Official Tesla Model S thread

[DaveEV]

An important distinction needs to be made regarding autopilot. AP is a driver's assistant tool. It augments an aware driver. It is not to be used un-supervised.

It is not fully autonomous as many people fail to recognize though it can do that for limited amounts of time in certain conditions.

Used properly (actively monitored on on separated freeways), it does what it's designed to do. Yes there are plenty of scenarios which it does not handle and that is when the driver takes over.

 

[lorenfb]

An important distinction needs to be made regarding autopilot. AP is a driver's assistant tool. It augments an aware driver. It is not to be used un-supervised.

That's not how the implied marketing promo has been, especially how some owners, i.e. the unfortunate ones,
have interpreted the function of the system. Furthermore, the term "autopilot" should not be used, as it implies
total driver-less control of the vehicle. A more appropriate term should be used, e.g. driver assisted accident
avoidance (DAAA). Obviously that wouldn't have the marketing appeal (hype) Elon likes, right?

 

[lorenfb]

Another autopilot problem?

http://seekingalpha.com/article/401...38e7140251e00792fcce18fc754d58f&uprof=44&dr=1

 

[TonyWilliams]

... the term "autopilot" should not be used, as it implies
total driver-less control of the vehicle. A more appropriate term should be used, e.g. driver assisted accident
avoidance (DAAA). Obviously that wouldn't have the marketing appeal (hype) Elon likes, right?

Like all those airplanes that have "pilot-less" autopilot.

 

[GRA]

... the term "autopilot" should not be used, as it implies
total driver-less control of the vehicle. A more appropriate term should be used, e.g. driver assisted accident
avoidance (DAAA). Obviously that wouldn't have the marketing appeal (hype) Elon likes, right?

Like all those airplanes that have "pilot-less" autopilot.

Tony, are you suggesting that the level of training required to get a PPL (let alone an instrument, Commercial or ATP) is the same as that for a driver's license in this country, or that the operating environment on the road isn't far more demanding than is the case in the air? A/C autopilots can and do fly a/c for hours safely without human assistance, including some cases where the crew/pax had all died from hypoxia following depressurization earlier (e.g. Payne Stewart's death; Helios 522: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helios_Airways_Flight_522 MH370 is also a possibiity).

You're a pilot and ex-controller; I have a friend who was also a controller at Oak Center (and knew you), and he has described to me a FAM flight he took where he was riding in the jump seat, fell asleep and when he woke up, realized that both the pilots had also fallen asleep - the a/c had continued on as normal for an hour or more. Holding a straight course, a radial or even a flight plan (as was the case with Helios 522) where a/c are all being monitored constantly by secondary radar with a bubble (5 mile? I forget) around the a/c is a lot easier than following a road while dealing with traffic, construction, debris, and all the other 'friction' present on the ground, and with no outside agency doing real-time monitoring for safety.

 

[TonyWilliams]

I'm a little unique in that not only was I an air traffic controller (ATC), I was also certified in all options of ATC; enroute center, approach control, and tower. I also hold an Airline Transport Pilot (ATP) license in three countries on three different continents.

So, automation at the highest level of safety is something I'm familiar and comfortable with. There isn't much training required to operate the Tesla system, although there certainly may be some required of some people. That is a short coming, but sadly, consumer items just aren't sold that way. The only real training is the prima facia rule... pay attention!!!

I'm confident that everybody who's ever flown a transport category aircraft has fallen asleep at one time or another, including myself. The same is true of the Tesla... people have and will continue to nap while the car does its thing. Yes, the planes are fully capable of doing everything, including landing. Tesla obviously is an autopilot for the freeway. I personally think it should be disabled for non-divided highway's or highways that have stop signs, etc.

I probably have 10 to 15,000 miles using autopilot in the Tesla. Like an airplane, I call it 99% boredom, 1% sheer terror.

But getting back to the comments above, calling the Tesla autopilot something else doesn't change a damn thing, and quite frankly is silly.

 

[lorenfb]

I'm confident that everybody who's ever flown a transport category aircraft has fallen asleep at one time or another, including myself. The same is true of the Tesla... people have and will continue to nap while the car does its thing

Real encouraging for road safety, right? Also, using an aircraft's autopilot and its flight environment for a
comparative viewpoint to a ground based automotive autopilot system with its hazards is a non sequitur.

