I'd say that half of the issue is that even if the term is accurate, people hear the word autopilot and expect it to be a lot more than what it actually is.
In this case I mean that choosing “autopilot” as a name was probably not meant to trick anyone. Just an overestimate of the layperson’s understanding of the aircraft equivalent.
Additionally most people are not pilots and do not know much about autopilot. From movies and other media the even just the term autopilot gives a sense of complete automation.
Which is kind of funny, because every pilot knows the limitation of each kind of autopilot. I think a lot of it is public expectation of that kind of name.
I am asserting people have a set idea of what the word "autopilot" means, and it doesn't mean "unable to pilot on its own without me being fully attentive to it at all times". And I am also asserting that this name was chosen specifically for this implication.
I agree that the name issue is a red herring, but not for this reason. Autopilots are operated by people who are trained in their use, and, for the most part [1], understand their limitations. 'Understanding their limitations' is exactly the issue here.
[1] Following a number of WTF-type accidents, there is some concern that airplane automation has become too complex for pilots to reason about when it partially fails, but if that is actually the case, it raises the bar for all partial automation, including for cars.
You can't call a system "Autopilot" without having at least some percentage of the population not understand its name is really just borderline fraudulent marketing. People get complacent when systems work most of the time.
Also, people that might get hit by a malfunctioning Autopilot don't get to opt out from getting hit by "Autopilot".
reply