Interesting senecio,I was in West Texas driving my semi in the passing lane and another vehicle in the right lane at around 500 feet,the road was making a long sweeping turn to the left and the adaptive cc on my truck was shooting a straight line on sight,my truck saw the vehicle and started downshifting and braking,fortunately I knew what was happened and tapped the brake to disengage the cc.so the system isn’t perfect but does the job.FYI That demonstration video was faked. 2 Major Issues:
1, No where near enough nose dive for full emergency braking.
2, The dummy car is fabric and foam, not viable to the radar. The fact that it reacted at all shows that the pedestrian detection worked, it visually detected an obstacle and made efforts to reduce the impact. Thats all the system is meant to do.
Thats a lot more then auto pilot would do. Auto Pilot only keeps a plane level and at the same altitude and speed. No auto braking or object detection.
As for ACC on a motorcycle the difficulty would be sudden angle and height changes durring cornering. It is likely much harder to implement then a car where it has a mostly fixed height and angle. I would suspect we wont see it until the visual based ACC is able to function independently of radar. A video feed can be modified on the fly to adapt to the bikes sensor position changes.
Interesting, I have it in my F150, It uses the steering angle to keep track of the angle obstacles should be monitored. The semi system must be a little more sensitive.Interesting senecio,I was in West Texas driving my semi in the passing lane and another vehicle in the right lane at around 500 feet,the road was making a long sweeping turn to the left and the adaptive cc on my truck was shooting a straight line on sight,my truck saw the vehicle and started downshifting and braking,fortunately I knew what was happened and tapped the brake to disengage the cc.so the system isn’t perfect but does the job.
Well said. :claps:While Technology is all fine & dandy, all it's doing is dumbing down driving. This leads to more stupid drivers & do we really need more stupid drivers on the road? Cars & Trucks with "Park Assist" or "Trailer Assist". If you don't know how to parallel park, you don't deserve a license. If you can not backup a trailer, you shouldn't be pulling it in the first place. Contrary to popular belief, Technology is NOT infallible, Just ask Boeing.
Absolutely. If the technology isn't faulty, then why is the whole fleet grounded until it can be fixed????????true,
and that is a pure sin, the pilot should ALWAYS have the last word on how to fly the plane.
The technology was not in error,it did as Dave said what it was programmed to do but it can’t possable detect a faulty AOA sensor that had sustained damage and neither could the poor pilots.it very could have saved the airplane if all systems were operating properly.Was the Boeing technology faulty, or did it flawlessly do what it was programmed to do?
AOA can’t be corrected,it’s simply a weighted wing type apparatus that is set on the front outside of the airplane,one issue was the throttles were never pulled back from takeoff power,should have happen before the issue happened,it caused the airplane to gain speed causing high pressure on the horizontal stabilizers and nearly impossible tho turn those wheels that could have brought the nose up but the speed the aircraft was gaining there just wasn’t enough time or altitude to regain control.I saw a video on this the day after the first instance. The sensor was at fault, but once they figured out that the plane needed to be manually flown, they had to correct the AOA manually with a large flywheel like control under the throttle/thrust console. In the demonstration, they had spin the wheel what looked like 10-15 revolutions. At that point the simulator overshot the correction and the co-pilot was left chasing the correction, like loose steering.
I wonder if "Skully" could have flown out of it? He did an amazing job in the river landing.