Latest News
-
Fatal air crashes with suspected or confirmed deliberate actions by pilots
According to a source familiar with the situation, Indian investigators will delay the release of a final report on the deadly Air India Boeing crash until Friday's one-year anniversary. They say they need to complete the analysis of the planes engines. According to an early assessment by U.S. officials, reported in? Last year, a U.S. official's early assessment reported by? Indian investigators at the time said it was "too early" to reach any conclusions. The father of Captain asked India's highest court to order a independent investigation which took into consideration other causes than deliberate pilot actions, as has been suspected or proven in the following fatal accidents. CHINA EASTERN AIRLINES 2022: In March 2022 a Boeing 737-800 of China Eastern crashed into a southern Chinese hillside, killing all 132 passengers. The U.S. National Transportation Safety Board published data last month indicating that fuel was cut off to both engines. This is the first major update in the investigation of the crash. The NTSB reported that the fuel switches of both engines were moved from their run position to their cutoff positions while the aircraft was cruising at 29,000 feet. Flightradar24 reported that the data showed downward force had been applied to the controls of the first officer after fuel was stopped to the engines. The NTSB update came after China's Aviation regulator decided for the second consecutive year to not release an annual report on its investigation of the crash. It let the fourth anniversary go by without providing any insights into the cause. GERMANWINGS, 2015: A Germanwings Airbus A320 jet crash-landed into a French mountainside in March 2015 on a flight between Barcelona and Duesseldorf. All 150 people on board were killed. Investigators determined that Andreas Lubitz, the first officer of Germanwings, deliberately crashed the aircraft after locking the captain out. Lubitz, who was a pilot for the now-closed Lufthansa Low-Cost subsidiary, suffered from a mental disorder with psychotic symptoms, which led to suicidal thinking. However, Lubitz had hidden his illness from his employers. In 2018, the European Commission passed new rules regarding pilot mental health, requiring that airlines conduct psychological assessments of pilots prior to hiring them. MALAYSIA AIRLINES 2014: Flight MH370, with 239 passengers on board, vanished on March 8, 2014 en route from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing. Investigators believe that based on satellite tracking, and subsequent wreckage discoveries, the plane veered off course thousands of miles and crashed in an isolated area of southern Indian Ocean. The final report of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau revealed that Captain?Zaharie Ahmed Shah had flown a flight route in his home simulator six weeks prior, which was "initially" similar to the actual route taken by MH370. The Malaysian team of investigators said that the controls had been manipulated deliberately to divert the plane from its course. However, they could not determine who was to blame. EGYPTAIR 1999: A Boeing 767 operated by EgyptAir crashed on October 31st 1999 off Nantucket in Massachusetts killing all 217 passengers. U.S. investigators concluded in their final report that the relief first officer of the flight said, "I trust God", and then moved the controls suddenly into a nose down position, intentionally crashing the aircraft. Egyptian investigators, however, accused the NTSB for twisting evidence in order to support their suicide theory. They produced their own report citing technical issues. SILKAIR, 1997: The crash of a SilkAir Boeing 737-390 near Palembang, Indonesia on December 19, 1997 killed all 104 passengers. The air traffic controllers didn't receive a distress signal from the plane flown by an now-closed regional branch of Singapore Airlines. Investigators discovered that the flight recorders'stopped' minutes before the crash, fueling speculations about a deliberate pilot act. But the exact cause is still disputed. In a final report, Indonesian investigators stated that they could not determine the reason for the plane leaving its cruising altitude based on the limited information and data from the wreckage or flight recorders. The U.S. NTSB stated that the evidence indicated the cockpit voice recording was intentionally disconnected. They also said recovery of the aircraft was possible, but was not attempted. It was more likely than not the first officer who made the inputs for nose-down flying. (Compiled by Abhijith Ganahapavaram, edited by Jamie Freed).
