Quote:

---

I enjoy being wrong on things and learning for why I had come to a conclusion that is not correct.

I get frustrated cause I am just not wrong that much and denied that enjoyment.

---

Well I'm glad you're enjoying this thread

Quote:

---

Some of you guys have assumptions and blinders that keep you from considering others may be knowledgeable on something

---

There's some truth in there, (we all succumb to Dunning/Kruger from time to time) but until this exact post, no matter how many times I have asked, you have never provided a link or source for any claim you've made, other than the source being yourself.

"Trust me, I know my stuff" just doesn't fly in an anonymous message board discussion/debate.

So, in this case, I appreciate the link, even though I'm not really involved in the nuance of this particular debated detail.

BTW, even though we disagree on several points (we actually agree on some things), we've kept it civil in this thread, and I appreciate that. If we ever happen to cross paths IRL, I'll buy you a beer.

Hopefully for me, it will be a celebratory beer for my Tesla stock killin' it. If not, maybe I'll drown my tears in and tell you that you were right. Either way, you'll get a beer on me.

An automated airplane would have never landed in the Hudson River and saved the lives of everyone on board. Give me Sully over AI

I have been waiting to see if a hatchback Model 2 ever gets produced, and it better have steering wheel. Guess we might find out tomorrow

I drink whiskey and never put a catalytic converter back on my Malibu after it got stolen, but I would share a drink.

TexAgs is a distraction for me, particularly when I am avoiding work. And I just don't feel like posting links to this and that then have someone post back that well this article says this.

Ad nauseum people can say you can find statistics to show you anything, but people still want to see it.

At some point you realize that the people who have time to write these lengthy articles and research papers are no smarter than you and no less immune to biases and untold motivations that may sway their research in one direction.

People like to get wrapped up in measuring their knowledge peens on a message board. I am the type who just walks around with their dong out. To each its own.

Appreciate the post and offer for a beer.

tk for tu juan said:

---

I have been waiting to see if a hatchback Model 2 ever gets produced, and it better have steering wheel. Guess we might find out tomorrow

---

How thick is the neck beard on someone who wants a Tesla... hatchback?

When I was growing up, the veritable Honda CRX was the hatchback of choice.

Well if the Honda EV hatchback was available in the US, I might already have one as a daily driver. I like hatchbacks and some wagons.

No neckbeard at the beginning of each week, Friday maybe. My F150 with all-terrain tires that only see Houston pothole terrain is my neckbeard substitute

hph6203 said:

---

I'm not saying that there won't be roadblocks to its approval. They're going to have to demonstrate substantially safer systems, but that in comparison to actually achieving an autonomous vehicle that operates as well or better than a human driver in all situations is nothing by comparison. You're talking about decades worth of effort compared to maybe a couple of months to a year once they create the software.

Technology is the mountain, the regulations are the molehill, and the liability is not even a speed bump.

---

Tell me you know absolutely ZERO about how government regulators work without telling me you know absolutely ZERO about how government regulators work...

I worked on a program that started around 2009. First flight was 2015.

They're still HOPING to get it certified in 2023. I'll believe it when I see it.

Oh...and this is a MANNED helicopter that will NOT be fully autonomous.

Hell, I hired into Bell in 2001 and there was a program that they hoped to get certified that year. It is STILL not certified (see Leonardo 609).

Fully autonomous vehicles driving on roads with millions of people in VERY close proximity will make it fun trying to convince the DOT and/or the NTHSA to allow them. And like I said, I fully support full autonomy and I am working on that myself right now.

Tech is not the problem. The ****ing regulators are.

fka ftc said:

---

91Challenger said:

---

There is technology available for aircraft to take off and land autonomously. However, airliners are not equipped with that.

And the aircraft that air, I saw a study a while back that 1/3 of all the military preds built had crashed.

I trust my autopilot, but as a passenger, no way.

WHEN your automation fails, the only thing keeping those passengers alive is a pilot.

So, should we cut the crew to one pilot? I knew a passenger who refused to ever fly on a plane with a single pilot because he was in the back of a plane taxiing gif takeoff when the pilot died if a sudden heart attack, 30 seconds before takeoff. One minute later and he would have died as well.

Do you want you and your family on the plane with only one or even zero pilots?

---

My understanding that at properly equipped airports that landing was mostly automated, Is there a technical challenge to automate the rest? Those steps are pretty prescriptive which lends itself programming automation.

Airbuses are fly by wire, no? So no impediment there.

All that said, I prefer a professionally trained human pilot, with a high preference for more than 1 person so qualified.

---

There are aircraft that CAN autoland.