Have you conveniently overlooked this about Tesla's autopilot?

Another autopilot problem?

http://seekingalpha.com/article/4011676-tesla-even-questions-raised-autopilot?source=email_rt_article_readmore&auth_param=1adagi:1bvskh1:238e7140251e00792fcce18fc754d58f&uprof=44&dr=1

 

[GRA]

So, automation at the highest level of safety is something I'm familiar and comfortable with. There isn't much training required to operate the Tesla system, although there certainly may be some required of some people. That is a short coming, but sadly, consumer items just aren't sold that way. The only real training is the prima facia rule... pay attention!!! [snip]

But getting back to the comments above, calling the Tesla autopilot something else doesn't change a damn thing, and quite frankly is silly

Unfortunately, words do drive perceptions (just ask any political spin doctor - why do you think we have terms like 'undocumented immigrants', 'pro-life' or 'pro-choice'?), especially with the general public who haven't received any specialized training that clues them in to the limitations of a system. And as you're undoubtedly aware, even trained pilots who should be far more knowledgeable about those limitations have made mistakes using such systems that have had lethal consequences. Expecting the general public to make fine distinctions about capabilities while lacking any required training is a leap of faith unsupported by all the historical evidence. Just as most people don't bother to read the fine print (did you read it all when you signed up as a member here?), most people aren't going to explore the capabilities and limitations of Tesla's autopilot; for that matter, they're unlikely to have the opportunity to explore the most difficult situations until they actually happen, unlike pilots who can at least do a lot of that in a sim.

I recall another pilot acquaintance of mine (Northwest) describing either a re-currency or maybe it was an upgrade (from a Boeing to an Airbus IIRR) check flight in a sim, where the sim operator threw just about everything at them. IIRR, during a cat. 3 approach in strong gusty cross-winds the operator set one engine afire, which they shut down. Not content with that, he set the other one on fire as well, and they had to re-start the first before shutting that one down; ISTR there were also some control and comm issues, but they got the thing safely on the ground, although he said the cleaning crew probably needed a bucket and mop to deal with all the sweat on the floor. Maybe that's what's needed, a Tesla autopilot sim, with qualification on that before you can use various features in the real world. In the meantime, major restrictions on when/where it can be used are needed, at least until it has the capability (Level 3 or higher) to be safely called an autopilot.

 

[lorenfb]

But getting back to the comments above, calling the Tesla autopilot something else doesn't change a damn thing, and quite frankly is silly.

Really? And what does Germany think about your view?

http://arstechnica.com/cars/2016/10/tesla-must-not-use-the-term-autopilot-germany-says/

 

[TonyWilliams]

But getting back to the comments above, calling the Tesla autopilot something else doesn't change a damn thing, and quite frankly is silly.

Really? And what does Germany think about your view?

http://arstechnica.com/cars/2016/10/tesla-must-not-use-the-term-autopilot-germany-says/

I'm not too concerned what "Germany" thinks, when I quite comfident that this is at least partly protectionist oriented.

You'll note that the Tesla Model S is eating German auto maker's lunch with high profit margin cars. The same German government who tried their best to outlaw CHAdeMO in Europe. That fought to cripple Tesla in Germany.

Yes, that Germany.

 

[TonyWilliams]

I'm confident that everybody who's ever flown a transport category aircraft has fallen asleep at one time or another, including myself. The same is true of the Tesla... people have and will continue to nap while the car does its thing

Real encouraging for road safety, right? Also, using an aircraft's autopilot and its flight environment for a
comparative viewpoint to a ground based automotive autopilot system with its hazards is a non sequitur.

Have you conveniently overlooked this about Tesla's autopilot?

It's a human factors issue. These type of issues will exist as long as human exist. We can mitigate those issue in many ways, and it appears that some of you think renaming the Tesla Autopilot to some incomprehensible acronym is the answer.

Ok.

Another autopilot problem?

http://seekingalpha.com/article/4011676-tesla-even-questions-raised-autopilot?source=email_rt_article_readmore&auth_param=1adagi:1bvskh1:238e7140251e00792fcce18fc754d58f&uprof=44&dr=1

[/quote]

I don't think autopilot should work on divided highways.