-
Air India's Boeing Dreamliner crash: Inside the cockpit
According to a source familiar with the matter, Indian investigators will delay the release of their final report on the 'deadly Air India Boeing 787-8 crash until the anniversary of the accident, which is Friday. They are citing the need for a complete analysis of the engines of the aircraft. The sequence of events on June 12th, 2025 as described by Indian investigators' preliminary report published on July 12, last year. Air India Dreamliner VTANB landed at Ahmedabad as AI423 at 05:47 GMT. 07:48 GMT - An aircraft was spotted departing Bay 34 of the airport. The aircraft was cleared to taxi by air traffic control at 07:55:15 GMT. A minute later, the aircraft took the taxiway R4 from the bay and proceeded on the runway 23. 08:02 GMT - The aircraft has been transferred from tower to ground control. 08:07 GMT - Take off clearance issued. The aircraft began rolling at 08:07 GMT. Aircraft lifted off at 08:08 GMT. The report stated that "the aircraft air/ground sensor switched to air mode in accordance with liftoff." Aircraft reached maximum airspeed of 180 knots at 08:08 GMT. "Immediately after, the Engine 1 fuel?cutoff switch and Engine 2 fuel cutoff switch transitioned one by one from RUN position to?CUTOFF with a gap of 1 sec." The Engine N1 and N2 started to degrade from their takeoff values when the fuel supply was cut off. In the cockpit recording, one pilot is heard asking another why he cut off. "The other pilot replied that he didn't do it." The airport CCTV footage showed Ram Air Turbines (RATs) being deployed immediately after take-off. The aircraft began to lose height before crossing the perimeter wall of the airport. The RAT hydraulic pump started supplying power at 08:08 GMT. Fuel cutoff switch for Engine 1 has been changed from CUTOFF (fuel off) to RUN. The fuel cutoff switch for Engine 2 has also been changed from CUTOFF (stop) to RUN (run). When fuel control switches are moved from CUTOFF (cut off) to RUN (run), each engine's full-authority dual engine controls (FADEC), automatically manages the relighting and thrust recovery of ignition and fuel. Engine 1's core speed deceleration stopped and reversed. It then began to recover. Engine 2 could relight, but it was unable to stop core?speed deceleration. Fuel was added repeatedly to increase core speed acceleration. The pilot who sent "MAYDAY Mayday Mayday" at 08:09 GMT. 08:09 GMT - Data recording has stopped. (Reporting by Aditya Kalra; Editing by Jamie Freed) 08:14.44 GMT - Crash Fire tender leaves the airport premises to rescue and fight fires. (Reporting and editing by Jamie Freed; Aditya Klra)
-
Vietnam's Vingroup pushes ahead with the 'world's biggest stadium' despite doubts about demand
Vingroup, a Vietnamese company, is speeding up construction of the world's biggest stadium in Hanoi. They are betting that future demand will make the 135,000-seat venue financially viable. A Vingroup representative said during a recent site visit that thousands of workers work around the clock on the site located about 25 kilometers (15.5 miles south of the central Hanoi) to finish the venue by the end of July 2027. The completion date is a year earlier than the original plan announced in December. Vingroup, Vietnam’s largest company by market capitalisation and working on a number of projects including a high-speed rail, urban development and wind power plants, has announced that the stadium will feature "the largest seating capacity in the world" as well as?the largest fully retractable roof. According to the International Olympic Committee (IOC), the world's largest venue is the Rungrado Stadium, located in Pyongyang. The stadium has a capacity of 150.000 seats, but some observers have questioned this figure, and counted less than 120.000. Vingroup says the scale of the project reflects plans for large-scale?cultural and sporting events, including concerts. James Walton is the sports group leader for Deloitte Asia Pacific. "Football is a hugely popular sport in Vietnam. However, it's unlikely that a 135,000 seat?stadium can be justified by domestic football demand alone," he said. He pointed out that the top-tier V.League 1 in Vietnam averaged less than 6,000 spectators for each match during the 2023-24 campaign. Vingroup did not give any financial targets but stated that it expects the facility to be financially sustainable over time. Financial