Doesn't mean they do.

But, auto take off is not something available at this time.

fka ftc said:

---

And I know its fun for others to laugh and think I just make things up, but I really do not. Outside of conversations with pilot friends and whilst considering investing in a company in the industry, I come across information.

For GAC06 and TeslAg:

https://crewlounge.aero/blog/commercial-aviation-without-pilots-in-the-cockpit/

Quote:

---

In both space travel and military aviation, we already see a large number of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV) that can fly completely autonomously. From a technical point of view, it is already possible today to build a commercial airliner that can fly without pilots. But there are also differences.

---

For the haters on the liability issue:

Quote:

---

Liability
Technology can largely reduce the number of accidents caused by pilot error, but can never bring it down to 0%. Even with fully autonomous aircraft, there will always be a number of incidents and accidents. Who is liable? Self-driving cars raise the same question about responsibility and accountability. Who pays for the damage to your private Cirrus Vision jet when your Tesla car runs away? (video)

In SPO, the pilot in the cockpit acts as captain of the flight and bears ultimate responsibility. When an operator controls the aircraft from the ground, the responsibility also shifts to the ground. But the liability still remains with the airline company.

If commercial airplanes were ever to fly fully autonomously, that responsibility would fall to the manufacturer. Or with ATC, in the event of wrong instructions.

The regulatory transition towards SPO in commercial aviation will probably take more time than the technological transition. In 2022, EASA published the world's first rules [ ] for operation of (unmanned) air taxis in cities. These rules complement existing EU regulatory material for operations of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS). Other aviation authorities are also working on new regulations.

---

---

The above is true.

Pretty much every one of our UAS is Level 4 autonomous (can operate autonomously with minimal human input). The human input for most is programming the flight plan and waypoints for flying. But, even then, there's an RPIC in the loop to catch any problems and takeover.

For those who still don't believe fka about autolanding a plane…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autoland

Some of us are very well aware of auto land. It requires pilot input, which he didn't seem to understand

GAC06 said:

---

Some of us are very well aware of auto land. It requires pilot input, which he didn't seem to understand

---

Correct. Because regulators and lawyers require that pilot input. Technically, that input is not required.

There are several actively markets general aviation solutions that land a plane with pilot incapacitated / unavailable.

You have the understanding issue, not me. You guys were just looking to team up and score points.

What you said is still wrong. For someone who claims to enjoy being wrong, you're crawfishing quite a bit. Airliners do not and can not takeoff, fly, or land on their own as you claimed. Not a big deal, now you know.

You and FKA might want to stop comparing a vehicle that is temporarily in the sky to a vehicle that is permanently affixed to the ground. An aerial vehicle has different challenges and requirements than a terrestrial vehicle.

There are. Today. Autonomous vehicles without a driver at all. None. Operating in this country.

They are not the same thing.

And you're still not understanding what I'm saying. The hurdles that the regulators affix to the development are part of the technological challenge, but the technological challenge is the primary issue. Getting a car to make an unprotected left is a technological challenge, convincing a regulator that the car can make that unprotected left consistently is not the hard part. The point is not that regulators don't wield control, it's that the belief that technological development is less than the regulators is an absolute absurdity.

Go watch a Waymo, Cruise, or Tesla drive itself right now. They are impressive for what they are, but they are not reliable enough to be broadly deployed. Waymo and Cruise have caused major traffic issues, and Tesla requires consistent monitoring and struggles with certain maneuvers. The technology is still, very much, the barrier, not the regulators.

hph6203 said:

---

You and FKA might want to stop comparing a vehicle that is temporarily in the sky to a vehicle that is permanently affixed to the ground. An aerial vehicle has different challenges and requirements than a terrestrial vehicle.

There are. Today. Autonomous vehicles without a driver at all. None. Operating in this country.

They are not the same thing.

And you're still not understanding what I'm saying. The hurdles that the regulators affix to the development are part of the technological challenge, but the technological challenge is the primary issue. Getting a car to make an unprotected left is a technological challenge, convincing a regulator that the car can make that unprotected left consistently is not the hard part. The point is not that regulators don't wield control, it's that the belief that technological development is less than the regulators is an absolute absurdity.

Go watch a Waymo, Cruise, or Tesla drive itself right now. They are impressive for what they are, but they are not reliable enough to be broadly deployed. Waymo and Cruise have caused major traffic issues, and Tesla requires consistent monitoring and struggles with certain maneuvers. The technology is still, very much, the barrier, not the regulators.

---

Again...you know ZERO about how regulators work.

I've seen us PROVE that the helicopter could do what the FAA wanted. They still demanded it be changed.

