"Vanity". Seems more like arrogance.

No need for more laws as there are already numerous autonomous 'vehicles' operating that can be "bullied" by humans and methods available to stop the bully's. A prime example is a lift in a building. Yer summon it and tell it where to go though the lift operates the door and moves under its own computer control. If somebody comes up to an open lift door and holds their arm out they have effectivly stopped the lift in its tracks. Normal polite practice if yer holding a lift for some late arrivals and rarely bothers the people already in the lift. The "bullied" comparison would be when some drunk or yobbo comes up and keeps blocking the door. Comparing it to autonomous cars being bullied I'd suspect the police would find more then one matter to remove/control the bully's

@Ian W,

Yes I'm aware that the established traditional practioners in the field of flight controls are working very hard indeed to do things the right way, to their immense credit. And they do it the traditional way; carefully evolving a testable specification, applying analytical forethought and rigour along the way, and then testing it.

That is how it should be.

It is indeed the newer breed of transport entrepreneur who I worry about the most. They seem to see rules as barriers to be pushed over, rather than enablers of a far larger market.

Unfortunately I can't guarantee that politicians won't be persuaded to make rash decisions. So far in the self driving car endeavour politicians have behaved quite sensibly (California publishes the statistics resulting from trials, much to Google's annoyance...).

Uber's approach to developing self-driving technology is a wonder to behold; it seemingly involves zero forethought and specification writing, being nothing more than throwing a lot of data into a machine learning algorithm and accepting whatever emerges as "finished" so long as it seems to behave itself!

I can add another example: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/0...ones_uas_rpas/. Mike Gadd of the CAA did a good job of pouring a large quantity of cold water on their parade by reminding them that their software would have to be considered "safety critical", and therefore certified as such. It rather took the shine of their glitzy animations and exciting talks...

It sounds just like a HindenTanic...new ideas are dangerous and many new ideas are really old ideas..

I think that Mike Gadd was saying that if the UAS Traffic Management System (UTM) 'took over control' of a UAS then it was acting as pilot in command and the actions could be considered safety critical.

One has to split out the vehicle software from the UTM software. Very much as in the current ATC system the aircraft may be under mandatory control, but the pilot remains responsible for the safety of the aircraft. The same applies with the autonomous aircraft - the certified autonomous software is responsible for the safety of the aircraft and not the uncertified 'safety related' but not safety critical ATC systems.

The UTM systems are doomed to fail as they are not 'integrating' UAS into the system they are setting up UAS reservations. They are doing this without any regard to the other users of the lower airspace, the powered parachutes, microlights, hang-gliders, crop sprayers, helicopters etc. etc. The lack of regard is due to abject ignorance of the operations in the lower airspace by people who think that throwing money solves problems. These UTM systems though should not be confused with integration of full size (i.e. greater than 55 pounds up to Heavy) autonomous aircraft into the airspace managed by normal ATC systems from low level up to above FL660.

Absolutely.

The phrase “extended flight controls” by Mike Gadd. was used. I take that to mean that the combination of whatever subsystems are on the aircraft being instructed by a ground based traffic management subsystem results in a single distributed flight control system, split between ground and air acting as one.

If so that would hint at a perception that an automated traffic machine management system issuing instructions to an unmanned aircraft in effect becomes part of that aircraft.

That would also mirror ATC. Yes, the pilot of an airliner has the ultimate responsibility. But the ATC officer on the other end of the radio and the system he/she is using both have to be certified as fit for purpose.

Take the pilot away and the ATC officer and their systems just became a lot more important. Replace the ATC officer altogether and it’s got even more “safety critical”.

The Head of Airbus Engineering Bernard Zeigler said this was an ambition of Airbus in the early 80's. The A320 was the first step...back then the design concept of the A330/340 was intended to be single crew. If the technology existed today it is 12 years before an aircraft goes from the board to Airline Service. Not in my working life.

The 747 went from forming the design team in 1963 to commercial service in 1970 and millionth passenger 6 months later. 747 Timeline | Boeing 747

Perhaps the 747 team didn't know it wasn't possible as they did that with slide rules and manual technical drawing before CATIA CAD software was available to 'speed things up'.

Excellent point. Most of these "flying taxi" projects I've seen don't seem to appreciate the reality of how difficult it will be getting their vehicle design certified for passenger service in most countries. They seem to think entrenched government regulatory agencies like the US FAA will readily revise established procedures and regulations just to accommodate their business plans. Even getting type certification for a conventional new aircraft design under existing regulations can easily take 3-4 years.

