SW version 2021.4.12 - hopeless (in Aus at least)

[Flatbat]

In an airplane, every takeoff is flown manually, there simply are no autopilots that handle takeoffs today.

Airbus have a takeoff AP under development. Like Tesla, it is vision rather than radar based which I find interesting.

Not because it couldn't be done, but because it's the single most critical phase of flight,

Landing is the most dangerous phase of flight accounting for nearly three times as many accidents as take off. Critical vs Dangerous?

and the delay between taking manual control and already being in manual control is too long when having to abort a takeoff.

As I understand it, the real reason aircraft do not use AP for takeoff, is the difficulty in automating the stop/go decision itself. Way too many variables! Easy to sense if an engine fails or tire bursts. Detecting or recognising an obstacle on runway, birdstike, crew incapacitation or if a part of the aircraft has just fallen off, not so simple.

The earliest any airline will allow you to switch on the autopilot is passing 400ft above ground after takeoff.

Try 200ft that I know of and possibly even lower.

But many pilots will choose to fly manually until clear of terminal areas - at least the vertical/lateral AP modes don't usually come on until about 10 minutes or so after takeoff. Why? Because there's often a lot of traffic in terminal areas, and quick reaction time is often needed to avoid jerking your machine around, and you want to keep it smooth for all involved.

Sorry thats BS. It's so they can have a fly.

When I drive my Tesla, I do the same thing. I drive manually until I'm on a major road, then AP+AS is taking over, and I put myself in the mindset of *managing* the drive, no longer *driving* it.

But what does that mean? It's simple: It means you sit there, and you supervise the autopilot. You make sure it performs within specs, and you keep your eyes out for situations that might get it in trouble (as opposed to seeking those conditions and then complaining it almost killed you).

Yes I agree with your underlying philosophy though. Treating Tesla AP analogous to an aircraft AP serves one well.

 

[Flatbat]

I'd say it would be the driver behind's fault for not leaving an adequate following distance.

It might be the Tesla reacting to an obstacle that's not there, but it equally could be the driver reacting to a real obstacle - like a tree branch on the road or something.

Yes I agree. I would have thought you should always adequate follow distance. The person in front slamming on their brakes and I did not have time to stop does not cut it.

 

[Nuclear Fusion]

I'd say it would be the driver behind's fault for not leaving an adequate following distance.

It might be the Tesla reacting to an obstacle that's not there, but it equally could be the driver reacting to a real obstacle - like a tree branch on the road or something.

There was a case overseas several years ago where a driver braked for a dog (I would do exactly the same thing & make no apologies for it), the driver from behind crashed into & the front driver was liable because it wasn’t a justified braking event.
Not sure what the legalities are in Australia, but phantom braking would be even less of a legitimate braking event, even though the rear driver should keep a safe distance
Does TACC (not autopilot) phantom brake?
Also I wonder if TACC accounts for a fully laden car, in the wet, with a follow distance of 1

 

[ZeeDoktor]

Airbus have a takeoff AP under development. Like Tesla, it is vision rather than radar based which I find interesting.
Landing is the most dangerous phase of flight accounting for nearly three times as many accidents as take off. Critical vs Dangerous?

That is correct. But a long way off from getting regulatory approval for all the reasons you have mentioned as to why takeoff is the most critical phase of flight. Airbus have demonstrated gate to gate on Autopilot in the early 2000s if memory serves right.

Try 200ft that I know of and possibly even lower.

In my history with two majors, both of their SOPs imposed a 400ft AP engage limit. Never inquired whether that's a technical limit or arbitrary - my background is with SF34, SB20, and B744. Would be interested to know who does 200ft? Not that it matters a whole lot though, just out of interest.

Sorry thats BS. It's so they can have a fly.

True, hand flying skills have deteriorated massively as evidenced by 2 out of the last 3 major crashes, so any opportunity to hand fly more than straight and level is taken. But BS it is not, perhaps personal preference? To me it feels much smoother to hand fly than to rush for the heading knob / VS wheel. Maybe your experience is different.

Yes I agree with your underlying philosophy though. Treating Tesla AP analogous to an aircraft AP serves one well.

It's all about understanding the limitations of the automation one uses, and then using it to the maximum extent to reduce your workload. Simples really.

 

[paulp]

Airbus have a takeoff AP under development. Like Tesla, it is vision rather than radar based which I find interesting.

Landing is the most dangerous phase of flight accounting for nearly three times as many accidents as take off. Critical vs Dangerous?

As I understand it, the real reason aircraft do not use AP for takeoff, is the difficulty in automating the stop/go decision itself. Way too many variables! Easy to sense if an engine fails or tire bursts. Detecting or recognising an obstacle on runway, birdstike, crew incapacitation or if a part of the aircraft has just fallen off, not so simple.

Try 200ft that I know of and possibly even lower.

Sorry thats BS. It's so they can have a fly.


Yes I agree with your underlying philosophy though. Treating Tesla AP analogous to an aircraft AP serves one well.

Is this the tesla cars forum or the boeing/airbus forum?

 

[Wol747]

"Driver should be in control of the vehicle at all times"
....

....
....

It's unfortunate that Tesla appear hellbent on forcing FSD on everyone even though it's a long way off, and refuses to spend manpower on improving the "drive management" way of driving by supporting better partial automation.

All very well put.FSD in any meaningful sense is unlikely in our present vehicles: probably level 3 is the limit.

 

[Wol747]

Is this the tesla cars forum or the boeing/airbus forum?

Don't go there. Just don't.....

 

[Flatbat]

Would be interested to know who does 200ft? Not that it matters a whole lot though, just out of interest.

More a case of what, not who. 787.

Don't go there. Just don't.....

I wont

I dont have FSD, I have no beef with Phantom braking or the current firmware. Phantom braking happens occasionally in my 3, but the minor annoyance is far outweighed by the convenience of having AP reducing the workload. I also have one innocuous bend in the road nearby, that AP has never been able to negotiate. No obvious reason. The rest of the 20km stretch it does fine. 27 software updates since my car was new and rounding that bend still throws the AP every time. A Peccadillo. One day when it suddenly starts making that corner, I will know something marked has changed.

 

[Vostok]

Does TACC (not autopilot) phantom brake?

It sure does. Not often, but enough to be disconcerting to me, and enough for my wife to turn TACC off.

 

[paulp]

It sure does. Not often, but enough to be disconcerting to me, and enough for my wife to turn TACC off.

Agree. You just never know when.