Crash at Reagan National Airport, DC. Helicopter crash into airliner.

Dana said:
Or the data from a FSD crash is more valuable than the cost of the insurance payout.
Click to expand...
Possibly, but in any case they are confident in their software enough to make that a reasonable proposition …
 
Albany Tom said:
I wasn't going to comment on this one, but there's enough sidetracks, many interesting, that I don't see any harm. I do risk management in IT, as one of my core things,....
Click to expand...
Excellent post; bottom line is that statistically/mathematically speaking rare events happen; and also tend to cluster, e.g., if you throw a hand-full of peas over your shoulder at a large group of people (e.g., like a classroom of students) than most and often all people won't be hit by a single pea; but sometimes a person will be hit by one, and sometimes two or more peas. That does not mean there is anything wrong with the person who got hit! Humans have the propensity to see patterns in this, i.e., blame the person (e.g., "accident prone"...) when it is a mere statistical artifact of rare (Poisson-distributed) events.

So I fear the "causes" that will be discovered finally will not really be root causes, but hopefully will lead to much wider safety margins to make such terrible disasters even more unlikely. I am not a controller but a formerly very active private pilot for almost 20 years who has flow into very active air spaces: So greater separation, better staffing and training for greater risk aversion (vector the helicopters around until they have a clear "shot"), positive confirmation that traffic conflicts have been acknowledged by pilots, etc. etc.
 
Dana said:
Or the data from a FSD crash is more valuable than the cost of the insurance payout.
Click to expand...
They get the data regardless of what insurance the owner might have.

The roughly 7.25 million Teslas on the road worldwide are a big advantage to them for data gathering. Each car's autopilot computer is constantly calculating a driving solution and when its solutions differs significantly from what the driver does, the situation is reported back and used in training the AI that produces the autopilot software. They can also poll the fleet for example of a situation that they are working to improve and the fleet responds with examples that meet the criteria.
 
If they want me to be a test driver, they'd better pay me test driver money. Or at least give me FSD for free.
This car data mining BS has gone too far, and Tesla isn't the only bad player.

EDIT: It's one of the reasons why I hold on to my old car, no such "ET phone home" stuff in it. But when that needs to be replaced, the first mod to the new car will be disconnecting the modem's antenna.
 
Last edited:
AI could be the answer in the future. The ability to measure things so many times per second is so far beyond the human capacity it is staggering. Trying to hit the gap between two arrivals with a departure? AI can measure rates of acceleration/deceleration like no human can, but can they control when the first aircraft turns off the runway so that the departure can be cleared? Can AI advance the throttles at THAT second so separation is assured with the succeeding arrival? It could if you had the capability of AI controlling some/all of what the aircraft does.

That will be a big obstacle as I see it. Before I retired a few years back, there were B757/767 aircraft that still got their 28/56 day FMS updates via 3.5" floppy disks. Some of the MD88s couldn't fly some routes because there were too many characters to load in their nav systems. CPDLC works on some aircraft, but others will never be retrofitted with the equipment. Airlines (rightfully so) don't want to get rid of aircraft they still find useful.

In short, there is such a wide range of equipment capabilities, it makes revolution in the aviation system just about impossible. Evolution is another matter, so whatever is designed, the real trick for the planners is how to evolve it into the NAS.
 
wrt AI, having something really really fast isn’t particularly important when the sensor update rate is 1 hz or slower
 
Bob Noel said:
wrt AI, having something really really fast isn’t particularly important when the sensor update rate is 1 hz or slower
Click to expand...
Sensor my be 1hz but the logic has potentially full history of sensor reading and can extrapolate future values based on the past and knowledge of what it is tracking and then predict various scenarios.
This is how networking simulation/games are working by predicting future movement of all entities before the actual data arrives on the network to make everything smooth and buffer any minor network issues - it works very well given the the principle of conservation of momentum but obviously can only be used for short intervals - if you loose your network data for too long , the prediction engine will eventually diverge and once you get the data stream back , you may experience your simulation snapping instantly to match the underlying data ( the reality )
I guess what I am trying to say is that there are solutions to most problems but as with everything , result may vary :-)
 
Warmi said:
Sensor my be 1hz but the logic has potentially full history of sensor reading and can extrapolate future values based on the past and knowledge of what it is tracking and then predict various scenarios.
This is how networking simulation/games are working by predicting future movement of all entities before the actual data arrives on the network to make everything smooth and buffer any minor network issues - it works very well given the the principle of conservation of momentum but obviously can only be used for short intervals - if you loose your network data for too long , the prediction engine will eventually diverge and once you get the data stream back , you may experience your simulation snapping instantly to match the underlying data ( the reality )
I guess what I am trying to say is that there are solutions to most problems but as with everything , result may vary :-)
Click to expand...
It would be possible to grow the targets into a zone of uncertainty until the data updates.
 
mandm said:
This year, construction zone

First ticket in 15 years. Out of town.
Click to expand...
Yeah, the new one (this year) has some issues when it comes to speed. There's a spot I know of where there *used to* be construction. Speed limit is 55, but it still thinks the limit there is 25 despite no signs to that effect. There are other spots where it goes WAY too fast.

