autonomous vehicles.

 

[Verge]

I won't be flying with you. Sure there is instrument only flight, but you have to monitor the instruments.

It's all about definition, when people think "autopilot" they think of this:




Neither pilot looking ahead of them, neither pilot in direct control of the aircraft... autopilot This cannot be done in a tesla or you risk dying... not autopilot

 

[Verge]

It's also the site of quite a few crashes because it's a poorly designed off ramp
If you're wondering what the gore point looks like in that model x crash
https://www.google.com/maps/@37.410...4!1sNrCppnEbkIT7JYlxtujW1Q!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Looks pretty easy to a human.

 

[YeuEmMaiMai]

I am and I have posted my cert here before. So so show yours. As any REAL pilot would know you've misinterpreted their statement. It does not obviate the pilot from the responsibility to control the aircraft. NOR does it remove the need to avoid other aircraft. If you are not on an IFR flight plan it is the PILOTS responsibility to see and avoid. If you are on an IFR flight in visual conditions you still have to see and avoid.

Here let me quote parts you left out:

I think you are confused...

from just a few feet off the ground through flight and up to few feet before touchdown, the planes DO fly themselves. The pilot is there to oversee the automation and to step in when the automation cannot handle the job.

Mc Donnell Douglas had auto land way back in the 70's but it was not quite ready for prime time...

 

[Semantics]

Looks pretty easy to a human.

You say that but if you actually look at the 101 to 85 interchange's history there are quite a few crashes with those gore points, a handful every year, in part because of inadequate markings. After all the reason why the barrier was gone was because there was a crash into the same gore point 2 weeks before presumably not by a tesla car.

 

[Ocellaris]

You say that but if you actually look at the 101 to 85 interchange's history there are quite a few crashes with those gore points, a handful every year, in part because of inadequate markings. After all the reason why the barrier was gone was because there was a crash into the same gore point 2 weeks before presumably not by a tesla car.

The previous driver ran into it while drunk

 

[Semantics]

The previous driver ran into it while drunk

Good thing drunk driving is nearly unheard of thing! Humans are so great!

 

[Spidey329]

The term autopilot should be 100% banned.

Unfortunately Tesla can only stay in business with hype, so they have to use marketing in this way.

The term is misunderstood. Autopilot in a plane doesn't take off and land for you, or do all the work. It simply keeps you at cruise altitude, maintains speed, and direction. You don't put on autopilot and then go enjoy the movie in first class. I think that's what Tesla was going for with the name, relating it to the autopilot systems in a plane (since it basically does the same thing, basic operation, reduced workload, lane guidance, and smart cruise control).

An autopilot is a system used to control the trajectory of an aircraft without constant 'hands-on' control by a human operator being required. Autopilots do not replace human operators, but instead they assist them in controlling the aircraft

The general public assume that "autopilot" means everything is done for you. That'd be an autonomous pilot, and I think that's where the confusion kicks in. Autopilot != Autonomous Pilot. You see the same confusion in the quadcopter / "drone" world - autopilot and autonomous flight are different systems, but people incorrectly assume autopilot equates to automatic unmonitored flight.

Should Tesla rebrand it? Probably, it'll take too long to educate the people. Better off calling it Assisted Pilot .. which means the same thing as AutoPilot, but people will have an easier time grasping that.

 

[sirmonkey1985]

That actually isn't the same. That gore point is missing a lane marking but still has chevrons which the cars should pick up sooner. The crash in mountain view's Gore point has no stripes or chevrons just lane markers, so in terms of confusing a robot it's more understandable. It's also the site of quite a few crashes because it's a poorly designed off ramp
If you're wondering what the gore point looks like in that model x crash
https://www.google.com/maps/@37.410...4!1sNrCppnEbkIT7JYlxtujW1Q!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Tesla calls it autopilot because that's their goal, autonomous vehicles.

Looking at that I could definitely see how the system could get confused.

 

[Methadras]

No, it is autopilot until it stops becoming autopilot when some event prevents it, like hitting a wall or another car or something else.

 

[kju1]

Should Tesla rebrand it? Probably, it'll take too long to educate the people. Better off calling it Assisted Pilot .. which means the same thing as AutoPilot, but people will have an easier time grasping that.

Tesla can change the name all the want...people will still call it autopilot.

 

[lcpiper]

If you spend the bucks for a Tesla with AutoPilot, receive the training, yes, they offer training on the feature, and you ignore what they tell you ........ the gene pool needs love too.

 

[Verge]

the gene pool needs love too.

it's not that I don't disagree, but they can also kill someone else potentially.