 

[TonyWilliams]

So, automation at the highest level of safety is something I'm familiar and comfortable with. There isn't much training required to operate the Tesla system, although there certainly may be some required of some people. That is a short coming, but sadly, consumer items just aren't sold that way. The only real training is the prima facia rule... pay attention!!! [snip]

But getting back to the comments above, calling the Tesla autopilot something else doesn't change a damn thing, and quite frankly is silly

Unfortunately, words do drive perceptions (just ask any political spin doctor - why do you think we have terms like 'undocumented immigrants', 'pro-life' or 'pro-choice'?), especially with the general public who haven't received any specialized training that clues them in to the limitations of a system.

Listen, I think it's dumb, and I'm sure I could find lots of others who think it's dumb, too. I see no REAL safety issue with the name. Perceived issues, sure.

And as you're undoubtedly aware, even trained pilots who should be far more knowledgeable about those limitations have made mistakes using such systems that have had lethal consequences. Expecting the general public to make fine distinctions about capabilities while lacking any required training is a leap of faith unsupported by all the historical evidence. Just as most people don't bother to read the fine print (did you read it all when you signed up as a member here?), most people aren't going to explore the capabilities and limitations of Tesla's autopilot; for that matter, they're unlikely to have the opportunity to explore the most difficult situations until they actually happen, unlike pilots who can at least do a lot of that in a sim.

I disagree that folks won't both explore and learn the limitations of the equipment. Should it be conducted in a sim? Obviously, I'm not opposed to that. Do I think the government should mandate some crazy type rating course with licenses and endorsements, and six month simulator recurrent? No.

I recall another pilot acquaintance of mine (Northwest) describing either a re-currency or maybe it was an upgrade (from a Boeing to an Airbus IIRR) check flight in a sim, where the sim operator threw just about everything at them. IIRR, during a cat. 3 approach in strong gusty cross-winds the operator set one engine afire, which they shut down. Not content with that, he set the other one on fire as well, and they had to re-start the first before shutting that one down; ISTR there were also some control and comm issues, but they got the thing safely on the ground, although he said the cleaning crew probably needed a bucket and mop to deal with all the sweat on the floor. Maybe that's what's needed, a Tesla autopilot sim, with qualification on that before you can use various features in the real world. In the meantime, major restrictions on when/where it can be used are needed, at least until it has the capability (Level 3 or higher) to be safely called an autopilot.

Every professional pilot has had that type of session (we did it in ATC, too). It's mostly for fun, after you've already met the training threshold.

Everybody did Captain Sully's dual engine failure off LaGuardia shortly after that happened. I think I did a dual engine fire into Aspen (no likely go-around with mountains) on my last sim... after the official checkride was done. I've also done aileron rolls, cuban eights, hamerheads, etc. What does that prove?

I've also done Cat II certification, which is a real checkout. Nothing like that is remotely required for a car.

1) I would have a internet based optional training program

2) I would disable the autopilot on non-divided roads

3) I would adopt the "eyeball open" technology that companies like Mercedes use (the B-Class ED has this)

4) I would disable autopilot in limited visibility

5) I'm sure there are other limitations I would use

 

[GRA]

So, automation at the highest level of safety is something I'm familiar and comfortable with. There isn't much training required to operate the Tesla system, although there certainly may be some required of some people. That is a short coming, but sadly, consumer items just aren't sold that way. The only real training is the prima facia rule... pay attention!!! [snip]

But getting back to the comments above, calling the Tesla autopilot something else doesn't change a damn thing, and quite frankly is silly

Unfortunately, words do drive perceptions (just ask any political spin doctor - why do you think we have terms like 'undocumented immigrants', 'pro-life' or 'pro-choice'?), especially with the general public who haven't received any specialized training that clues them in to the limitations of a system.

Listen, I think it's dumb, and I'm sure I could find lots of others who think it's dumb, too. I see no REAL safety issue with the name. Perceived issues, sure.

