U.S. Representative Kevin Kiley (R-CA) has sent a letter to FAA Administrator Michael Whitaker over his recent claims about SpaceX. During Tuesday’s Transportation Committee hearing, Whitaker advanced several alleged safety concerns about SpaceX’s operations, all of which were strongly denied by the private space company.
During his testimony, the FAA Administrator alleged that SpaceX must operate at the highest level of safety, which includes having a safety management system program and a whistleblower program. He also alleged that SpaceX had launched without a permit last year in Cape Canaveral, FL and that the delay in Starship’s Flight 5 launch was due to SpaceX failing to provide an updated sonic boom analysis, among other safety concerns.
FAA Administrator Whitaker made several incorrect statements today regarding SpaceX. In fact, every statement he made was incorrect.
It is deeply concerning that the Administrator does not appear to have accurate information immediately available to him with respect to SpaceX… pic.twitter.com/OrtMUvnCNI— SpaceX (@SpaceX) September 24, 2024
SpaceX strongly denied each of Whitaker’s claims. In a letter, Mat Dunn, senior director of global government affairs at SpaceX, stated that “every statement (the FAA Administrator) made was incorrect.” Dunn also argued that SpaceX is currently the “safest, most reliable launch provider in the world, and is absolutely committed to safety in all operations.”
Kiley’s recent letter to Whitaker carried some of the points from SpaceX’s rebuttal of the FAA Administrator’s claims. As per the Representative, Whitaker must provide answers to a number of questions surrounding his claims during the Transportation Committee hearing.
FAA Administrator Whitaker made a number of false statements in his testimony about @SpaceX. Either he doesn’t know what’s going on at his agency or he deliberately deceived Congress.
I’ve asked him which it is. Either possibility calls into doubt his fitness to lead the FAA. pic.twitter.com/lW2KcOnItT— Rep. Kevin Kiley (@RepKiley) September 25, 2024
Following is U.S. Representative Kevin Kiley’s letter to FAA Administrator Michael Whitaker.
September 25, 2024
Michael Whitaker
800 Independence Avenue, SW
Administrator
Federal Aviation Administration
Washington, DC 20591
Dear Administrator Whitaker,
On September 24, 2024, you testified at a hearing of the Aviation Subcommittee of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. I asked you several questions during that hearing regarding the FAA’s decisions with respect to SpaceX launches. Your answers appear to be filled with inaccurate statements. Such falsehoods raise serious concerns about your fitness to lead the FAA. Please provide my office with responses in writing to the following questions –
- You claimed that SpaceX launched recent Falcon missions without a permit. SpaceX has said these claims are completely false, and that the FAA has not alleged previously that the company was not permitted or licensed to launch these missions. Can you share the evidence for your claim that SpaceX launched these missions without a permit?
- You claimed that SpaceX moved a fuel farm closer to the population without completing a risk analysis statement. SpaceX says that the new location was twice the distance from the nearest publicly accessible area, that the company provided the FAA with all the required analysis, and that the FAA ultimately approved the revised location. Please supply all correspondence between the FAA and SpaceX relative to the fuel farm.
- You claimed that SpaceX failed to provide an updated sonic boom analysis. SpaceX refutes this and says that the Fish and Wildlife Service had already reviewed Starship’s sonic booms and determined they had no environmental impact. While SpaceX has acknowledged it recently provided the FAA data showing a slightly larger sonic boom area than originally anticipated, the company maintains this results in no new environmental impact.
- What evidence does the FAA have of a new environmental impact?
- How long will it take the FAA to make this minor paperwork update?
- What evidence does the FAA have for your assertion that this is a safety related incident”?
- You claimed that SpaceX was in violation of Texas state law. What Texas laws did SpaceX violate?
- Does the FAA need to be reformed to keep up with innovation in the commercial space industry?