liabilities are a bigger problem for the company. They accounted for $36.7 billion in last year's figures, or more than 4% Vietnam's private debt by 2025. This figure does not include?additional private debts in affiliated companies. DRUM-SHAPED STADIUM The Trong Dong Stadium is named after the traditional Vietnamese bronze cymbal. It's part of a $35 billion development by Vingroup of an Olympic Sports City designed to host global events. Being part of a larger urban development can improve a project's?financial viability in the long term, said Walton. He noted that many modern national stadiums have a seating capacity between 60,000 and 80,000. The project is part a huge push to modernise Vietnam’s infrastructure, and?sustain an economic growth of atleast 10% annually until the year 2020. This is an explicit goal for the ruling Communist Party. The authorities have announced hundreds large-scale projects, estimated to be worth $200 billion, by 2030. These include airports, seaports bridges and rails. Quynh Nguyen is a finance lecturer at Hoa Sen University, in Ho Chi Minh City. He said that modernisation is necessary but caution should be exercised regarding banks' exposure to funding risks and their funding. Tran Thi Mong Tuyen is a researcher with the Hawaii-based Pacific Forum. She also warned about risks associated with underused infrastructure, including delayed investment returns. (Reporting and editing by Ed Davies; Additional reporting by Phuong Vu, Khanh Vu)
-
Air India crash report delayed due to unfinished engine examination, Bloomberg News reports
Bloomberg News reported that investigators would miss the deadline of Friday to?explain? why an Air India plane crashed. This is because the engines of the Boeing 787 aircraft still need to be examined in the U.S. The report cited people who were familiar with the situation as saying that the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau of India (AAIB), will likely release a status update this week focusing on the reasons for the delay. Air India 787, headed for London on June 12, 2025 crashed shortly after takeoff in Ahmedabad.?260 people were killed in the deadliest air disaster of the decade. Bloomberg News reported that a final report should be completed within three months for the GE Aerospace 'engines. The examination is taking place in the U.S. as there are only a handful of places worldwide that have the 'necessary tool and can dismantle the engines properly. First reported last month, Indian officials investigating the crash prepared an interim report instead of a final report ahead of the first anniversary because they deemed the investigation complex and time-consuming. Internationally, the final report should be submitted within one year after an accident. However, investigations can take longer. If this is not possible, a statement interim should be released on each anniversary. AAIB, India’s aviation ministry, Air India and the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board did not respond immediately to'requests for comments. The crash occurred at an important stage in Air India's post-privatisation turnaround. This was slowed down by supply-chain problems, the Iran War, and a Pakistani airspace ban on Indian carriers. PRELIMINARY REPORT The 787's fuel control switches were found to have been switched from "Run" to "CUTOFF" almost simultaneously, starving the engines of fuel soon after takeoff. According to an early assessment by U.S. officials last year, a cockpit recording of the dialogue between the pilots supports the idea that the captain stopped the flow of fuel to the plane's engine. AAIB stated that it was "too early" to draw any conclusions. The father of the Captain asked India's highest court to order a independent investigation that considered other causes than deliberate pilot actions, which was suspected in other fatal crashes and confirmed by the case of Germanwings 2015. According to a letter seen by the. The group of pilots also asked investigators to obtain more technical information on the plane from Boeing and Air India in order to "refute the theory that the AAIB is exploring about the pilot's suicide." The preliminary report made no safety recommendations for Boeing or GE at the time, indicating that there were no technical problems. Reporting by Chris Thomas in Mexico City and Carlos Mendez, Abhijith Ganapavaram in New Delhi. Editing by Jamie Freed.