But I guess that's why it's supposed to be "Supervised". Elon is a bit more optimistic than I am about when that will happen.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
But I guess that's why it's supposed to be "Supervised". Elon is a bit more optimistic than I am about when that will happen.
Click to expand...

I watched the Daytona 500 on Sunday.

When Elon is willing to strap himself into a stock car with no manual controls and let it run Daytona or Talladega autonomously, then I’ll begin to take self-driving cars seriously.

Better yet, an F1 car at Monaco.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
When? Was it the earlier relative/absolute max speed version, or the new improved "either 20 over or 20 under" version?
Click to expand...
I'm on v12.6.3 in an AI3 car. This version has improved speed control significantly. It will still default to a MAX speed that's too high but you can spin it down with the right scroll wheel and it does a good job of staying to that. v11 was often driving too slow. That seems to be fixed.

Still needs some work on identifying school and construction zones. Not a big deal now, as it's still "Supervised". Will have to be fixed before it can be unsupervised.
 
Half Fast said:
I watched the Daytona 500 on Sunday.

When Elon is willing to strap himself into a stock car with no manual controls and let it run Daytona or Talladega autonomously, then I’ll begin to take self-driving cars seriously.

Better yet, an F1 car at Monaco.
Click to expand...

Does the car have to be competitive or win? Or just finish the race, maybe without a scratch?
 
Half Fast said:
When Elon is willing to strap himself into a stock car with no manual controls and let it run Daytona or Talladega autonomously, then I’ll begin to take self-driving cars seriously.
Click to expand...
If you ever come through Nashville, look me up. We'll go for a drive and see if I can get you to relax that standard a bit.

FWIW, Tesla provides car insurance in a number of states. Your premium is based on the data from your car so good driving gets you lower premiums. They also offer a discount when the data indicates that FSD is used for a significant portion of the driving. They have data showing a lower rate of accidents with FSD on than with it off.
 
Half Fast said:
I watched the Daytona 500 on Sunday.

When Elon is willing to strap himself into a stock car with no manual controls and let it run Daytona or Talladega autonomously, then I’ll begin to take self-driving cars seriously.

Better yet, an F1 car at Monaco.
Click to expand...
Why would a race car with no manual controls need a driver? And what do Daytona and Talladega have to do with being able to drive in city traffic?
 
Larry in TN said:
If you ever come through Nashville, look me up. We'll go for a drive and see if I can get you to relax that standard a bit.
Click to expand...

If you visit central Florida, I'll take you for a drive on I-4 and we'll see if you raise your standards. ;)

www.news-press.com

This Florida highway is the deadliest in the country. What to know and how to drive safely

Orlando is home to fun theme parks, resorts, and now the deadliest highway in America. An intersecting highway, U.S. 192, is also on the deadly list.
www.news-press.com
 
Lindberg said:
Why would a race car with no manual controls need a driver?
Click to expand...

Willingness to be a helpless passenger in that circumstance would demonstrate to me Elon's faith in the design.


Lindberg said:
And what do Daytona and Talladega have to do with being able to drive in city traffic?
Click to expand...

Well, they should be much safer, no? Cars all going the same direction, no intersections, professional drivers,.... Should be no crashes at all, right?
 
Half Fast said:
Well, they should be much safer, no? Cars all going the same direction, no intersections, professional drivers,.... Should be no crashes at all, right?
Click to expand...
I'd love to see the algorithm that implements, "Rubbin' is Racin'"......

Ron "Rock-em, Sock-em" Wanttaja
 
Half Fast said:
If you visit central Florida, I'll take you for a drive on I-4 and we'll see if you raise your standards.
Click to expand...
I do go to TPA and MCO with some regularity. Not exactly sure what central Florida includes. I'm assuming RSW, PBI, FLL, and MIA are all south Florida. I go there, as well.

FSD does an excellent job on the highway. I can't remember the last time I had an intervention on the highway.
 
Half Fast said:
I watched the Daytona 500 on Sunday.

When Elon is willing to strap himself into a stock car with no manual controls and let it run Daytona or Talladega autonomously, then I’ll begin to take self-driving cars seriously.

Better yet, an F1 car at Monaco.
Click to expand...

Do you think that’s more difficult than getting the car to drive autonomously on public roads? The racetrack sounds very easy by comparison to me.
 
Half Fast said:
Willingness to be a helpless passenger in that circumstance would demonstrate to me Elon's faith in the design.

Well, they should be much safer, no? Cars all going the same direction, no intersections, professional drivers,.... Should be no crashes at all, right?
Click to expand...
You could have just said you've never watched a race.
 
Bacho said:
Do you think that’s more difficult than getting the car to drive autonomously on public roads? The racetrack sounds very easy by comparison to me.
Click to expand...
There are around 6 million auto accidents and 40k fatalities in the US every year. Anyone who demands perfection from self-driving cars is just silly.
 
Last edited:
I think Elon would still sit in the car. I’m sure his Tesla is fully automated.
 