From the dawn of the space age, America has set the standard in exploration. Our nation’s spirit of innovation has propelled us to the moon and pushed the boundaries of what’s possible. If we want to keep that legacy alive, we must work with innovators, rather than slow them down. We cannot hinder private industry that is pushing the limits, with regulatory red tape and constant delays. The longer we stall, the more ground we lose. We must continue to empower our private space companies to innovate, build, and lead. This is the only way that we can ensure our national security, while also guaranteeing that America defines the next generation of space exploration. I look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
Kevin Kiley
Member of Congress
Don’t hesitate to contact us with news tips. Just send a message to simon@teslarati.com to give us a heads up.
Turn-by-turn navigation is not new technology.
For over two decades, drivers have relied on Garmin, TomTom, and later smartphone apps like Google Maps and Waze to receive precise, reliable directions. These systems have guided millions safely through unfamiliar cities, highways, and backroads with remarkable effectiveness. They handle real-time traffic, construction detours, and complex intersections with minimal fuss.
Yet Tesla, the company that promised revolutionary Full Self-Driving (FSD), continues to struggle with this foundational capability. As FSD (Supervised) v14.3.4 has started rolling out to cars this week, navigation remains its glaring Achilles’ heel, undermining the entire autonomous vision.
Tesla Summon got insanely good in FSD v14.3.2 — Navigation? Not so much
Tesla’s FSD excels in many driving behaviors—smooth acceleration, confident lane changes in ideal conditions, and responsive handling of visible obstacles. However, when it comes to following a route accurately, the system falters repeatedly.
Owners report wrong turns, missed exits, inefficient routing through local roads instead of highways, phantom speed limit errors, and even directing vehicles to building rear entrances. Interventions for navigation issues often outnumber those for core driving maneuvers. Tesla has begun surveying owners specifically about these errors, acknowledging the problem after years of complaints.
Navigation is perhaps my biggest complaint when it comes to FSD, because sometimes, we do know better. Some of us have been living in our areas for our entire lives, but even those who have not have years or even decades of experience driving on local roads. We might know a little better about routing.
But the navigation mistakes are more than just FSD potentially taking a slightly different route that may or may not save you a few minutes. Sometimes, they’re genuinely mind-boggling.
This isn’t just annoying; it cascades into broader failures. A flawed route plan confuses the AI’s decision-making, leading to hesitant behavior, unnecessary disengagements, or dangerous maneuvers like attempting impossible U-turns or ignoring clear ramps. In a system meant to operate with minimal supervision, unreliable navigation erodes trust.
More often than not, false or plain incorrect navigation is what causes me to interrupt FSD operation. Unfortunately, I believe the latest FSD version is the worst example of it, and it leads me to believe that Tesla might be making some changes; they’ve just made them in the wrong direction.
It makes you wonder: Why is a company that has done so much with the progress of FSD and autonomy struggling so much with navigation, something that is not new and has been around a long time?
Multiple Data Sources
First, Tesla’s navigation relies on a fragile patchwork of multiple data sources—Google Maps, TomTom, OpenStreetMap, Valhalla, and its own fleet-derived data—stitched together rather than a single authoritative map. When these conflict on lane geometry, road status, or turn details, the system hesitates or chooses incorrectly.
Traditional GPS providers maintain centralized, regularly validated databases with professional curation and rapid updates. Tesla’s hybrid approach, while innovative in crowdsourcing, introduces inconsistencies that a purely vision-based or end-to-end AI approach may not easily reconcile in real time.
Persistent Learning
FSD seems to struggle with persistent learning from driver interventions.
Unlike consumer apps that quickly adapt to repeated corrections or user preferences (e.g., avoiding certain routes or remembering habitual detours), Tesla’s FSD often fails to internalize fixes on the same trip or across similar scenarios. Owners note making the same manual override multiple times without the routing engine updating its behavior meaningfully.
This stems from the neural architecture prioritizing real-time perception and control over long-term route memory and personalization, making navigation feel rigid and “opinionated” compared to the adaptive logic in Waze or Google Maps.
I noticed that when I asked Grok to try and get me home a certain way (a way that FSD routinely took in the past because it was the most efficient), it had to place a waypoint between my location at the time and my house. When I went to edit the waypoint out, as Grok had placed it for a way to get FSD to get off the highway at the right exit, it was stumped again, rerouted, and took a longer way home.
The next thing I’ve noticed, and this might be controversial, is that Nav has gotten even worse.
