[goosejuice]

In both cases, they are driver assistance. A pilot is responsible and must monitor an autopilot system in a plane. We license drivers and pilots and the responsibility is placed on them to understand the technology before using it and putting themselves and others at risk.

Would Boeing or John Deere be responsible for marketing language or just the instruction manual. We know the latter is true. It's there any evidence of the former? Intuitively I would say it's unlikely we'd blame Boeing if a pilot was mislead by marketing materials. Maybe that has happened but I haven't found anything of that sort (please share if aware).

[jjulius]

The difference is in the sheer amount of training pilots have to go through, and the regulations that they, and their employers, are required to follow. This is tremendously different from a car that throws up a couple of warnings that can be quickly and passively acknowledged prior to your using "autopilot".

[goosejuice]

You can't passively acknowledge it. It requires actively agreeing that you understand prior to use. The dialog in one version makes reference to autopilot in the pilot definition.

Maybe when this accident happened it was different, but as far as I know it's always been behind a confirmation dialog.

To operate a motor vehicle in the US, you must be licensed. That surely holds some weight here.

[slavik81]

While technically an autopilot might sometimes be as simple as maintaining a heading, the actual practical consequence is quite different for a boat or an aircraft than for a car. There is simply not much to crash into when you're in the air or open water. The result is that a much simpler mechanism is required to achieve the same result for the pilot.

When I worked on unmanned vehicles, you could have one operator control multiple speedboats because you typically had minutes to avoid collisions. Splitting attention would not be feasible with a car on cruise control, because you are never more than a few seconds away from crashing into something solid.

[gamblor956]

Would Boeing or John Deere be responsible for marketing language or just the instruction manual. We know the latter is true

Actually, the former is true. Courts and juries have repeatedly held that companies can be held responsible for marketing language. They are also responsible for the contents of their instruction manual. If there are inconsistencies with the marketing language it will be held against the company because users aren't expected to be able to reconcile the inconsistencies; that's the company's job. Thus, it's irrelevant that the small print in the instruction manual says something completely different from what all the marketing (and the CEO himself) says.

The "autopilot is limited" argument would have worked 20 years ago. It doesn't today. Modern autopilots are capable of maintaining speed, heading, takeoff, and landing so they're not just pilot assistance. They're literally fully capable of handling the flight from start to finish. Thus, the constant refrain that "autopilot in cars is just like autopilot in planes" actually supports the case against Tesla.

[goosejuice]

> Thus, the constant refrain that "autopilot in cars is just like autopilot in planes" actually supports the case against Tesla.

Just like, holds a lot of weight. I'm saying autopilot has a meaning in the world of aircraft and the FAA has some guidance on how it's used. They still place all responsibility on the pilot. So in that sense they are similar.

It's not that I think automakers shouldn't be liable for misleading marketing, it's that in this case I don't think the argument is strong.

> Thus, it's irrelevant that the small print

The driver has to agree to understanding how it works before using the feature. In the manual it's called out in the same way my Subaru calls out warnings for eyesight. In the model S 2019 manual, the car in this accident, it's clearly labeled with multiple warnings and symbols. Saying it's small print is disengenous. Half of the manual in that section is warnings about the limitations of the driver assistance tech.

[gamblor956]

The fact that it's in in the instruction manual is irrelevant because consumers are not required to read the instruction manual before using the car. And either way, the manual conflicts with the marketing of the car, and with the CEO's many statements saying that the car could drive itself.

A consumer is not expected, nor required, to resolve this conflict that the company created for itself through its own choice of conflicting language. Tesla was able to get away with it longer than expected, but now the floodgates are open to reason again.

[goosejuice]

> consumers are not required to read the instruction manual before using the car.

Indeed, and perhaps this is part of the problem. A reasonable person would find that through licensure, there is a expectation that you know how to operate and take responsibility for the operation of the death machine you step into.

If Tesla's marketing is so dangerous why hasn't the FTC acted even once? FTC has been pinged by the NHTSA and Congress. At least the first time was before this accident. It took years for NHTSA to implement the nag. NHTSA could have recalled autopilot before this accident happened.

Tesla did not get away with anything. The agencies failed to address it in a self certification model set by them. It's their job to ensure drivers are safe. Meanwhile Germany and the California DMV did do something. If Tesla is to blame, so are the FTC and NHTSA.

[rkomorn]

> They're literally fully capable of handling the flight from start to finish.

I find this to be a bit of a rosy take on things.

Autopilots don't take off (which is why Airbus' ATTOL project was a notable thing when an A350 took off "autonomously" [1]). They don't handle ATC (with the tenuously arguable exception of things like Garmin's Autoland), or handle TCAS on what I'd say is a majority of airliners.

Autopilot on planes is still quite "dumb".

1- https://www.airbus.com/en/newsroom/press-releases/2020-01-ai...