If you take a look at the Uber Elevate white paper, they plan to start with a piloted 4 passenger vehicle.

And it's not just the regulation but practicalities too; I'm a strong advocate of drone technology where it's appropriate. I have one myself. It has guards on its rotors...one of which is now broken! Even on trains, where speed is the only operator controlled parameter, the unmanned option is not generally accepted by the travelling public.

A pilots view.
Whilst I don’t agree with all of the points, the overall theme is very useful.
https://airlinesafety.blog/2016/01/3...be-eliminated/

A theoretical view of some of the problems - myths - traditional stories - a widely held but false belief or idea.
http://cmapsinternal.ihmc.us/rid=1M0...20Autonomy.pdf

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/autom...or-moin-rahman

And a military view:-
“Overall, the Task Force found that unmanned systems are making a significant, positive impact on DoD objectives worldwide. However, the true value of these systems is not to provide a direct human replacement, but rather to extend and complement human capability by providing potentially unlimited persistent capabilities, reducing human exposure to life threatening tasks, and with proper design, reducing the high cognitive load currently placed on operators/supervisors.”
https://fas.org/irp/agency/dod/dsb/autonomy.pdf

Blame is so satisfying; without a pilot who do you blame.
The public might only accept fully autonomous commercial aircraft when they can identify someone, at the sharp end, to blame.

Pilotless future??

"Bring it on - can't come soon enough".

Even cheaper air tickets, and no more human rights abuse of pilots.

Win-win.

It will come - inevitably. Just as it has for lamplighters, typists, assembly workers, stock traders, hotel workers etc. 'Hold on', I hear you cry, 'they're not exactly skilled employees!' OK, so how about the computer operators, programmers and analysts employed by big companies when Burroughs/Univac/NCR/CDC/Honeywell and IBM ruled business information just 30 years ago? What about the engineers who used to actually visit customers when their mainframes broke?
'Not really the same as pilots though'. So what about the train drivers looking forward to a career on the DLR...drone pilots in the military? So many examples if you look.
It won't happen for commercial pilots on here now - or probably the ones looking to start a career in the next five years...but happen it will.

Yesterday, about 70 miles south of here, on the inaugural run of a new "high speed" train between Seattle and Portland, the train derailed. At least 3 people dead, 80 injured, and the main southbound freeway between Seattle and Oregon is still closed.
The human controlled train entered a 30 mph corner at 80+ mph.
Everyone is asking why the (currently available and certified) COMPUTER system to prevent such a human error wasn't installed...

Self-flying airplanes are closer to reality than self-driving cars. Not that either are close to reality IMHO. Commercial airplanes operate largely in a controlled environment, under control from ATC, and with other commercial airplanes which follow the 'rules of the sky'. Yes I know there are lots of exceptions and emergencies/failures (largely solved without drama by experienced, professional human crews). But for the most part, the in-flight behavior of commercial airplanes is fairly predictable.

Self-driving cars have to deal with an environment several orders of magnitude more crowded, full of human users who are 1. not communicating, and 2. not following the 'rules of the road'. Most of the drivers around here seem intent on violating as many driving regulations as possible in the most unpredictable way possible. How is any programmed system (or even a learning AI system) supposed to figure out what some muppet intent on his next text will do in his ignorant bliss?

A large factor of pilotless aircraft is the cost of the aircraft and the reliability of the systems in the aircraft - the cost plummets and the reliability increases
All of the current design and systems are done because there is a pilot , the control loops all have to go to a cockpit , all information has to go to the cockpit and be presented to a human - this adds much complexity and cost ,complexity reduces reliability.....
Think...
there is no cockpit , there are no instruments , there are no throttles , no windscreen, no W/S heating no seat ,no circuit breaker panels ,no dv windows, escape ropes , no flight directors, autopilots , no control column , no flap levers,gear levers trim wheels , no crew oxygen , ipads , manuals , life jackets , no cockpit heating or ventilation , no radios , no radar displays , no wire looms to the cockpit , no armoured cockpit door , no .......you get the picture
systems simplify because you remove the human , he/she is not there to push buttons or look at lights or make choices and actions right or wrong based on information given them by the aircraft.
It becomes a design delight and cheap as chips to do , the aircraft never gets fatigued and can operate 24/7 to exactly the same standard .
now tech develops along different lines , maybe laser guidance , maybe new trim systems or flying controls that automation can control but humans cant , maybe ground taxi systems that avoid collisions ...who knows , but it will be cheaper and ultimately safer .
no hotels,no sims ,no licences,no crew room, no crew transport ,no sickies, no rostering arguments ,no one driving to work , just 1 bloke in ops -lol

And no pax.