-
US Energy regulator approves PJM’s rapid-tracked plan for power plant interconnection
PJM Interconnection, a U.S. grid operator, announced on Wednesday that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission had approved the expedited interconnection process. This temporary process is designed to 'advance large projects of a significant size in order to meet the urgent demand for additional capacity resources. According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA), U.S. electricity consumption, which reached its second consecutive annual record in 2025, is expected to?rise even further in 2026 or 2027 due in part by AI-hungry data centers and electrification. The approval comes at a time when PJM, along with states?across the footprint of PJM, are seeking to bring online new power generation more quickly in order to meet the rising?electricity demands and maintain grid reliability. PJM?said that it would consider 10 interconnection requests for each calendar year, under the EIT Plan, for large new capacity resources or upgraded capacities, which, among other criteria have a commitment by a relevant authority to expedite locating. "FERC's approval for PJM's accelerated interconnection track creates a pathway that will allow qualified generation?projects to be connected onto?the grid in?the next 3 years," stated PJM CEO David Mills. PJM expects that the projects will be able to?execute a generation interconnection contract within 10 months after submission, and operational within 3 years. The FERC order will take effect on July 31. The expedited interconnection procedure will last until the end of 2027. Reporting by Pooja menon in Bengaluru, Editing by Mark Porter
-
Wall Street indexes drop 1% due to tech and Iran War worries
Investors are uncertain as the major U.S. indexes closed more than 1% down on Wednesday. Chipmaker shares have continued to decline and renewed tensions between?the U.S. After one of the largest exchanges of gunfire overnight in the Middle East War since April, President Donald Trump announced that the U.S. will attack Iran "very hard". Nvidia, Broadcom and other semiconductor companies were the main drags on the S&P 500. Investors are concerned about the stretched valuations in the semiconductor sector. The Cboe Volatility Index has advanced for the second consecutive day. In recent days, volatility has increased. Tom Hainlin is an investment strategist with U.S. Bank Wealth Management, based in Minneapolis. He said that investors were also "pricing in maybe a higher rate of interest" following recent economic data, and they are worried about the war. He said, "Perhaps this conflict will continue into the late summer or mid-summer." At its policy meeting in June, the Federal Reserve is expected to keep interest rates unchanged. Investors have priced in at least a 25 basis-point rate increase by the end the year. The S&P 500 fell 119.00 points or 1.61% to 7,267.65, while the Nasdaq Composite dropped 505.31 or 1.97% to 25,169.50. The Dow Jones Industrial Average dropped 952.04 points or 1.87% to 49,920.07. The U.S. employment report on Friday was better than expected. Data showed that on Wednesday, U.S. Consumer prices rose 4.2% over the past 12 months, which is the highest increase since April 2023. The Middle East conflict has also increased the price of energy products and gasoline. According to a survey of economists, the pace of growth was in line with predictions. Super Micro Computer, among other decliners fell after it announced plans to raise $7 billion via a series equity and equity-linked finance transactions in order to fund component purchases needed for its growing AI servers demand. Healthcare, real estate, and consumer staples have all benefited from the rotation of shares in high-flying technology companies. SpaceX's much-hyped listing on Friday of $1.75 trillion, which aims to raise a record $75 Billion, could also put pressure on U.S. stock prices as fears mount over excessive optimism in tech. Shares of XPO, J.B. 'Hunt, and Old Dominion, among others, also fell after Amazon announced its expansion of less-than truckload freight services in America. The industrials sector led the declines. Caroline Valetkevitch reported from New York, Joel Jose from Bengaluru and Twesha Dkshit in Bengaluru. Additional reporting was provided by Twesha Dkshit and Sruthi Shankar in Bengaluru. Shinjini Gregorio and David Gregorio edited the article.
-
India considering Canada as potential crude oil supplier, envoy says
India is looking at Canada as a possible 'crude oil' supplier, said the High Commissioner Dinesh Patnaik on Wednesday, speaking at the Global Energy Show, in Calgary, Alberta. He added that Canada has new refineries designed to process heavy crudes, which makes Canadian grades an attractive option. Patnaik stated that officials from both countries meet regularly to discuss the?opportunities of sourcing Canadian energy. He also said that investors are still cautious about Canada's project and regulatory approval processes. This could have an impact on the pace of energy collaboration. Separately, Abu Dhabi National Oil Company'said Tuesday that it was 'exploring opportunities' in Canada’s upstream natural gas and liquefied sectors via XRG. Canada is the fourth largest crude oil producer in the world and ranks fifth for natural gas production.
-
Port authority reports that Panamanian and Barbadian vessels were damaged in an attack on Ukrainian waters.
The Ukrainian Ports Authority reported on Wednesday that two vessels flying the Panamanian and Barbadian flags had been damaged by an attack while they were moving along Ukraine's Black Sea navigation corridor. According to the authority's Telegram post, one vessel is headed towards the port of Odesa - a vital port for Ukrainian exports - with a cargo?of metal while the other was carrying grain and had already left the port. Both vessels were operating in the navigation corridor set up by Ukrainian authorities to allow ships travel from the 'Black Sea' to Romanian ports along the 'Danube River. Oleh Kiper said in Telegram that Russian drones were responsible for the attacks. The Russian Defence Ministry did not respond immediately to a comment request. Ports Authority said that a fire broke out on one of the vessels, but it was quickly put out by the crew. No injuries were reported and both ships were able continue their journeys. Kiper, writing on 'Telegram', said that the enemy continues to terrorize the?peaceful Odesa Region and tries?to disrupt?the operation of the Ukrainian marine corridor. Kiper said that "several waves of Russian drones" had also attacked the south Odesa region and struck civilian targets as well as energy infrastructure. Bill Berkrot edited the report by Ron Popeski, Oleksandr Kozoukhar and Bill Berkrot.