Larry in TN said:
When was the last mid-air that was caused by an ATC error or failure? I can't think of anything recent.
Click to expand...

The last one I can think of in the US was Aeromexico Flight 498 in 1986. Before that, only PSA Flight 182 comes to mind.
 
Den60 said:
The last one I can think of in the US was Aeromexico Flight 498 in 1986. Before that, only PSA Flight 182 comes to mind.
Click to expand...
Those were mid-airs but I don't think they were ATC error or failure.

PSA was a failure of visual separation. The PSA flight accepted visual separation then ran into the C172. Aero Mexico was a GA airplane that climbed into the TCA without a clearance. The NTSB focused on the limitations of the ATC system's automation and changes were made because of it including the Mode-C vail around TCAs and the push for TCAS.
 
dtuuri said:
I'd like to see a simulator video of a 140 KIAS approach that stays over the water near the east shore to see if "swinging it out" is really required. Where's @Crashnburn when you need him?
Click to expand...
Sorry guys. I moved April 2024, and I haven't put my simulator back together. Even if I had it going, I don't know I'd do you much good.
 
I think some of the commenters here predicted this would happen, well, it has. Headline & link to WaPo article (paywalled) but am sure there are others:

At National, flights are now disrupted when Trump boards Marine One​

Passengers experience diversions, delays after change to DCA flight rules in the wake of the Jan. 29 midair collision that killed 67 people.
On Feb. 13, an additional FAA safety measure went into place affecting a broader area: air traffic controllers were told to discontinue use of “visual separation” rules to maintain a safe distance between aircraft, said two people briefed on the restrictions, speaking on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to talk publicly. Visual separation requires pilots to see nearby aircraft and steer clear of any danger.


 
Iflydogs said:
I think some of the commenters here predicted this would happen, well, it has. Headline & link to WaPo article (paywalled) but am sure there are others:

At National, flights are now disrupted when Trump boards Marine One​

Passengers experience diversions, delays after change to DCA flight rules in the wake of the Jan. 29 midair collision that killed 67 people.
On Feb. 13, an additional FAA safety measure went into place affecting a broader area: air traffic controllers were told to discontinue use of “visual separation” rules to maintain a safe distance between aircraft, said two people briefed on the restrictions, speaking on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to talk publicly. Visual separation requires pilots to see nearby aircraft and steer clear of any danger.


Click to expand...
The article and comments lay the blame on the occupant of the White House. Good ol' WaPo.
 
Larry in TN said:
GeorgeC said:
What's TCAS supposed to do in a scenario like this?
Click to expand...
Not very much. TCAS can't do much at such a low altitude as it depends on commanding altitude changes to resolve conflicts.

Resolution Advisories are inhibited below 1,000'. Traffic Advisories are displayed, but aural warnings are inhibited below 500'.
Click to expand...

Hmm:

The Federal Aviation Administration is investigating after several airliners on approach to land at Washington Reagan National Airport Saturday morning received what appear to be false alarms from their onboard Traffic Collision Avoidance System.

“It’s been happening all morning. Let me know if you see anything. No one else has seen anything except for on the TCAS,” one air traffic controller can be heard telling an inbound flight. Based on CBS News’ review of the ATC audio, at least 12 flight crews reported receiving apparent false TCAS alerts — leading three flights to perform go-arounds between 6 a.m. and 10 a.m. ET on Saturday.

CBS News heard no issues in the 8 a.m. hour. Then, six incidents occurred within 11 minutes of each other after 9 a.m. Saturday.

The pilots of American Eagle flight 4469, operated by Republic Airways, were coming into land from Pittsburgh when they received an alert. The flight was descending between 1200 and 1000 feet when TCAS instructed the pilots to take evasive maneuvers to avoid another object.
Click to expand...

 
Audio from some of those events.


People are speculating it was a failure of some filtering that ADS-B ground stations do? Seems unlikely because I thought TCAS interrogates transponders directly and has no tie ins to ADS-B but I’ll be the first to admit I’m way out of my depth on that.
 
GeorgeC said:
Hmm:
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

First, those aircraft were above 1,100' RA, which is when TCAS begins to inhibit its alerts.

Second, they were giving false alerts due to some type of interference that has yet to be determined.

Nothing from those events is inconsistent with my comments which you quoted.
 
AKiss20 said:
People are speculating it was a failure of some filtering that ADS-B ground stations do? Seems unlikely because I thought TCAS interrogates transponders directly and has no tie ins to ADS-B but I’ll be the first to admit I’m way out of my depth on that.
Click to expand...
I don't see what the connection to ADSB would be. As you said, TCAS is based on transponder returns. The TCAS unit interrogates nearby transponders and uses their response to calculate distance and approximate azimuth. Only the distance is used to generate the alerts (TA and RA). The estimated azimuth is only used to display the traffic in the cockpit to aid in visual identification.
 
AV8R_87 said:
Close to the ground you can get a ghost of your own aircraft on TCAS.
Click to expand...

I hope the TCAS II software is smart enough to ignore replies from it's own Mode S transponder.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top