I was at a RAeS event recently where this was being discussed. One presenter, an engineer was enthusiastically proposing that pilotless airliners would be here in 20 years. I disagreed, and when asked why, I pointed out that as a pilot, I consider that only about 5% of my flights proceed as planned without requiring some form of intervention. I fly in a high threat environment with long periods of poor weather, high terrain, less than sparkling ATC, political issues and a high number of passenger handling problems. Nearly all my flights require me to apply my considerable experience and presence on the flight deck to resolve.

And not forgetting that the EICAS/ECAM procedures are an engineers best guess at the problem. In my experience, rarely do they work as planned. In the last four big events I have had in the last five years on Airbus types, none of the ECAM procedures correctly dealt with the actual problem. The last one would have had us depressurising the aircraft had we followed the EACM procedures. The solution came from our technical knowledge of the aircraft and analysis of the actual problem.

Of course, these issues could be resolved with more computing power and more procedures. But if this were to happen, any pilotless airliner will have to have to be equipped with artificial intelligence which would have to apply a variable risk assessment factor to resolve any problems. This may even have to ignore inputs from ground control sources if 'thought' inappropriate. I reckon it's going to be a long time before that level of AI becomes available, and even longer before manufacturers, regulators and insurers are willing to endorse that. Let alone the fare paying public accepting it!

One question asked was "Would you get in a self flying airliner?" My answer was that I wouldn't have to as I consider that they are at least 40 years away and my passenger flying days would be over by then, if still alive.

EICAS/ECAM -would not even be fitted to an automated aircraft, -at present the quantity of information presented is restricted , because a human has to interpret it and procedures are there because the human misinterprets the information given.
It not so much as an AI system ,as a pure logic system , a bit like a chess computer -think of 1000 engine parameters being used ,could the pilot analyse them and then what could the pilot do ? his actions are limited -automated responses can be much more complex ,engine control functions much more complex, way beyond simply moving the throttle or shutting off fuel -too much for a human to calculate
The tech would move into all the control systems on the aircraft ,each improving massively
The question will become who is dumb enough to rely on a human up front , you cant even tell your altitude ,without the machine telling you it , let alone maintaining it within 10 foot, without instruments or an autopilot .....it will all happen sooner than most think

Ah, that answer to it all, “A.I.”

Talking about this thread to one of my offspring who has done just a bit of work and research involving “AI” (ground road traffic environment, traffic signalling, traffic flow decision making, that sort of thing ) her view was that the capabilities of AI are frequently overstated. It’s improving, sure, but still “clunky” ....but neverthless sold as the answer to everything by the enthutiasts.

In her VHO truely pilotless/ AI driven routine commercial flight is still multiple decades away.

Money Money Money...
 

Passengers PROBABLY would not travel in an bus without a driver. They DEFINATELY wouldn't travel in an Air-bus at 6 miles above the ground without a pilot. Buses will stop so that the driver can rest or when they are ill. Stopping is simple. A co-pilot facilitates longer flights. Airline automation is a long term plan to come many years after buses are automated ...

I beg to differ. There is considerable evidence that a significant portion of the traveling public would do so in a heartbeat if it was $20 cheaper (or 20 pounds - sorry but I don't know how to create that little symbol on my keyboard)...


Wiggy, I agree with your offspring. AI in it's current iteration sucks (I have a few stories regarding AI on cars) - but is getting better pretty much by the day. I'd say we're between 30 and 50 years from truly autonomous passenger aircraft. It won't happen soon, probably not in my lifetime. But I have no doubt it will eventually happen.

I wonder what portion of today's traveling public has jobs when AI can deal with air traffic's level of complexity. This of course isn't the only industry affected by it. Maybe they really will need a 20$ reduction in fares in order to afford them.

Here are a few of my top reasons we will not see this within the next 30-60 years:
1)Today pilots mainly monitor the aircraft computers, what will be the point in having a computer monitoring a computer?
2)Passengers will not go near the aircraft (most) and the first airline to buy it will most likely go into losses scaring off other airlines.
3)The change in inferstructure would be huge, we would have to change all the laws, the way airports work and many airways etc!
4)The technology we have today cannot create general AI which is what we need as it will think like a human. (And won’t exist for a few decades)
5)A big one is testing, this new aircraft would have to go through years, even decades of of testing and it would have to fly almost errorless to be accepted.
6)Pilot unions will put up a BIG fight against it delaying it happening.