Special Report-Why Tesla AI trainers do not trust self-driving technology or safety statistics
In an office in Utah, hundreds of Tesla employees scrutinize the video footage collected by cars using the Full Self-Driving feature (FSD). In some clips, the cars are shown hitting deer or cats. Other clips show more common accidents. They sometimes don't stop before hitting. They speed up a lot. Sometimes, workers witness children playing on the street.
These Tesla staffers, also known as "data labels," train the AI-powered Tesla driver-assistance system. They note incidents of good driving and bad driving, and report problems to engineers who are working to improve the software.
Elon Musk, Tesla's CEO, says that FSD will "soon" make all Teslas autonomous. Interviews with nine former Tesla labelers and an ex-self-driving engineering show that in recent months, the technology has struggled to perform basic maneuvers such as avoiding emergencies or stopping to let school buses load or unload students. (View the article on.com:)
Musk and other executives continue to tout the safety of FSD, despite its dangerous flaws. They have pushed Tesla into staging public demonstrations of the fully automated capability that the CEO has "promised" investors each year for the past decade. Displays include a robotaxi in Austin, Texas that was launched in June last year with human safety monitors inside the cars as well as others who worked remotely.
Four former Tesla employees said that as the events neared, Tesla staffers spent long hours mapping routes, and training software to recognize specific hazards, in order to make self-driving cars appear more capable. Staffers claimed that these labor-intensive safety measures are not feasible to implement on a large scale. These efforts, which were not previously reported, undermine Musk’s claim that Tesla’s self-driving tech will soon work globally, and won't need the laborious mapping of local roads and hazards used by competitors. Musk said Tesla relies on AI and cameras to simplify its approach. This will allow Tesla to expand its robotaxi service with "hyperexponential speed" and give current Tesla owners complete autonomy via software updates.
Musk and other Tesla leaders have reinforced the impression of robocompetence by citing statistics about company safety that, they claim, prove FSD to be up to 10x safer than human driving.
A? A?examen of Tesla's statistical method and interviews with?company?insiders shows Tesla isn't near delivering safely self-driving cars at scale, a promise that underpins the automaker's stock-market valuation of $1.6 trillion. This included an analysis of how Tesla compares their own crash data with federal crash data, a comparison of the more rigorous methodology used by robotaxi rival Waymo and interviews with eleven traffic-safety experts who reviewed Tesla's method. The review identified several invalid data comparisons that were used to support the statistics in Tesla’s FSD safety reports. Ten researchers claimed this was misleading marketing, rather than an investigation into a crucial safety issue.
Tesla, for example, exaggerates safety of the technology by comparing a crash rate in FSD-piloted Teslas which triggered airbag deployments with a federal accident rate for all vehicles, including far less severe accidents. Tesla also compares their cars with the average U.S. car, which is older than the typical Tesla. Researchers said that this results are distorted because automakers all have launched safety features to reduce accidents.
"Any new vehicle is significantly safer than an old car," said Phil Koopman. He's a Carnegie Mellon University professor of engineering and an expert in autonomous vehicles. It's like saying, "My jet plane is faster than your World War II Bomber." Yeah, then what's the point?
Tesla did not respond to the detailed questions for this report. Tesla's CFO Vaibhav Tania first claimed that the robotaxi was 10-times safer in July last year, following Tesla's Austin launch. Robyn Denholm, Tesla Board Chair, repeated the claim at a meeting in November where shareholders approved an incentive package that would grant Musk up to $1 trillion worth of Tesla stock. Musk displayed at the same meeting a chart that claimed "85% fewer crashes" based on the recently revised Tesla method.
Musk said to shareholders that he felt "almost comfortable" allowing drivers to text while driving. In the next few months, we'll be closely examining safety statistics. But we will let you text while driving.
