Recurring |
one_organization, multiple_organization |
(a) The software failure incident related to Tesla vehicles and their Autopilot features has happened before within the same organization. In the past, there have been incidents where Tesla vehicles were involved in crashes while the Autopilot feature was engaged. For example, a driver of a 2017 Tesla Model X SUV died in a crash in California in March 2018 while accessing a video game on his phone [113192]. Another incident involved a driver in 2016 who died after the car's Autopilot feature failed to brake when a tractor-trailer pulled out in front of the Tesla [113192].
(b) The software failure incident related to autonomous driving features and crashes has also occurred with other organizations or their products. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has initiated investigations into 28 Tesla crashes, indicating similar incidents involving autonomous driving technology in vehicles from different manufacturers [113192]. Additionally, the NTSB has reviewed fires caused by lithium-ion batteries in electric vehicles from various companies, not just Tesla, highlighting the broader risk associated with battery-related incidents in electric vehicles [113192]. |
Phase (Design/Operation) |
design, operation |
(a) The software failure incident related to the design phase can be seen in the case of the Tesla crash in Texas where two men died. The incident occurred as the Tesla vehicle crashed into a tree in a Houston suburb. It was reported that the vehicle was operating without a driver, and investigations revealed that neither of the passengers was in the driver's seat at the time of the crash. This incident raises questions about the design and development of Tesla's self-driving technology, particularly the Autopilot function, and whether it had been sufficiently tested before implementation [113192].
(b) The software failure incident related to the operation phase can be observed in the same Tesla crash incident. Despite Tesla's vehicles having features like Autopilot that can steer, accelerate, and brake on their own in certain circumstances, drivers are still required to supervise and be ready to intervene. However, some distracted drivers have been involved in crashes as their cars navigate on their own. In previous incidents, drivers were found to be distracted, accessing a video game on their phone or failing to brake when the Autopilot feature did not register obstacles correctly. These cases highlight the importance of proper operation and supervision of advanced driver assistance systems to prevent accidents [113192]. |
Boundary (Internal/External) |
within_system |
(a) within_system: The software failure incident in the Tesla crash in Houston appears to be within the system. The article mentions that Tesla CEO Elon Musk stated that the car's Autopilot function was not enabled, and the owner did not purchase the most advanced driver assistance suite known as "Full Self-Driving" [113192]. This indicates that the failure was not due to external factors but rather related to the internal system of the Tesla vehicle. |
Nature (Human/Non-human) |
human_actions |
(a) The software failure incident occurring due to non-human actions:
- The article reports that the Tesla vehicle crashed into a tree in a Houston suburb, resulting in the death of two passengers. Authorities confirmed that neither of the passengers was driving the Tesla at the time of the crash, indicating that the vehicle was operating without a driver [113192].
- Tesla CEO Elon Musk mentioned in a tweet that data recovered so far indicated that the car's Autopilot function was not enabled, and the owner did not purchase the most advanced driver assistance suite known as "Full Self-Driving" [113192].
- The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) was investigating the crash to understand the vehicle's operation and the fire after the crash. It was unclear whether Musk's disclosure about Autopilot was authorized by federal investigators, indicating a focus on the technology's role in the incident [113192].
(b) The software failure incident occurring due to human actions:
- The article mentions previous cases where distracted drivers were involved in Tesla crashes while the autopilot features were active. For example, a driver accessing a video game on his phone before a crash and another driver being distracted before a collision occurred [113192].
- The wives of the passengers who died in the recent crash reportedly heard them discussing the Autopilot feature before leaving that night, suggesting that human actions or decisions related to the use of Autopilot may have played a role in the incident [113192]. |
Dimension (Hardware/Software) |
hardware, software |
(a) The software failure incident occurring due to hardware:
- The article reports that the Tesla vehicle crashed into a tree and burst into flames, causing a fire that burned for four hours. The battery inside the Tesla ignited after the collision, leading to a hard-to-extinguish fire that required more than 30,000 gallons of water to put out [113192].
- The National Transportation Safety Board published an independent review of the risk of fires caused by the lithium-ion batteries used in electric vehicles, highlighting the potential dangers of battery damage leading to thermal runaway and combustion of toxic gases [113192].