There are many more but also the media is mainly trying to make a story to make money, Boeing basically said they’re working on the building blocks fo this technology if its needed and they simply brought a drone company (along with airbus.)
Even IF this happens in our lifetime anyone reading this will be an experienced captain so the remains jobs will easily be take by us. (Most likely anyway.)

:)

Air traffic is an entirely different matter to autonomous UAS (aka drones). The current problem with Air Traffic Management systems is that they are based on a 1930's air traffic control concept procedural control. All attempts to update the concept are mired by 'experts' in the 1930's concept who can only think in its terms. So trajectory based operations where an aircraft's future 4D positions are known allow the aircraft to fly in a way that is considered efficient by the operator (what Europe is calling the 'business trajectory). This is simple for automation to deal with and reduces airspace congestion and has been demonstrated in large scale research. However, the implementing ANSPs do not understand the concept and try to force 'trajectory based control' into their 1930's procedural concept and it becomes 'time based control' (the 4th dimension) and unsurprisingly the problems seen in today's system remain. There's more but it's not for this thread nor this log :)

Ian W,

You are so right! Not only would 4D trajectory management increase airspace capacity it would also be far more efficient for all airspace users. But, as you say, the ANSPs do not understand the concept and are stuck in a 1930s mindset.

Highflyer3

Taking your points in turn:

1. Current automation was designed a minimum of a decade ago based on analyses a decade before that - development is slow. Think how much your brick phone has advanced to a 'smart phone' in that time. The systems analysis was that it was easier for the programmer to drop out of problem solving early and hand the bag of bolts to the pilot - who was only using the FMS as a labor saving device. Anything difficult - automation give up.
Significant advances have been made since then - automation that can fly a very badly damaged aircraft almost as if it were undamaged. AI has increased to a level not thought possible - a computer was given the rules of chess and within hours was beating grandmasters see https://www.theguardian.com/technolo...lay-four-hours
There may be triplexed computer systems this is quite normal.

2. I would suspect that Company caution would see the freight dogs being automated first possibly as single pilot systems. I can remember when elevators always had an operator. I assure you just like automated trams, trains and cars; automated aircraft will not worry future generations.

3. The autonomous aircraft should appear to everyone else to behave and operate like a manned aircraft following the same rules. There should be no changes just to accommodate the unmanned/unpiloted aircraft. Any aircraft with a remote pilot must be able to operate safely if the link to the remote pilot goes down - so all should be capable of autonomy.

4. See the chess playing robot story above ( https://www.theguardian.com/technolo...lay-four-hours ) AI has changed a lot in the last 18 months; its rate of change and advance is faster than you would believe.

5. Certification will be an issue particularly where the certification tests were set up for human flown systems. This is going to be a complicated area not because of the length of time for testing individual aircraft but the time required for international (RTCA/EASA) agreement on what those tests should be. This work is already starting.

6. True as some did for glass cockpits and look where it got them. The reason I started this thread was to get the pilots here thinking about what WILL happen in the future. Just saying "No! not in my lifetime!" is not an option. There will be a requirement for pilots for decades to come - but do not think that UAS will not be sharing the airspace with you - they already are.

Ian W,

Google's chess playing system AlphaZero simply used "machine learning". It was told the rules of chess and then played against itself a gazillion times, randomly initially, with a simple reinforcement algorithm by which it eventually "learned" good moves vs bad.

That's just statistical analysis of big data. Something computers are good at. Artificial Intelligence it ain't. And it certainly takes us no further towards the holy grail of Artificial General Intelligence.

To translate that to autonomous aircraft would involve crashing a gazillion aircraft in real world conditions until it "learns" how to not crash. Sorry, but playing chess isn't transferable to a dynamic safety system in the real world.

In the global race towards autonomous cars, not even the companies themselves are in anyway pretending their vehicles will be "intelligent". They won't be. They will be following simple algorithms based on big data. When they get into trouble, they will just stop, much to the annoyance of human drivers (I'm sure we'll hear a lot about that in the coming decades).

Aircraft can't stop.

And to put any timeframe into perspective, I still have to read 50 pages of NOTAMs everyday that are still formatted for teletypewriters.