And as you're undoubtedly aware, even trained pilots who should be far more knowledgeable about those limitations have made mistakes using such systems that have had lethal consequences. Expecting the general public to make fine distinctions about capabilities while lacking any required training is a leap of faith unsupported by all the historical evidence. Just as most people don't bother to read the fine print (did you read it all when you signed up as a member here?), most people aren't going to explore the capabilities and limitations of Tesla's autopilot; for that matter, they're unlikely to have the opportunity to explore the most difficult situations until they actually happen, unlike pilots who can at least do a lot of that in a sim.

I disagree that folks won't both explore and learn the limitations of the equipment. Should it be conducted in a sim? Obviously, I'm not opposed to that. Do I think the government should mandate some crazy type rating course with licenses and endorsements, and six month simulator recurrent? No.

Some will do so, sure, but most? Nah.

I recall another pilot acquaintance of mine (Northwest) describing either a re-currency or maybe it was an upgrade (from a Boeing to an Airbus IIRR) check flight in a sim, where the sim operator threw just about everything at them. IIRR, during a cat. 3 approach in strong gusty cross-winds the operator set one engine afire, which they shut down. Not content with that, he set the other one on fire as well, and they had to re-start the first before shutting that one down; ISTR there were also some control and comm issues, but they got the thing safely on the ground, although he said the cleaning crew probably needed a bucket and mop to deal with all the sweat on the floor. Maybe that's what's needed, a Tesla autopilot sim, with qualification on that before you can use various features in the real world. In the meantime, major restrictions on when/where it can be used are needed, at least until it has the capability (Level 3 or higher) to be safely called an autopilot.

Every professional pilot has had that type of session (we did it in ATC, too). It's mostly for fun, after you've already met the training threshold.

Everybody did Captain Sully's dual engine failure off LaGuardia shortly after that happened. I think I did a dual engine fire into Aspen (no likely go-around with mountains) on my last sim... after the official checkride was done. I've also done aileron rolls, cuban eights, hamerheads, etc. What does that prove?

I've also done Cat II certification, which is a real checkout. Nothing like that is remotely required for a car.

1) I would have a internet based optional training program

2) I would disable the autopilot on non-divided roads

3) I would adopt the "eyeball open" technology that companies like Mercedes use (the B-Class ED has this)

4) I would disable autopilot in limited visibility

5) I'm sure there are other limitations I would use

It seems we agree more than disagree, that with its current capability, Tesla's Autopilot (however named) needs to be limited in when/where it can be used, to only the easiest situations. In addition to the above points you list, for limited visibility I'd specifically include daylight-only until far more data is acquired, and no exceeding the speed limit (5 miles over is better than nothing). I also assume that when you say 'non-divided roads', you mean 'limited access, divided roads with no at-grade cross traffic', i.e. freeways. After all, Joshua Brown's death was on a divided but not limited access road with at-grade cross-traffic.

I'd also require a much shorter period of hands-off the wheel before the warnings start, no more than 3-5 seconds. Every study I'm aware of has shown that there's a prolonged period (30 seconds or more) of mental re-orientation required upon retaking controls after a period doing something else (mental cycles), and the ability to respond to surprise situations is severely compromised until that period is over. Unexpected road situations tend to develop more frequently than is the case in the air, generally with less time to respond correctly.

 

[lorenfb]

1) I would have a internet based optional training program

2) I would disable the autopilot on non-divided roads

3) I would adopt the "eyeball open" technology that companies like Mercedes use (the B-Class ED has this)

4) I would disable autopilot in limited visibility

5) I'm sure there are other limitations I would use

Unfortunately, given Elon's ego, those views won't be shared by Tesla.

 

[smkettner]

I do not think Germany is picking on Tesla but rather the Germans seem to have very narrow view with truth in advertising.
Autopilot implies a product that does not exist. Nothing more.

 

[Firetruck41]

I wonder if these were the water cooler (pre-internet) discussions when cruise control debuted... "cruise control" sounds like like the car takes control of itself! :roll:

 

[TonyWilliams]

I wonder if these were the water cooler (pre-internet) discussions when cruise control debuted... "cruise control" sounds like like the car takes control of itself! :roll:

Ya, it does sound that dumb to me.

