There's another aviation term, "The Pilot Flying." The Pilot In Command bears the authority and responsibility. The Pilot Flying is doing the work of steering. If present, a Pilot Not Flying might help with checklists, system monitoring, navigation, radio communication, handling secondary controls like flaps and landing gear, but the Pilot Flying is in immediate control of the aircraft.

The PIC is very often not the pilot flying. I used to be a flight instructor, when teaching students who aren't yet qualified to command, I acted as Pilot In Command, but the student was the Pilot Flying as much as possible.

Autopilots have been a thing for most of aviation history. It doesn't count as a crewman. It's a piece of equipment like any radio or gauge. It is a tool at the PICs disposal. It is the PIC's job - sometimes delegated to the Pilot Flying - to monitor the autopilot and take over if it begins doing something wrong.

That's the concept that is missing with self-driving or driverless cars. Tesla drivers will sit in the driver's seat and abdicate command of the vehicle to the autopilot, or worse, cars are operating as taxis with passengers in the back seat and no one in the front seat, or with no onboard controls at all. Fully autonomously, or remotely operated by Southeast Asians who...totally have a valid American driver's license. Definitely.

Corporations love it. "Legally, the driver is responsible for the vehicle. Our car has no driver, so legally no one is responsible for the vehicle. Responsibility averted."

[–] FishFace@piefed.social 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I think this is all a distraction. The law, and Tesla's non-marketing communication, are clear: unless in a pilot scheme, there needs to be a driver, and the driver is responsible and just remain in control and able to take over if the car fucks up.

Tesla is guilty of using misleading product badges ("full self driving") which invites illegal use, but this is not a problem with driver's education or their technical communication. Irresponsible owners ignore the technical communication and let the car drive while doing something else and being unable to take over. This is not a conceptual problem needing a radical new notion of "driver in command" though. It just needs manufacturers to describe their features accurately also when naming them. And it requires drivers to actually adhere to the rules which of course will never happen.

[–] captain_aggravated@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I'm thinking bigger than that. There are companies right now operating robotic taxis on American roads with no human operators on board. A car that may or may not even have a steering wheel arrives, a human passenger climbs into the back seat, and the car drives off with them. Who is legally responsible for the operation of that car? If it hurts someone, who do they sue? If it commits a crime, who do we punish?

[–] FishFace@piefed.social 1 points 23 hours ago

I was under the impression those were pilot schemes.

But that's fair enough, in that situation - which is not the "Tesla driver playing video games" I think was under discussion before - someone does need to be declared responsible. I don't know the details of the agreements but I can imagine there isn't.

[–] starman2112@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Well nowadays there is "someone else" (for a given definition of "someone") with a set of controls. Kids are being taught to drive in machines that literally drive themselves, and they need to learn that every decision that the self-driving computer makes ultimately falls on them as the driver. I think they were saying that this is a concept that needs to be taught, not a law that needs to be enacted.

That's not to say that a manufacturer is blameless when a FSD car careens into the side of a building at 80 mph. Just that immediate legal responsibility for the movement of a vehicle generally falls on a driver.

[–] Bytemeister@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The concept is that anything that happens to that aircraft (or car) is the sole responsibility of the pilot. Flying into restricted airspace? If it's necessary to avoid a collision, you do it. Putting the plane down in a field? Better than hoping you can make it to a runway when your engine is out and lives are on the line. Another driver signals that you are clear to make a left turn on a congested road? Nope, because when that traffic you couldn't see hits you on the right, you're responsible for your car, their car, and all the people inside both vehicles.

[–] FishFace@piefed.social 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Well not quite. A manufacturing or maintenance defect will not be the responsibility of the pilot (unless they should have spotted it on their walkaround)

I'm not sure what comparison you're trying to make though; the grandparent said there needs to be a similar concept for cars, I said that there already was one. Are you agreeing or disagreeing that there already is one? Are you saying that, at present, the driver would not be responsible for moving into traffic if someone else had flashed their lights? Because that is certainly not true where I live.

[–] Bytemeister@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The problem is that in that case, due to poor training or judgement, the person driving the turning car did not consider themselves solely responsible for the safe operation of the vehicle, they let the driver in the signaling car decide if it was safe.

It's subtle, but it happens all the time, because we don't train drivers to think that way.

[–] FishFace@piefed.social 2 points 1 day ago

In my country, we do train drivers to think that way, and then drivers stop thinking that way because they're lazy.

The difference here is not a conceptual one where drivers don't understand rationally that they're respondible for their actions, it's one of standards and levels of training.