What are you going to do? Complain to the manager? Who is also just as risk averse...HAH!

The tech is the easy part.

Hell, there has been a fully fly by wire commercial helicopter (the first) FLYING since 2015.

It is not certified yet.

But, you're going to take a car and drive it down a busy highway with thousands of cars around it and the DOT will just say "Cool tech, we approve"...

Again. The tech is the EASY part. Convincing the regulators is the hard part.

And then your "couple of months" timeline literally made me laugh out loud. Even IF they decided they would approve it. It has to get put in the register for comments...I think the timeline is 60 days. Then, they have to evaluate those comments...that could take easily a year (imagine that, government drags their heels). Then, they would republish their rules...with another 60 days for comments...Rinse repeat.

****. Remote ID for UAS took about 5 years before they finally finalized things. And that's just so that people can know who is operating a UAS, not about how safe it is in the NAS.

I know there have been some companies that have done trial runs of autonomous driving. TRIAL RUNS. They're not certified yet.

I see that you've drank the kool aid, but you're going to have to understand it's going to take awhile for the regulators to give a ****. Even when you're screaming at the top of your lungs that the tech works.

You see kids, its technology that is the issue because a lawyer or regulator said the car must be able to predictably do this without killing someone or damaging property. That has nothing to do with regulatory or legal hurdles, but is about the technology that is required to meet those hurdles.

If it weren't for regulatory requirements, laws and lawyers, I could take my car out, start it, put a brick on the pedal, tie the steering wheel off and let er rip. If it kills someone, I will just say the self-driving feature was engaged, not my fault.

Makes sense to me.

aggievaulter07 said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

aggievaulter07 said:

---

Sea Speed said:

---

I keep forgetting to buy stock in tesla and this article just makes me kick myself in the ass even harder.

---

I made my IRA contributions for my wife and I, specifically to buy at $120/share when the price was at like $122. I figured it would dip down, and I'd snag it. It didn't. Kept waiting, and finally pulled the trigger at $200. Still glad I got more, but holy crap what a huge timing error.

---

Spend some time on the B&I board. You error was timing the stock purchase. ...and a limited understanding of overall markets and the complexity of Tesla and its place in the market.

Glad you got what you wanted, but hopefully one learns from their errors.

---

I'm definitely very mediocre at timing buys. I'm awful at timing sells.

IIRC, when it was at $122, there was some FUD that came out which caused me to expect it to dip below $120. It seemed like the smart thing to wait at the time, but it obviously didn't work out that way.

---

Really hard lesson to learn (which I have!), but when I am ready to buy a stock, I put an order in with limits to avoid a wild stray trade at a predatory price, and then watch over the next few mins to make sure it executes. Sometimes I have to chase the price a little, but I usually come away within a small percentage of what I believe the equity to be worth.

XpressAg09 said:

---

Sea Speed said:

---

I keep forgetting to buy stock in tesla and this article just makes me kick myself in the ass even harder.

---

Don't buy. Tesla is finished.

Source: OP

---

Hahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!

91Challenger said:

---

There is technology available for aircraft to take off and land autonomously. However, airliners are not equipped with that.

And the aircraft that air, I saw a study a while back that 1/3 of all the military preds built had crashed.

I trust my autopilot, but as a passenger, no way.

WHEN your automation fails, the only thing keeping those passengers alive is a pilot.

So, should we cut the crew to one pilot? I knew a passenger who refused to ever fly on a plane with a single pilot because he was in the back of a plane taxiing gif takeoff when the pilot died if a sudden heart attack, 30 seconds before takeoff. One minute later and he would have died as well.

Do you want you and your family on the plane with only one or even zero pilots?

---

Wouldn't bother me--I could take the helm and land it. Let's see, my license is only about 25 years out of current, but its just like riding a bike!

Let's see... E-odd, We-Even, East is least and West is Best!!

I've still got it

Yeah, let's just put a brick on an accelerator and call the vehicle self driving. The regulators won't approve that, but it's totally a self driving vehicle.

There are obviously standards, but a manufacturer isn't going to deploy a technology when that technology can't reliably get a customer form point A to point B. That is a technology problem, not a regulator problem. They want their customers to have a good experience so they get repeat customers. By the time a vehicle can do that, it will have met what regulators expect.

What regulators can do right now is ****** the development of the technology, and generally speaking, they haven't. Tesla has had to roll back some methods, but generally speaking they have progressed in a pretty normal fashion. Same for Waymo and Cruise until their vehicles started causing traffic jams. They don't want that to happen any more than regulators do.

ravingfans said:

---

91Challenger said:

---

There is technology available for aircraft to take off and land autonomously. However, airliners are not equipped with that.

