Follows heading and speed instructions, newer models can also be programmed using the flight plan to follow more complex directions. Autoland is also a thing now. Commercial aviation is a gigantic set of checklists, autopilot progressively does more of the checklist items.
Autopilot is hilariously a fantastic name for the Tesla system. If people knew anything about how commercial aviation systems actually work, they would understand this
Sounds more like very simple cruise control, at least for the main leg of the flight.
Though I suppose "follows heading instructions" can be complex? Does an autopilot "lane keep", in the sense of issuing corrections after hitting a turbulence "pothole", to return it to the flight path? Or does it just beep and shut off, telling the pilot to fix the heading?
One thing I would expect "sufficiently-advanced autopilot" to do, would be to fly under/over/around large regions of turbulence on its own, and to then return to the original heading. Like driving around a large pothole, but the pothole can be 30 mins of flight-time large. (I'm guessing that this technology exists, but currently only in military aviation for long-distance fly-by-wire UAVs "swarms", not in commercial aviation for piloted aircraft.)
Also, is there any actual logic for obstacle avoidance? If you steer two autopiloted planes toward each-other, do they "take evasive maneuvers", or do they just beep very loudly to get the pilots to do that?
...also, is the on-the-ground taxi-ing process automated? Because that seems like drudge-work that really could be automated — airports really seem like they have enough information about where everything is on the ground, and enough very strict rules about precedence when driving around the tarmac. (Heck, in theory the airport could centrally control taxi-ing with little tugboat-like robots that hug each plane's front wheel — I think I've seen this before?) And automating taxi-ing before take-off in particular, would free up some extremely critical time that could be used to be more thorough with preflight inspection.
Autopilot will not automatically route itself around turbulence, that would be a path entered by the pilots. It can correct from being blown off course. Autopilot is by necessity a direction following system, it must not make its own choices about navigation.
In commercial flight, collisions are incredibly rare and unlikely, and there are already systems in place to avoid them, but there are separate systems to warn about proximity. Essentially, there is a transponder system that alerts with increasing frequency at closer distances.
Taxiing is not automated, and only older planes need to be towed with tug trucks. The idea behind autopilot as it exists is to lower the pilots' workload so that they have more mental capacity available if something serious happens. Taxing is a much more limited problem space, so limited payoff in automating.
For the record, I'm not a pilot, just an enthusiast. The systems are all pretty well documented if you're interested.
> Sounds more like very simple cruise control, at least for the main leg of the flight.
And it is.
Although it had been already abused to hell and back, see "children of the magenta", ca 1997.
Turbulence is undetectable, TCAS is shit and there is no replacement for a warm butt in the chair which hopefully understands how the thing handles, especially in the hell on the ground that the major airports are.
Not inherently, and we're getting there. See e.g. https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/18/3/798 for the use of time-of-flight sensor sampling (i.e. a depth-of-field camera) to build a picture of local turbulence (in water rather than air, but the principle translates.)
Not inherently, but not practical either. The paper talks about refractive index , and while that may be useful for liquids, it does nothing for low-pressure low-density gas like the air. Eh, it water I think phased array sonar could depict turbulence better than an optical system. In air -- no such luck. It's just centuries-old rule of "do not fly into clouds and otherwise hope the plane doesn't break apart".
> Sounds more like very simple cruise control, at least for the main leg of the flight.
The cruise control (keeping the speed) is the autothrottle.
> Does an autopilot "lane keep", in the sense of issuing corrections after hitting a turbulence "pothole", to return it to the flight path?
AFAIK, it depends on the intensity of the turbulence. If it's not too strong, it will maintain the set heading (not flight path) and altitude, issuing corrections as necessary. If the turbulence is too strong for it to correct, it'll disengage (with a beep and blinking lights) and let the pilot deal with it.
> One thing I would expect "sufficiently-advanced autopilot" to do, would be to fly under/over/around large regions of turbulence on its own, and to then return to the original heading.
That's the pilot's role, the pilot has to give the autopilot instructions on where to go to avoid the turbulence (and the pilot is the one who has to find the turbulence in the first place, by using the weather radar and reports through the radio from the ground or from other airplanes, and even then there are kinds of turbulence that are basically invisible).
> Also, is there any actual logic for obstacle avoidance? If you steer two autopiloted planes toward each-other, do they "take evasive maneuvers", or do they just beep very loudly to get the pilots to do that?
That's called TCAS, both airplanes talk to each other and decide on a course of action (which one should climb and which one should descend), and they tell the pilots (through a pre-recorded voice) what they should do. The pilots should immediately override the autopilot (there's a conveniently-placed button to do that) and fly manually. AFAIK, no autopilot does that automatically for now.
There's also terrain warnings (either through a downward-facing radar or through a database of terrain heights), I don't know whether there are autopilots which automatically ascend when a collision with terrain is imminent and the pilot doesn't react to the aural warnings in time.
> ...also, is the on-the-ground taxi-ing process automated?
> Autopilot is hilariously a fantastic name for the Tesla system. If people knew anything about how commercial aviation systems actually work, they would understand this
This seems pretty contradictory. We require a lot of expensive training and certification before we declare someone a pilot and let them fly a plane with autopilot. Knowing that, I would suggeset that using the term 'autopilot' in a car that can be driven by untrained individuals is probably the wrong choice. We should use terminology that is crystal clear to Joe Average.
Drivers have driver's licenses. Pilots have pilot's licenses. Also, any idiot can take flight lessons and fly a plane with basic autopilot, no license required.
Autopilot is hilariously a fantastic name for the Tesla system. If people knew anything about how commercial aviation systems actually work, they would understand this