 

[GRA]

In my case, I've recently begun to have doubts about whether I'd want adaptive cruise control on a car at this time, because unlike regular cruise control, ACC is capable of lulling me into trusting it by working almost all the time. With regular CC, if I stop paying attention there's no doubt whatsoever I'll hit anything I overtake, and I need to remain ready to reduce the set speed/brake/disengage CC/change lanes, so I remain fully alert in judging speeds and closure rates, checking for traffic to either side if I'll need to pass, etc. All I've done by using it is move the control of speed from my right foot to my right hand, but my brain is still fully engaged and responsible for driving the car. Of course, it's possible for someone to use CC and let their attention wander, but most people have enough sense to realize that they're still fully in charge of the car. For the rest, we'll never fully eliminate human-caused accidents as long as we're allowed to control vehicles directly, but we can certainly limit their number and severity by strictly limiting when/where we allow humans that level of control (once the machines can do the job more safely, that is).

Once ACC and auto-steer reach a level of maturity that I'm comfortable with, which will take around 8 or 9 nines reliability, it would be a different matter.

 

[Firetruck41]

In my case, I've recently begun to have doubts about whether I'd want adaptive cruise control on a car at this time, because unlike regular cruise control, ACC is capable of lulling me into trusting it by working almost all the time. With regular CC, if I stop paying attention there's no doubt whatsoever I'll hit anything I overtake, and I need to remain ready to reduce the set speed/brake/disengage CC/change lanes, so I remain fully alert in judging speeds and closure rates, checking for traffic to either side if I'll need to pass, etc. All I've done by using it is move the control of speed from my right foot to my right hand, but my brain is still fully engaged and responsible for driving the car. Of course, it's possible for someone to use CC and let their attention wander, but most people have enough sense to realize that they're still fully in charge of the car. For the rest, we'll never fully eliminate human-caused accidents as long as we're allowed to control vehicles directly, but we can certainly limit their number and severity by strictly limiting when/where we allow humans that level of control (once the machines can do the job more safely, that is).

Once ACC and auto-steer reach a level of maturity that I'm comfortable with, which will take around 8 or 9 nines reliability, it would be a different matter.

I'm sure others feel the same way, though it makes no logical sense. Many are colored by their anti-Tesla bias, others, maybe fear of the unknown? Basically you are saying you are comfortable using CC and you make a choice to pay attention to your surroundings, but that with "auto-pilot" you would choose to ignore your surroundings. Why wouldn't you just choose to continue to observe your surroundings? I could see not turning it on if you were drowsy, same as one should do with CC.

 

[lorenfb]

In my case, I've recently begun to have doubts about whether I'd want adaptive cruise control on a car at this time, because unlike regular cruise control, ACC is capable of lulling me into trusting it by working almost all the time. With regular CC, if I stop paying attention there's no doubt whatsoever I'll hit anything I overtake, and I need to remain ready to reduce the set speed/brake/disengage CC/change lanes, so I remain fully alert in judging speeds and closure rates, checking for traffic to either side if I'll need to pass, etc. All I've done by using it is move the control of speed from my right foot to my right hand, but my brain is still fully engaged and responsible for driving the car. Of course, it's possible for someone to use CC and let their attention wander, but most people have enough sense to realize that they're still fully in charge of the car. For the rest, we'll never fully eliminate human-caused accidents as long as we're allowed to control vehicles directly, but we can certainly limit their number and severity by strictly limiting when/where we allow humans that level of control (once the machines can do the job more safely, that is).

Once ACC and auto-steer reach a level of maturity that I'm comfortable with, which will take around 8 or 9 nines reliability, it would be a different matter.

I'm sure others feel the same way, though it makes no logical sense. Many are colored by their anti-Tesla bias, others, maybe fear of the unknown? Basically you are saying you are comfortable using CC and you make a choice to pay attention to your surroundings, but that with "auto-pilot" you would choose to ignore your surroundings. Why wouldn't you just choose to continue to observe your surroundings? I could see not turning it on if you were drowsy, same as one should do with CC.

It amounts to what's implicit in the term "autopilot", verses CC. With CC the driver knows with certainty all the
limitations associated with using CC, i.e. a rear end collision requiring constant attention. Whereas, one typically
lacks the knowledge of the actual system limitations when using "autopilot", and is lulled into an unwarranted
sense of overall safety and security leading to a negligent and unsafe use of the system.