Lol I remember playing droughts with my iPod in 2008 against AI and loosing... hasn’t changed than much. Additionally I’m not sure what AI will do after a total electric failure, or when little kimmys team of hackers in North Korea hack them. So far in my life I haven’t seen a driverless car (a thing that goes forwards backwards left and right) or a driverless train (something that goes forwards and backwards.) Planes may becomre automated in 30 to 50 years but it will happen slowly a pilots will disappear SLOWLY. Also if you listen to the Boeing VP interview he makes it clear that it’s an option in case we need it for commercial aviation. Additionally airbus said they’re looking at making autonomy for sign pilot operation, they have said they’re looking at how to develop AI but haven’t directly said they’re working on a pilotless future (It’s just the stupid media trying to earn money.) I also havet seen a single concept or future design without pilots. I’m sure we will see Unmanned cargo and fuel planes, and urban air taxis etc but it’ll be quite a long time untill pilots are non existent. Like ADFUS said by then humans will have lost most jobs anyway by then.

(And also where did you hear EASA working in the testing requirements for autonomous aircraft?)

In the world of management, thousands of knuckle-heads get paid for doing nothing. In the world of flying, due to automation, thousands of pilots get paid for doing nothing. We are finally on a level playing field.

Highflyer3

I am surprised you haven't seen a driverless car or train, you could go to the Docklands Light Railway not far from you and see one that has been running for years. Driverless cars are common place in many cities in the USA and are approved for trials in UK too.

https://learningenglish.voanews.com/...y/3726018.html

There are plenty of these unpiloted air taxis that are actually past the concept stages and in development. Optionally piloted aircraft have been around for nearly 10 years. Boeing: Unmanned Little Bird H-6U

All you need to do is look at the work going on in EASA and RTCA on standards for UAS/RPAS/Drones all of them by definition need to provide certification standards for autonomy as the UAS/RPAS is autonomous when it has a comms link failure. All is available on the internet with a simple search.

The arguments being made here are that pilots are there to solve all these issues that automation cannot solve. Yet we also see discussions here on deskilling by letting the automatics fly the aircraft so when LOC happens the pilots are unable to regain control. The software is then written next time to not hand that LOC to the crew but to solve it instead. When the automatics become better than a deskilled pilot in recovering non-nominal events perhaps even identifying ahead of time when they will happen and mitigating them in advance, then it becomes very difficult to justify having a pilot.
The move from pilot in the loop to pilot on the loop has already started. once all aircraft systems and operations are pilot on the loop, the next step is pilot out of the loop. (and pilot is already out of the loop on things like FADECs)

There is a defense contract being competed for in the US for carrier borne UAS tankers that will autonomously operate from carriers and provide range extending refuelling to USN and USMC aircraft in combat operations. Refuelling and carrier landings and takeoffs are more challenging than anything that airliners or freighters will experience.

Really? At one level they all seem (mechanically) to be fairly straightforward 3D processes, though perhaps for any human element involved needing nerves of steel at some point in proceedings.....as for refueling ( I assume you are talking air to air) most navs I flew with were convinced that AAR (hose and drogue) involved just six "commands" i.e. up/down, left/right/ forward and " :ooh:..

I'll accept we are getting close to genuine autonomous airline ops being just around the corner when we've seen routine automated operations with 737/A320 sized aircraft between basic airfields with mostly visual approaches (such as those found in the Greek islands, elsewhere in Europe and probably all over the States).

Ian W,
I see what you mean now. When I fly my drone Andy loose signal my drone will either autonomously fly back to me, hover or make an automatic decent in emergency conditions. This is what I think you are talking about. My drone is not large but this can relate for other larger drones. If my battery goes bellow 10% the drone will fly back And allow me to take control when it has calculated the minimum distance needed to land and if it’s no longer ctritical. This is very good and all but this is fairly simple autopilot. It follows its gps to the takeoff point using altitude from where it took off and will fly above my minimum set altitude however it will not avoid obstacles (so,e drones will do that.) I can also turn on the auto land feature if I wish however for more hard landings e.g close proximity to obstacles I have to land as it is not intelligent. This will work on small recreational drones and air taxis however all air taxis have parachutes and are like a slightly more developed autopilot following Pre established routes as they are short distances. This is different to large jet commercial flying. It’s like having a jet ski that follows a route via gps and avoids shallow water and rocks using sonar and cameras. Compare that to a large cruise ship where it’s a very different type of handling etc. Autopilot is different to AI. Autopilot is programmed by pilots and has a minor level of intelligence to sustain flight. When there is a storm unless told to do so it will not avoid it. In order to just make th AI to fly an airliner it will have to cover EVERY possible scenario and know all the runways and approaches etc. I’m not sure as to how they’re going to make this by making AI programmed to fly planes or just by having deep AI to act like a pilot would. Either way I dislike AI for many reasons (other than flying.) But that’s a bit of topic.

