Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Brando

Active Member
Sep 27, 2016
3,006
2,244
Bainbridge Island, WA
Seriously, ~8 years ago and we still have foot dragging going on ??
So sad to read this from the Executive Summary of this report
https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/AAR1801.pdf

The NTSB has a long history of investigating accidents (including three other accident investigations within the last 2 years) in which communication between flight and cabin crews during an evacuation was inadequate and issuing related safety recommendations in response. However, the FAA has not yet acted on a 2009 safety recommendation to revise related guidance (issued in 1988) to reflect the most recent industry knowledge on the subject based on research and lessons learned from relevant accidents and incidents. In addition, the FAA has not yet established a multidisciplinary working group, in response to a 2016 recommendation, to develop best practices to resolve recurring evacuation-related issues. It is time for the FAA to emphasize the importance of ensuring that flight and cabin crew communications can facilitate safe and effective decision-making and action during emergency situations.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Tam

Brando

Active Member
Sep 27, 2016
3,006
2,244
Bainbridge Island, WA
Just in case you missed this update which happened today, see OP at start of this thread.
Update: 5:30 p.m. ET] Further advancing the public feud, Tesla sent Thursday an updated statement to CNBC saying they left the investigation on Tuesday and plan to complain to Congress.

“It’s been clear in our conversations with the NTSB that they’re more concerned with press headlines than actually promoting safety, the Tesla statement to CNBC said. “Among other things, they repeatedly released partial bits of incomplete information to the media in violation of their own rules, at the same time that they were trying to prevent us from telling all the facts. We don’t believe this is right and we will be making an official complaint to Congress.”
 

Ticobird

Lovin the Tesla Life
Oct 30, 2014
378
251
Hazel Green, AL
I am afraid and worried that this spat is not going to end well for one party, and that wont be NTSB.

NTSB can recommend that Tesla shut off AP until it reaches Level 3, and if NHTSA follows thru on that, it will be a major hit for Tesla.
How would it be a major hit on Tesla? The NTSB is an advisory agency. Here is an excerpt from their https://www.ntsb.gov/about/pages/default.aspx website.

"The National Transportation Safety Board is an independent Federal agency charged by Congress with investigating every civil aviation accident in the United States and significant accidents in other modes of transportation – railroad, highway, marine and pipeline. The NTSB determines the probable cause of the accidents and issues safety recommendations aimed at preventing future accidents. In addition, the NTSB carries out special studies concerning transportation safety and coordinates the resources of the Federal Government and other organizations to provide assistance to victims and their family members impacted by major transportation disasters."

I would like to emphasize the final part of the last sentence - "to provide assistance to victims and their family members impacted by major transportation disasters."

This claim of the NTSB Mission describes a wrong that produces victim(s). It is also a potentially wide ranging assignment to address a much larger transportation safety space that includes future victims of similar circumstances which is the one reason their investigations move so slow.

In my opinion the NTSB is moving into safety territory they are ill equipped to handle. The NTSB has for decades investigated major transportation accidents caused by either transportation equipment failure or transportation employee failure. I repeat the NTSB is ill equipped to diagnose the reason(s) for a non professional persons failure to properly use transportation assisting technology such as the Tesla Autopilot system.
 

SMAlset

Well-Known Member
Mar 4, 2017
9,204
10,071
SF Bay Area
"CBS This Morning" aired Gayle King's last segment of her interview with Elon (earlier this morning that segment was a tour of the Model 3 production line). They briefly talked about the NTSB report and he takes her for a ride in a Model 3. Not to double post, you can find the video here in the Model 3 forum area.
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
Reactions: Tam
Mar 1, 2015
253
393
Melbourne
Typical Tesla acting like a petulant child when they don't get everything their way.

In previous incidents Tesla couldn't wait to get the news out there that Autopilot was not active - "not our fault, so sorry for your loss, nothing to see here".

For this one, it took them a few days to get their narrative out there. It must have taken them quite a while to figure out how to spin the narrative to try and deflect attention away from the fact that AP was on in this accident and to try and lump the blame on everyone else.

This will not end well for Tesla.
 

jelloslug

Active Member
Jul 21, 2015
4,728
6,405
Greenville, SC
Typical Tesla acting like a petulant child when they don't get everything their way.

In previous incidents Tesla couldn't wait to get the news out there that Autopilot was not active - "not our fault, so sorry for your loss, nothing to see here".