(b) The software failure incident occurring due to software:
- The article mentions that Tesla CEO Elon Musk stated that data recovered indicated the car’s Autopilot function was not enabled at the time of the crash. This raises questions about the software's role in the incident, as Autopilot is a driver assistance feature that could potentially contribute to accidents if not functioning correctly [113192].
- The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has initiated investigations into multiple Tesla crashes, indicating concerns about the software's performance in ensuring driver safety [113192]. |
Objective (Malicious/Non-malicious) |
non-malicious |
(a) The software failure incident in the Tesla crash in Houston does not appear to be malicious. The incident was related to the vehicle's Autopilot function, which was not enabled at the time of the crash. Tesla CEO Elon Musk mentioned that data indicated the car's Autopilot function was not engaged, and the owner did not purchase the most advanced driver assistance suite known as "Full Self-Driving" [113192].
(b) The software failure incident in the Tesla crash in Houston seems to be non-malicious. The crash occurred when the Tesla vehicle, operating without a driver, veered off the road, struck a tree, and burst into flames. The investigation revealed that neither of the passengers in the car was in the driver's seat at the time of the crash, raising questions about the vehicle's self-driving technology and driver assistance capabilities [113192]. |
Intent (Poor/Accidental Decisions) |
accidental_decisions |
The software failure incident related to the Tesla crash in Houston does not directly involve a software failure in terms of a bug, fault, error, or glitch. The incident primarily revolves around the misuse or misunderstanding of Tesla's Autopilot feature, which is a driver assistance technology rather than a standalone self-driving system. The crash occurred because the passengers were not in the driver's seat, and it was confirmed that the Autopilot function was not enabled at the time of the accident. This incident seems to be more aligned with accidental_decisions, where the failure was due to mistakes or unintended decisions made by the individuals involved rather than a direct software failure [113192]. |
Capability (Incompetence/Accidental) |
accidental |
(a) The software failure incident related to development incompetence is not applicable in this case as the incident reported in the news article about the Tesla crash in Texas does not indicate any failure due to lack of professional competence by humans or the development organization. The focus of the incident is on the crash itself, the investigation into the operation of the vehicle, and the concerns about the safety of Tesla's autopilot features.
(b) The software failure incident related to accidental factors is relevant in this case. The article reports that the Tesla vehicle crashed into a tree in a Houston suburb, resulting in the deaths of two passengers. It was revealed that neither of the passengers was driving the Tesla at the time of the crash, with one in the front passenger seat and the other in the back seat. The incident raised questions about the car's Autopilot function, with Tesla CEO Elon Musk stating that data indicated the Autopilot was not enabled and the owner did not purchase the most advanced driver assistance suite. This accidental failure highlights concerns about the use and supervision of autonomous driving features and the potential risks associated with relying on such technology [113192]. |
Duration |
unknown |
The software failure incident related to the Tesla crash in Houston does not directly involve a traditional software malfunction or bug. The incident primarily revolves around the investigation into whether Tesla's Autopilot feature was engaged at the time of the crash and the subsequent fire caused by the battery ignition. Therefore, the concept of a permanent or temporary software failure incident does not directly apply in this case. |
Behaviour |
omission, other |
(a) crash: The software failure incident in the article resulted in a crash where a Tesla vehicle, operating without a driver, veered off the road, struck a tree, and burst into flames, leading to the death of two passengers [Article 113192].
(b) omission: The incident involved the omission of the driver's role as neither of the passengers in the Tesla was driving at the time of the crash. The investigation confirmed that one victim was in the front passenger seat, and the other was in the back seat, with no one in the driver's seat [Article 113192].
(c) timing: The software failure incident did not involve a timing issue as there was no mention of the system performing its intended functions too late or too early in the context of the crash [Article 113192].
(d) value: The incident did not involve the system performing its intended functions incorrectly in terms of the software failure. The focus was on the lack of driver involvement and the crash itself [Article 113192].
(e) byzantine: The software failure incident did not exhibit characteristics of a byzantine failure where the system behaves erroneously with inconsistent responses and interactions. The main issue was the lack of a driver in the driver's seat during the crash [Article 113192].
(f) other: The behavior of the software failure incident can be categorized as a critical safety failure due to the lack of driver supervision and involvement in a situation where the vehicle was expected to be driven by a human operator. This failure raises concerns about the reliance on autonomous driving features and the potential risks associated with such technology [Article 113192]. |