And the aircraft that air, I saw a study a while back that 1/3 of all the military preds built had crashed.

I trust my autopilot, but as a passenger, no way.

WHEN your automation fails, the only thing keeping those passengers alive is a pilot.

So, should we cut the crew to one pilot? I knew a passenger who refused to ever fly on a plane with a single pilot because he was in the back of a plane taxiing gif takeoff when the pilot died if a sudden heart attack, 30 seconds before takeoff. One minute later and he would have died as well.

Do you want you and your family on the plane with only one or even zero pilots?

---

Wouldn't bother me--I could take the helm and land it. Let's see, my license is only about 25 years out of current, but its just like riding a bike!

Let's see... E-odd, We-Even, East is least and West is Best!!

I've still got it

---

Meh...my thousands of hours in the simulator are better than yours.

Don't know I'd like to try and land a 767 though...

Plus. You can't get into the cockpit now with the locked doors.

Ag with kids said:

---

ravingfans said:

---

91Challenger said:

---

There is technology available for aircraft to take off and land autonomously. However, airliners are not equipped with that.

And the aircraft that air, I saw a study a while back that 1/3 of all the military preds built had crashed.

I trust my autopilot, but as a passenger, no way.

WHEN your automation fails, the only thing keeping those passengers alive is a pilot.

So, should we cut the crew to one pilot? I knew a passenger who refused to ever fly on a plane with a single pilot because he was in the back of a plane taxiing gif takeoff when the pilot died if a sudden heart attack, 30 seconds before takeoff. One minute later and he would have died as well.

Do you want you and your family on the plane with only one or even zero pilots?

---

Wouldn't bother me--I could take the helm and land it. Let's see, my license is only about 25 years out of current, but its just like riding a bike!

Let's see... E-odd, We-Even, East is least and West is Best!!

I've still got it

---

Meh...my thousands of hours in the simulator are better than yours.

Don't know I'd like to try and land a 767 though...

Plus. You can't get into the cockpit now with the locked doors.

---

I flew a full motion triple seven simulator at a customer facility when it first was coming out. Would have got to land it except my partner was getting sick in the back and anxious to make his flight back that night (we had plenty of time).

I nosed it down hard and set off every warning device in the cockpit--was actually a little more awesome than if I had landed it!

Sounds like you have a very cool Gig...

ravingfans said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

ravingfans said:

---

91Challenger said:

---

There is technology available for aircraft to take off and land autonomously. However, airliners are not equipped with that.

And the aircraft that air, I saw a study a while back that 1/3 of all the military preds built had crashed.

I trust my autopilot, but as a passenger, no way.

WHEN your automation fails, the only thing keeping those passengers alive is a pilot.

So, should we cut the crew to one pilot? I knew a passenger who refused to ever fly on a plane with a single pilot because he was in the back of a plane taxiing gif takeoff when the pilot died if a sudden heart attack, 30 seconds before takeoff. One minute later and he would have died as well.

Do you want you and your family on the plane with only one or even zero pilots?

---

Wouldn't bother me--I could take the helm and land it. Let's see, my license is only about 25 years out of current, but its just like riding a bike!

Let's see... E-odd, We-Even, East is least and West is Best!!

I've still got it

---

Meh...my thousands of hours in the simulator are better than yours.

Don't know I'd like to try and land a 767 though...

Plus. You can't get into the cockpit now with the locked doors.

---

I flew a full motion triple seven simulator at a customer facility when it first was coming out. Would have got to land it except my partner was getting sick in the back and anxious to make his flight back that night (we had plenty of time).

I nosed it down hard and set off every warning device in the cockpit--was actually a little more awesome than if I had landed it!

Sounds like you have a very cool Gig...

---

Well...HAD.

I did simulation for 20+ years of my career. 17 with helicopters. No full motion ones, though. Your partner would have lost his lunch WAY earlier at my place.

Ag with kids said:

---

ravingfans said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

ravingfans said:

---

91Challenger said:

---

There is technology available for aircraft to take off and land autonomously. However, airliners are not equipped with that.

And the aircraft that air, I saw a study a while back that 1/3 of all the military preds built had crashed.

I trust my autopilot, but as a passenger, no way.

WHEN your automation fails, the only thing keeping those passengers alive is a pilot.

So, should we cut the crew to one pilot? I knew a passenger who refused to ever fly on a plane with a single pilot because he was in the back of a plane taxiing gif takeoff when the pilot died if a sudden heart attack, 30 seconds before takeoff. One minute later and he would have died as well.