Tesla still hasn't approved texting while driving using FSD six months after it was first announced. The fine print of its FSD site continues to warn that "currently enabled features require active supervisory supervision and do NOT make the vehicle autonomic." Tesla has often cited this disclaimer when sued for serious accidents.
FSD has been widely recognized as a technology capable of handling a wide range of driving situations and can do so for extended periods. Full autonomy is still elusive to Tesla and other car companies because it requires flawless technology execution, even in the most complicated driving situations.
Seven former data labelers said they would not trust FSD to drive them. One said, "We've all seen it fail." One man said that he would not ride in a Tesla Robotaxi "if you paid me." Another self-driving expert, who has studied Tesla crash data over the years, called Tesla's safety claims "bullshit."
The engineer replied, "I don't think you can trust Elon with this."
'TRAUMA TEAM REVIEWS NEAR MISSES
Tesla's data labels get an up-close look at FSD capabilities by reviewing footage from eight exterior cameras equipped vehicles.
Former employees said that FSD failed to perform basic tasks such as stopping for emergency vehicles or giving motorcycles enough room. They saw FSD vehicles failing to brake at freeway exit ramps. One Tesla even hit a concrete barrier. The footage, according to them, did not show if anyone was injured. Two employees claimed that clips showed FSD not avoiding construction zones. One of these incidents involved a Tesla driving into the construction zone and nearly hitting workers, according to one person.
This account is based on the descriptions provided by former staffers of the footage they saw.
Managers at Tesla carefully control access to videos. Employees only watch the clips that they are assigned. They may or may be able to see FSD's biggest failures.
Three employees reported that one data-labeling group focused on pedestrians who were close to being hit. One source claimed that the employees were known informally as "the trauma team" and worked in Palo Alto in California with special access to the footage. The trauma-team footage was closely guarded by engineers, but sometimes, some footage "slipped through" to the other teams, according to the source.
Both the person and an employee claimed to have seen clips of drivers taking control manually at the last moment when FSD failed recognize pedestrians at crosswalks. Two former employees remembered seeing videos of FSD-piloted Teslas almost hitting children last year.
Tesla has faced federal investigations, lawsuits, and other legal proceedings for many years involving fatal crashes that were blamed by drivers or regulators on the failure of FSD, or its older Autopilot system. In 2021, the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration opened an investigation on Autopilot after a number of accidents involving Teslas hitting emergency vehicles. In 2023, the investigation led to a recall where Tesla installed software updates to detect when drivers are not paying attention.
NHTSA is currently conducting four investigations on FSD and Autopilot. One of these involves dozens cases in which vehicles using FSD did not stop at red lights or turned towards traffic. A second investigation examines whether Tesla's Autopilot upgrades for 2023 were adequate to solve the safety issues. The agency is investigating nine FSD incidents, including one fatal crash where the system failed due to reduced visibility, such as in fog or sun glare. Tesla was awarded $243 million last year after an Autopiloted Tesla crash in Florida killed a woman aged 22 and seriously injured her boyfriend. Tesla has appealed. The company settled similar cases without disclosing the terms in several other similar cases.
NHTSA did not respond to a question from NHTSA about the safety of FSDs and Tesla's method when asked by NHTSA. The agency referred any questions regarding Tesla's safety claims over to the U.S. Federal Trade Commission.
The FTC refused to comment on Tesla’s safety statistics. Consumer advocacy groups and U.S. Senators have asked the FTC to look into Tesla's marketing for Autopilot and FSD.
Tesla has not been subjected to any enforcement action by the FTC.
STATS INFLATED ON TESLA'S FSD SAFETY
Tesla's CEO and board boosted their claims of safety as employees watched the videos. Tesla's leaders promoted this 10-times safer claim for much of the last year.
Tesla CFO Taneja stated in a call to discuss earnings that "a car with FSD will be 10x safer". "Even with $99 per month, you get a personal driver for less than $3.33 per day."
Tesla's method is flawed because of a comparison error. This led to a three-fold increase in the claimed level of safety. The automaker compared data from all crashes involving a tow truck with the number of Tesla crashes that had airbags deployed. This was a much less strict criterion. Tow truck crashes are often not severe enough to activate airbags.