For this one, it took them a few days to get their narrative out there. It must have taken them quite a while to figure out how to spin the narrative to try and deflect attention away from the fact that AP was on in this accident and to try and lump the blame on everyone else.

This will not end well for Tesla.
Why is Tesla not allowed to defend themselves?
 

mongo

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2017
13,486
42,178
Michigan
Typical Tesla acting like a petulant child when they don't get everything their way.

In previous incidents Tesla couldn't wait to get the news out there that Autopilot was not active - "not our fault, so sorry for your loss, nothing to see here".

For this one, it took them a few days to get their narrative out there. It must have taken them quite a while to figure out how to spin the narrative to try and deflect attention away from the fact that AP was on in this accident and to try and lump the blame on everyone else.

This will not end well for Tesla.

Disagree, Tesla released the fact that AP was active very soon after the crash. They could have use the NTSB party agreement as a reason to not release anything.
 
Mar 1, 2015
253
393
Melbourne
Tesla released the fact that AP was active very soon after the crash. They could have use the NTSB party agreement as a reason to not release anything.

1. It took them MUCH, MUCH longer to release this information than they do when Autopilot is off (AP off = we know within hours. This one took them days whilst they worked out their spin).

2. Tesla getting the fact that AP was ON out there is in Tesla's best interest as they can spin the narrative.
Tesla worked exceptionally hard to blame the driver for this accident in their press releases. "AP was on, but the driver was a bad driver"
If the NTSB released something, it would have been purely factual "AP was on". That would be bad for Tesla.
 
  • Funny
Reactions: bhzmark

SMAlset

Well-Known Member
Mar 4, 2017
9,204
10,071
SF Bay Area
Typical Tesla acting like a petulant child when they don't get everything their way.

In previous incidents Tesla couldn't wait to get the news out there that Autopilot was not active - "not our fault, so sorry for your loss, nothing to see here".

For this one, it took them a few days to get their narrative out there. It must have taken them quite a while to figure out how to spin the narrative to try and deflect attention away from the fact that AP was on in this accident and to try and lump the blame on everyone else.

This will not end well for Tesla.

Don't agree with your assessment and don't think he was in any way acting like a child. He believes in the car and the technology. I also don't see anything wrong with eliminating or including the use of AP as a fact of any accident early on. If people are going to speculate for themselves I find it better to do so with grounded facts.

Let's face it if you were following the accident thread since time of the accident you'd know we all spotted the line markings, crash barrier issues within the first day or two. Everyone wanted to know if AP was turned on. I'm sure Tesla could say more about the specifics from the data standpoint but am sure what few things they reported are in evidence from the data and it's hard for anyone to understand how an attentive driver could not have seen the barrier fast approaching and done something to avoid it. From a safety standpoint, I think some AP drivers who haven't taken the AP cautions and warnings as seriously as they should and have been more casual about it's use saw why they should be more attentive. The driver went past that spot daily to work and it didn't always react that way. Whatever caused the car to take that path that day (AP or driver's situation) we may not know but we do know it's not a full proof system and it does most definitely need the driver's input at all times still.

Yes, we all want to know more and eventually will get it. Tesla isn't the first company to be out of an NTSB investigation and doubt they will be the last. As drivers of Teslas we all have an immediate interest in what transpired.
 
Last edited:

chillaban

Active Member
May 5, 2016
3,723
6,597
Bay Area
1. It took them MUCH, MUCH longer to release this information than they do when Autopilot is off (AP off = we know within hours. This one took them days whilst they worked out their spin).

By work out their spin, you mean recover the APE module from a badly crash damaged car, as opposed to the accidents where the car and its logs is still remotely accessible?
 

mongo

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2017
13,486
42,178
Michigan
1. It took them MUCH, MUCH longer to release this information than they do when Autopilot is off (AP off = we know within hours. This one took them days whilst they worked out their spin).

2. Tesla getting the fact that AP was ON out there is in Tesla's best interest as they can spin the narrative.
Tesla worked exceptionally hard to blame the driver for this accident in their press releases. "AP was on, but the driver was a bad driver"
If the NTSB released something, it would have been purely factual "AP was on". That would be bad for Tesla.

1) No other crash resulted in the MCU being physically separated form the car. Others still had the ability to be connected to remotely (or at least more easily locally). The investigation also takes longer if AP is on due to looking at the AP data. An AP off case stops at the off. Total time was less than one week from crash to data.