I read the EASA regulations and they’re on about aircraft not with a pilot on board, but a controller on the ground and does not mention air fart with no human interaction at all, they’re supporting drones. Not as the media calls “robot piloted planes.”

Also another point I forgot to add is Eurymenko got fired as Airbus believed he was pushing innovation to single pilot operations/autonomy to fast. It shows how Airbus don’t believe we have the technology to do it yet as well as the time it will take to do this will be longer than he proposed. As well as Boeing also said they’re working on the “building blocks” of this technology INCASE WE NEED IT. It’s still not even certain if we will have, although most likely at some point in this century and certainly in the next.

wiggy

The UAS will also be playing chick as well and buddy-buddy refueling can be interesting.

With GLS there is really no need for any 'visual'/non-instrument approaches to any runway in the world. Add the SVS that automatic systems can use as cross match to 3D radar maps and automated approaches should be possible to anywhere. With GLS an aircraft can be 'established' while in a turn on a GLS approach so the procedures can be a little more interesting than just long straight in descents.

SVS/EVS is also very difficult to put in place in piloted aircraft, let alone unpiloted ones...

There is not a single insured nuclear power station, yet 449ish of them are working around the globe...

So, can we see this scenario happening?

Autonomous Boeing and Airbus aircraft prototypes begin an extended flight test programme, airport and ATC infrastructures do the same, say 10 years for proof of concept and then another 5 years before ICAO and national CAA's can agree rule making for the new technology.

In the meantime word gets out that pilots are going to become an extinct species, save in the poorly paid General Aviation sector so the attraction of a career as a commercial pilot begins to wain. Banks (including that of mum and dad) no longer see an investment of £100k+ in training a worthwhile proposition so the supply of new pilots begins to dry up and experienced ones opt to cash in on their earliest retirement dates.

The pilot shortage situation becomes a desperate one, salaries increase and the low cost airline economic model becomes redundant which forces up fares and pax numbers fall, perhaps drastically. Big name operators gobble up their balance sheet reserves before reverting to the legacy airline model. Traditionally piloted aircraft lose value like diesel cars, and the banks who have financed them shy away from the airline sector with extremely burnt fingers.

Investors in businesses get scared by major change, but of course there are always investors for new ventures that embrace upcoming technologies. What happens in the transition period?

Meaning the owning authority have chosen to self insure and they only have to answer to themselves as, hopefully, their power station is not going anywhere that could involve third parties who might insist on a very high level of third party cover.

It won't be the hull insurance cover that is the issue with a pilotless aircraft, it will be the passenger and particularly third party liabilities cover that other countries/airports etc. will insist upon before over flight or landing rights are granted. Not sure about today but the benchmark for assessing the level of cover required was two jumbos in a mid-air collision over the CBD of a major city, it runs to billions of dollars.

As I've stated before when I make very occasional posts, I am not a pilot and will not comment on piloting issues - I am a Position Navigation and Timing Technologist with particular interest in testing navigation systems with emphasis on security (and of course evaluating the effectiveness of highly automated systems and how to test them). I suggest that some of you might appreciate reading the NTSB investigation into the recent (and fatal) accident between a highly automated car and a tractor/trailer in Florida. It highlights many of the issues associated with autonomous vehicle navigation - and also the issues around developing a navigation system suitable for use in dynamic traffic situations that does not require human intervention at some point.... As I have less than 10 posts I can't provide a link to the report but its reference is NTSB/HAR-17/02. If you think it worthwhile, perhaps someone else could post the link?

You're quite right to cite that report (https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/...ts/HAR1702.pdf <pdf>). Keep posting - you'll soon get up to 10.

One thing is for sure. If we do end up with pilot-less airliners, we'll get an accurate count of how often advanced high tech automated avionics systems fail; just count the crashes.

Somewhat apples and oranges - the Tesla system was not designed or intended to be fully autonomous - it was a "Level 2" 'supervisory' system intended to assist the driver, not take his place. That he used it as a fully autonomous system so he could watch a Harry Potter film earned him a Darwin award.
None of the automotive systems currently for sale are capable of fully autonomous operation (aka "Level 5"). The best systems currently for sale are Level 1 or 2 - with some Level 3 currently in Beta test.


Edited to add this link that defines automotive automation:
https://www.caranddriver.com/feature...lained-feature