Tesla used a flawed methodology, even though the federal data that it used included crashes in which airbags were deployed. The flawed methodology led to the conclusion that Teslas with FSD or Autopilot traveled 10 times further between crashes than an average human driver.
According to Marco Benedetti's analysis, a former NHTSA statistician and assistant research scientist from the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute, Teslas with driver-assistance systems are three times more likely to travel between crashes in which airbags were deployed. Two other traffic safety researchers confirmed Benedetti’s calculations.
Benedetti explained that Tesla's method is flawed in several ways, and this does not mean FSD makes a driver three times more safe than an average driver.
Tesla changed its approach to only include data from vehicles that use FSD in November and excluded those using Autopilot. Tesla claimed more miles between crashes by including Autopilot because it is a less complex system that's designed for highways, where cars travel fewer miles and crash less often than in urban areas. On its website, the company continues to cite the flawed airbag crash comparison to claim that FSD is 7 times safer than an average driver. This amounts to 85% in percentage terms.
The findings of a study cast doubts on the safety of FSD.
When comparing its crash rates to those of the nation, the automaker does not take into account the age of the vehicle. Tesla compares the average age of its cars, which is just 4.1, with that of all U.S. vehicles which averages 12.8. Ten safety researchers said that this skews results because most automakers are now offering revolutionary safety features across their entire lineup, such as blind-spot detection and automatic emergency brakes.
Tesla reduces the number of crashes by counting only those that occur with FSD on or within 5 seconds after it is turned off. The U.S. Government, on the other hand, requires automakers report crashes that occur within 30 seconds after an advanced driver assistance system is deactivated.
Tesla claims FSD can save over 32,000 lives each year and prevent 1.9 million injuries. Researchers in traffic safety have called these figures meaningless, because they assume that all U.S. vehicles, including trucks and motorcycles that are crash-prone, will be replaced with Tesla cars that support FSD, and that each Tesla is at least seven-times safer than its predecessor.
The More?Rigorous Approach of WAYMO
Ten traffic safety researchers have said that the premise behind Tesla's statistics on safety is flawed as well, because FSD isn’t a true autonomous system. Tesla's executives are wrong when they claim that the company is comparing its technology with human drivers. Tesla isn't comparing its technology to human drivers, as executives claim. Instead, it compares the average driver with another human who drives a Tesla and uses FSD. Tesla fails to take into account that these drivers are able to turn FSD off and on. Research shows that motorists avoid advanced driver-assistance technologies in traffic situations with high levels of complexity, as they feel unsafe. Tesla's data indicates that FSD is mostly used on highways.
Alphabet Waymo compares its driverless robotaxis in 11 U.S. metro areas to similar human-driven cars.
Waymo adopts a more rigorous strategy than Tesla. It examines crash data from the markets in which it operates, and adjusts for the type of roads and neighborhoods that its robotaxis travel. Waymo looks at specific crash rates, such as airbag deployments and serious injuries. This is for both human-driven cars and Waymo's cars.
John Scanlon is a Waymo researcher who specializes in safety. "You have to be very specific with your research questions and conclusions."
Waymo, meanwhile, points out flaws in its data as well as collaborating with external researchers to publish its safety statistics in peer reviewed journals. Tesla, on the other hand, does not seek peer review, and only publishes top-line statistics about safety, while keeping Tesla's crash data secret.
VIDEOS OF TESLAS STRIVING DOGS, CATS AND DEAR
Data labelers at Tesla get a raw look at FSD safety. Three former Tesla employees have described videos of Teslas hitting animals at high speed without braking.
Five former employees stated that specific teams were focused on FSD’s difficulties recognizing school busses. The Dawn Project, a technology safety group, raised this concern by airing ads at the Super Bowls of 2023 and 2024 showing Teslas with FSD enabled failing to stop for school buses with flashing lights and stop signs.
Two former Tesla employees have said that they saw videos similar to those in Tesla.
Five former data labelers have described a chaotic, hurried work environment, where priorities were constantly changing based on Musk's and FSD's engineers' directives. They said that the data-labeling department was plagued by a high turnover rate due to monotonous work and low pay.