2. What spin is there (better discussion for the101 cash thread)? All the documentation warns that AP doesn't replace driver responsibility.
 

chillaban

Active Member
May 5, 2016
3,723
6,597
Bay Area
2. What spin is there (better discussion for the101 cash thread)? All the documentation warns that AP doesn't replace driver responsibility.

Exactly. The logic was:
(1) Autopilot requires an attentive driver
(2) Attentive drivers do not drive 67mph into a barricade hundreds of feet in front of them in broad daylight without taking evasive action.

If that's a spin, I don't think you're gonna like reading the "spins" in just about every NTSB report.
 

Az_Rael

Supporting Member
Supporting Member
Jan 26, 2016
5,653
8,941
Palmdale, CA
An AP off case stops at the off.

I always wonder what the timeframes is for "off" in an "AP off" case. Was the AP off because a half second before impact the driver hit the brakes? So if Josh Brown had looked up and hit the brakes, but too late and was still killed, would that case become a non-AP related accident? I wonder if we still would have ended up with the nag changes if that was how that had gone down.
 

chillaban

Active Member
May 5, 2016
3,723
6,597
Bay Area
I always wonder what the timeframes is for "off" in an "AP off" case. Was the AP off because a half second before impact the driver hit the brakes? So if Josh Brown had looked up and hit the brakes, but too late and was still killed, would that case become a non-AP related accident? I wonder if we still would have ended up with the nag changes if that was how that had gone down.

We actually did end up with nag changes because of that. "Mr. Ping" in Montana : [Updated] Tesla Model X crash in Montana blamed on Autopilot, again

He recently disengaged AP and didn't realize it was off, and then just willingly let his car plow into a bunch of wooden stakes when it departed the road. As a result of that, we now have that annoying "TAKE OVER IMMEDIATELY VEHICLE DEPARTING LANE" alert when you disengage AP and then slowly try to make a lane change.

If common sense has to be encoded in warnings, before long these cars are gonna turn into Airbuses with a fault management computer and thousands of alerts.
 

mongo

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2017
13,486
42,178
Michigan
I always wonder what the timeframes is for "off" in an "AP off" case. Was the AP off because a half second before impact the driver hit the brakes? So if Josh Brown had looked up and hit the brakes, but too late and was still killed, would that case become a non-AP related accident? I wonder if we still would have ended up with the nag changes if that was how that had gone down.

That is an interesting question. I would hope Tesla would mention the AP state prior to recorded intervention/ disengagement (time limited of course). In the firetruck crash, Tesla did not deny the driver's assertion that AP was on before he hit the brakes, but I also do not see if they validated the driver's statement.
 

Az_Rael

Supporting Member
Supporting Member
Jan 26, 2016
5,653
8,941
Palmdale, CA
. As a result of that, we now have that annoying "TAKE OVER IMMEDIATELY VEHICLE DEPARTING LANE" alert when you disengage AP and then slowly try to make a lane change.

Interesting. I haven't encountered that warning so I didn't know it was there. (I always use my blinkers though, so maybe that is why I haven't seen it before)
 

Az_Rael

Supporting Member
Supporting Member
Jan 26, 2016
5,653
8,941
Palmdale, CA
That is an interesting question. I would hope Tesla would mention the AP state prior to recorded intervention/ disengagement (time limited of course). In the firetruck crash, Tesla did not deny the driver's assertion that AP was on before he hit the brakes, but I also do not see if they validated the driver's statement.

Well, considering the NTSB is investigating that crash, Tesla may be complying with the rules about non-disclosure. No safety issues there for us to be aware of I am sure or they would have broken the agreement in the name of public safety... :rolleyes:
 

mongo

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2017
13,486
42,178
Michigan
Well, considering the NTSB is investigating that crash, Tesla may be complying with the rules about non-disclosure. No safety issues there for us to be aware of I am sure or they would have broken the agreement in the name of public safety... :rolleyes:

So we'll have an answer to what they say about AP in 12 month maybe 24 months definitely ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Az_Rael

Products we're discussing on TMC...

About Us

Formed in 2006, Tesla Motors Club (TMC) was the first independent online Tesla community. Today it remains the largest and most dynamic community of Tesla enthusiasts. Learn more.

Do you value your experience at TMC? Consider becoming a Supporting Member of Tesla Motors Club. As a thank you for your contribution, you'll get nearly no ads in the Community and Groups sections. Additional perks are available depending on the level of contribution. Please visit the Account Upgrades page for more details.


SUPPORT TMC