Do you want you and your family on the plane with only one or even zero pilots?

---

Wouldn't bother me--I could take the helm and land it. Let's see, my license is only about 25 years out of current, but its just like riding a bike!

Let's see... E-odd, We-Even, East is least and West is Best!!

I've still got it

---

Meh...my thousands of hours in the simulator are better than yours.

Don't know I'd like to try and land a 767 though...

Plus. You can't get into the cockpit now with the locked doors.

---

I flew a full motion triple seven simulator at a customer facility when it first was coming out. Would have got to land it except my partner was getting sick in the back and anxious to make his flight back that night (we had plenty of time).

I nosed it down hard and set off every warning device in the cockpit--was actually a little more awesome than if I had landed it!

Sounds like you have a very cool Gig...

---

Well...HAD.

I did simulation for 20+ years of my career. 17 with helicopters. No full motion ones, though. Your partner would have lost his lunch WAY earlier at my place.

---

Hahahahahahahahaha!!! He was a turkey, so would have been well worth it!

Thanks for the quick derail detour!

Back to buying or selling TSLA!!

What is the stock going to do during/after the big reveal--is it tomorrow already??

ravingfans said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

ravingfans said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

ravingfans said:

---

91Challenger said:

---

There is technology available for aircraft to take off and land autonomously. However, airliners are not equipped with that.

And the aircraft that air, I saw a study a while back that 1/3 of all the military preds built had crashed.

I trust my autopilot, but as a passenger, no way.

WHEN your automation fails, the only thing keeping those passengers alive is a pilot.

So, should we cut the crew to one pilot? I knew a passenger who refused to ever fly on a plane with a single pilot because he was in the back of a plane taxiing gif takeoff when the pilot died if a sudden heart attack, 30 seconds before takeoff. One minute later and he would have died as well.

Do you want you and your family on the plane with only one or even zero pilots?

---

Wouldn't bother me--I could take the helm and land it. Let's see, my license is only about 25 years out of current, but its just like riding a bike!

Let's see... E-odd, We-Even, East is least and West is Best!!

I've still got it

---

Meh...my thousands of hours in the simulator are better than yours.

Don't know I'd like to try and land a 767 though...

Plus. You can't get into the cockpit now with the locked doors.

---

I flew a full motion triple seven simulator at a customer facility when it first was coming out. Would have got to land it except my partner was getting sick in the back and anxious to make his flight back that night (we had plenty of time).

I nosed it down hard and set off every warning device in the cockpit--was actually a little more awesome than if I had landed it!

Sounds like you have a very cool Gig...

---

Well...HAD.

I did simulation for 20+ years of my career. 17 with helicopters. No full motion ones, though. Your partner would have lost his lunch WAY earlier at my place.

---

Hahahahahahahahaha!!! He was a turkey, so would have been well worth it!

Thanks for the quick derail detour!

Back to buying or selling TSLA!!

What is the stock going to do during/after the big reveal--is it tomorrow already??

---

It'll pop up. TSLA is a good investment now.

Ag with kids said:

---

Plus. You can't get into the cockpit now with the locked doors.

---

Not if you're gonna have THAT negative attitude, you're not!

Bought 100 shares sub $200 this am. Better late than never i guess.

https://m.youtube.com/live/Hl1zEzVUV7w

Mayble Tesla should make an ICE unit since Ford/Chevy etc. are going all in on electric !

Make it run on clean coal and natural gas #profit

Yet another reason to avoid Tesla/EVs:

https://www.businessinsider.com/sun-more-active-solar-storms-auroras-power-outages-grounded-flights-2023-2?amp

The sun is about to get a lot more active:

" As the geomagnetic storm messes with the ionosphere's magnetic charge, it creates currents in the ionosphere. Those currents in our upper atmosphere interact with the particles in the ground. The interaction between these particles creates strong electrical currents that can flood infrastructure on Earth."

"This can trigger some bizarre phenomena. In one example, in 1972, US military pilots flying south of Haiphong harbor in North Vietnam saw two dozen sea mines explode in the water without any apparent cause. A 2018 study looking at space weather at the time concluded that the cause was a huge solar storm."

"If the currents flood the electrical grid, they can blow up transformers."

"One damaged transformer won't cause much of an issue. But a huge geomagnetic storm heading toward Earth a storm so big it would "probably give us aurora down to the equators" could cause several transformers to go at once, or overwhelm other transformers that could then blow up, knocking out the whole grid, Owens said."

Great, now we're causing climate change on the sun

At least ice car will be able to fuel at all the non electric operated gas stations