Four former employees claim that Tesla's higher-ups would often launch new projects as a reaction to news stories or social media posts that showed FSD making mistakes. One project was to fix the problem of sunlight obscuring exterior cameras on cars. A social media video showed how the light reflected off a watch of a passenger blinded a camera, shutting FSD down. A second effort was made at railroad crossings after news reports that Teslas with FSD failed to stop there.
Five of the employees also said that FSD clips regularly showed speeding. Engineers and other people higher up in the chain treated this as a problem with low priority.
After the automaker launched a "Mad Max mode" that allows for more aggressive driving, one employee reported labelers regularly seeing Teslas exceeding speed limits of 20-30 miles per hour. One labeler said he saw a vehicle driven by FSD traveling at 60 mph within a 25 mph zone.
TESLA PUBLIC ROBOTAXI DISPLAYS: BEHIND THE CURTAIN
Musk announced Tesla's self driving capabilities in October 2024, as Tesla employees struggled with FSD training. The robotaxi was unveiled at Warner Bros. Studios near Los Angeles. Musk showed off about 20 two-door prototypes of his "Cybercab" which had no pedals or steering wheel, to the invite-only audience.
He said, "The cars just pass by without any people."
Musk said Tesla's software was designed to navigate unfamiliar landscapes and work anywhere. Two former data-labeling workers claim that for the weeks leading up to the Cybercab launch, the staff collected video footage of the route the cars would take at the event. The employees claimed that labelers spent hundreds hours on video annotating road markings and curbs to avoid embarrassing incidents.
Musk has dismissed this approach as being too expensive and slow. Musk called Waymo's'very localized solutions' "quite fragile" in 2024.
Musk announced on a call for earnings in January 2025 that Tesla will launch robotaxis in Austin in June 2025, after the Warner Bros. presentation. He hailed the technology as "a generalized AI solution," which didn't need "high precision maps of a specific location."
Tesla filmed stop lights, road signage and other features for months prior to the Austin launch. Two employees who have direct knowledge of this matter say that data labelers marked up the video to make sure the software was capable of handling challenging scenarios. These included passenger pickups and responding to emergency vehicles.
Three employees claimed that the Utah data-labeling team doubled in the half-year prior to the Austin launch, from about 100 workers to 300. They said that the department worked on a variety of projects in order to ensure that the Austin test went smoothly.
Two employees reported that the software was still unreliable as Tesla data labelers were preparing for the "rollout". Some driving behaviors improved with each FSD upgrade. Some driving behaviors improved with each FSD update. Two large screens in the Utah office displayed statistics on FSD, a key safety metric for autonomous driving.
Former employees stated that the company's performance was "like the stock market", with no consistency in improvement.
Two sets of human safety monitors are available for the vehicles to hit the road: one in the front passenger's seat and another watching remotely. Labelers in Utah could watch videos to see when remote monitors were taking control of the vehicles. Former employee stated that the Austin routes were created for a small area to allow the software of the cars to be extensively trained on specific maneuvers in particular streets.
The person who said this described it as "OK, we taught a car" how to operate within a restricted area. "You can't be creative outside of this."
Four sources stated that scaling up in a safe manner could take many years. Musk said in July that the robotaxi service would be expanded to cover half of the U.S. by 2025, just a month after its launch in Austin. Musk claimed falsely in January that Tesla operated 500 “robotaxi vehicles” in Austin and San Francisco Bay Area. He added that he expected this to "double each month" along an "exponential" curve.
According to a recent presentation by officials, Tesla operates less than 50 robotaxis in Austin, despite the launch of the service nearly a full year ago. Three sources confirmed that the vehicles travel within a carefully-mapped and limited zone. According to recent observations made by a journalist, some vehicles still have human safety monitors on the front passenger's seat.
Tesla announced in April that it would be launching robotaxis throughout Dallas and Houston. It also provided maps of the areas covered. Reporters who tested the service recently in both cities reported long wait times and inconsistent availability. When a reporter was able to get a ride three times in Dallas, the robotaxi would not drop him off at his destination downtown within Tesla's service area.
Every time it took him 15 minutes to walk. (By Chris Kirkham, Los Angeles; and Rachael LEVY, Washington. Sheila Dang, Norihiko Schirouzu, and Benjamin Lesser contributed additional reporting. Brian Thevenot, David Crawshaw and Brian Thevenot edited the story.
(source: Reuters)