[laen]

There are moments a pilot has seconds to react and disengage autopilot.

Example: Traffic Resolution advisories require a 5 second reaction time and 2.5 seconds for any follow-on reactions. This reaction time includes the time to disengage autopilot and also put the aircraft into a climb-or-dive. Studies show that a situationally aware pilot takes at least 2 seconds to start the reaction, and another second to achieve the proper climb/descent. There are other times on e.g. approach, or ground collision warnings with even narrower margins for disengaging autopilot.

Pilots generally know when they need to be hyper-aware with autopilot and so do competent Tesla drivers. If there are issues with the name "autopilot" for Tesla, the same argument needs to be made for aircraft manufacturers.

[JaimeThompson]

> If there are issues with the name "autopilot" for Tesla, the same argument needs to be made for aircraft manufacturers.

If a drivers license required as much training as a pilots license then you might have a point.

[ClumsyPilot]

"Example: Traffic Resolution advisories require a 5 second reaction time"

When the Autopilot swerves into a concrete wall for no reason, you will have 0.5 seconds left to live. Rwacting in the last 0.1 secons bwf9re collision will not save you - you must react in like 200ms.

It is physically impossible to react in time to some autopilot mistakes, stop defending this idiocy.

https://futurism.com/the-byte/tesla-drivers-autopilot-swerve...

[Dylan16807]

The problem is bad enough that it killed someone; you don't need to use exaggerated made-up numbers.

In the example video the car starts turning at 40 seconds and passes the barrier at 47 seconds.

[ClumsyPilot]

Surely you can see how you might have less than a second to react if Autopilot swerves into the oncoming traffik? I can't search all tesla accidents by 'least time to react'

[Dylan16807]

If they actually do that, it could be a problem, but I'm not convinced that's a failure case that we need to worry much about.

[dmitriid]

> If there are issues with the name "autopilot" for Tesla, the same argument needs to be made for aircraft manufacturers.

Pilots require extensive training (an re-training). The must meet certain criteria to even fly certain types of plains. And they have to go through additional training if they have to switch planes (going from Airbus to Boeing for example).

So, if we're making "teh same argument" for Tesla, then Tesla needs all that to call its system an autopilot.

[ummonk]

5 seconds (or the 2 seconds that pilots require) is a lot more time than you’re afforded to take action while driving a Tesla in autopilot. And when driving the Tesla you often won’t get a clear warning signaling that you have to take over and do something - it can fail silently and swerve straight into an obstacle.

[kaba0]

The difference is that you can’t be a pilot with even as little physical impairment as a crooked nose and it takes extensive years to get a license, while every rich 18 years old can sleep behind a tesla’s wheel…

[Someone]

A sailboat autopilot is even simpler. The simplest ones maintain compass direction, but don’t compensate for drift due to water currents or side winds, or for the difference between magnetic and true north.

An IMO important difference with pilots is that pilots are professionals that get trained and periodically retrained on how specific planes and their autopilots work.

Tesla drivers, on the other hand, hear Tesla’s at times optimistic marketing, and may just learn how to switch autopilot on and off without understanding when to use it and when not to use it.