There was a video that came out when it first launched of a dude leaned back with his eyes closed in stop and go traffic. TBH I have no problem with that, seems like an excellent use case.

 

[lcpiper]

it's not that I don't disagree, but they can also kill someone else potentially.

There was a video that came out when it first launched of a dude leaned back with his eyes closed in stop and go traffic. TBH I have no problem with that, seems like an excellent use case.

Potentially "can" kill?

OK, I think that potential has already been realized, it was just Uber's "autopilot" doing the killing.

Look I don't have to tell you that people get killed. It has never stopped and autonomous cars won't stop it either. People live and people die. Yes these systems have and will kill people, so do small objects when infants swallow them and many other things. All we can ever do is our best, life goes on. So the topic again was what?

Oh yes, the NTSB is pissed at Tesla, because Tesla released details about an ongoing investigation, not surprised at all.

 

[Verge]

Potentially "can" kill?

OK, I think that potential has already been realized, it was just Uber's "autopilot" doing the killing.

Look I don't have to tell you that people get killed. It has never stopped and autonomous cars won't stop it either. People live and people die. Yes these systems have and will kill people, so do small objects when infants swallow them and many other things. All we can ever do is our best, life goes on. So the topic again was what?

Oh yes, the NTSB is pissed at Tesla, because Tesla released details about an ongoing investigation, not surprised at all.

Well to get back on topic, Tesla will need another round of cash here shortly, so the hype train better be at full steam. Stock is already taking a beating(and rightly so). I'm sure they are trying to get this news out of the cycle instead of waiting on the NTSB to release report mid-summer when they are trying to issue new stock.

 

[katanaD]

I have to agree with this. The NTSB does not like the release of information until they have completed their investigation, which is usually months after the fact, depending on the scale of the accident. Something about public bias tainting investigations, blah blah.

ok, from another website, they are upset about not being notified which is a requirement in the docs tesla signed.

https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/process/Documents/NTSB_Investigation_Party_Form.pdf

this is the section that is probably upsetting the NTSB

VII. Flow and Dissemination of Investigative Information All information obtained by members of an investigative group will immediately be brought to the attention of the Group Chairman. All information obtained during the investigation by the various groups will be passed to the IIC by the Group Chairmen. No information may be passed to others within the party’s organization, beyond those individuals actually participating in the NTSB investigation, without the approval of the IIC. If necessary for public safety, and with the IIC’s permission, party coordinators may release information to their respective organizations provided the information is factual, neutral and objective in tone, and without purported NTSB characterization of the matter’s contribution to the underlying accident. If a party’s organization has a need, in the interest of safety, to transmit information to operators utilizing their products regarding issues related to the investigation, they must first provide the IIC with a written draft of the proposed correspondence and obtain the IIC’s permission before its release. The limitations on the release of factual information (within the party’s organization) obtained from participation in the investigation shall normally end once the fact-finding phase of the investigation is complete. Limitations on parties commenting publicly on possible findings of the investigation, including the probable cause of the accident, will remain in effect until after the Board adopts the final report.

 

[Big_Rig_Stig]

Here is someone in their Tesla on Autopilot trying to recreate the problem at the same divider... Their Tesla is clearly confused on following lanes and almost hits the same barrier LOL

I can see why: the solid white line that's supposed to divide clearly doesn't, as if the road crews forgot to finish painting them, or they've gotten worn off (either way, local road repair department's fault), and the car followed the solid white line that was there, and into the barrier.

Two faults: 1) driver, for not paying the fuck attention (probably sexting on his phone with his little furry friends); 2) road department for not striping the road properly.

Which brings up another question: what happens to Tesla's "autopilot" when it rains? Often, street striping can't be seen thru a layer of water.

 

[Big_Rig_Stig]

That actually isn't the same. That gore point is missing a lane marking but still has chevrons which the cars should pick up sooner. The crash in mountain view's Gore point has no stripes or chevrons just lane markers, so in terms of confusing a robot it's more understandable. It's also the site of quite a few crashes because it's a poorly designed off ramp
If you're wondering what the gore point looks like in that model x crash
https://www.google.com/maps/@37.410...4!1sNrCppnEbkIT7JYlxtujW1Q!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Tesla calls it autopilot because that's their goal, autonomous vehicles.

Actually it's worse: the chevron are almost gone, much like about half the striping on either side of the gore point in the link you provided.

 

[Big_Rig_Stig]

Looks pretty easy to a human.

Despite the idiocy of many humans, the brain is still the bestest, fastest computer around.