I think that might actually be a good thing; Tesla seems to be adjusting it. They just need to adjust it the opposite way.
The car is taking extremely strange routes to very… https://t.co/UHg3tVfNA2
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 16, 2026
Reasoning, Scaling, and Intuition
Third, scaling navigation for unsupervised or robotaxi ambitions requires not just accuracy but adaptability and user-like reasoning. Current FSD often defaults to single routes that ignore driver preferences or real-world nuances like time-of-day traffic patterns. It fails to match the intuitive, context-aware planning that traditional systems have refined over the years.
Resolving navigation is critical for several reasons. Practically, it is the backbone of any autonomous journey: without trustworthy routing, the car cannot reliably reach destinations, rendering FSD useless for robotaxis or hands-free commutes. Safety depends on it—mismatched plans create hesitation in merges or intersections, increasing accident risk.
Economically, Tesla’s valuation and future hinge on FSD delivering unsupervised driving; persistent navigation flaws delay regulatory approval and erode consumer confidence. For owners who paid premiums for FSD, these issues represent unfulfilled promises. While it is unlikely Tesla will lose too many customers due to bad navigation, some will be frustrated with the constant need for human input.
Tesla has achieved miracles in electric vehicles and battery tech. Mastering turn-by-turn—technology Garmin nailed in the early 2000s—should not be this hard. By investing in tighter data integration, faster learning loops from interventions, and more intuitive routing algorithms, Tesla could close this gap.
Until then, FSD’s navigation struggles highlight a humbling truth: even the most ambitious innovator must sometimes master the basics before conquering the future.
A Tesla Cybertruck driver in the United Kingdom had their all-electric pickup seized by local police in the Greater Manchester area after the department cited “legitimate concerns.”
Last Thursday, police saw the pickup on the roads and decided to pull the driver over. Greater Manchester Police said:
“Whilst this may seem trivial to some, legitimate concerns exist around the safety of other road users or pedestrians if they were involved in a collision with the Cybertruck.”
🚨 A Tesla Cybertruck, which is illegal to drive in the UK due to safety concerns, has been seized by police in Greater Manchester
“Whilst this may seem trivial to some, legitimate concerns exist around the safety of other road users or pedestrians if they were involved in a… pic.twitter.com/cqhdPok3DM
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 16, 2026
The Cybertruck in question was, according to the BBC, registered and insured abroad and was confiscated. The driver, who is a UK resident, was reported.
The Greater Manchester Police Department then added:
“The Tesla Cybertruck is not road-legal in the UK and does not hold a certificate of conformity.”
The Cybertruck cannot be legally driven in the UK because it has no UK Type Approval for operation in the country. This is due to some safety concerns, which are related to its angular shape and design. The stainless steel exoskeleton has sharp edges and projections that violate UK/EU rules on pedestrian protection.
Tesla has considered creating what it referred to as an “international version” that would be approved for operation in Europe. However, there has been no real movement on that front by the company, as it has been focused on the Robotaxi rollout primarily.
A new report claims that Apple is in the process of developing what would be the missing link for Tesla to get CarPlay.
Apple and Tesla have been reportedly working together for some time to give Tesla owners the opportunity to utilize CarPlay within their vehicles. While many owners are more than happy with Tesla’s in-house UI, which is seamless, effective, and smooth, some still want CarPlay, which does have its advantages.
A report from 9to5Mac now states that a new CarPlay technology that was highlighted during the Worldwide Developers Conference (WWDC) would potentially be the bridge between Tesla and Apple. With the addition of a feature known as “Route Sharing,” which gives a navigation app the ability to share routing data with the vehicle, Tesla would be able to launch CarPlay in its vehicles, the report states.
CarPlay has not been a priority for Tesla because it has done extremely well with its in-house UI, but some drivers are just used to it. Additionally, it could improve Tesla’s subpar Navigation or offer improved app capabilities, especially with iMessage.
Route Sharing is an intended addition to CarPlay’s iteration in iOS 26.4, which was released in March:
The addition of CarPlay would undoubtedly be welcome, but at the same time, it seems like Tesla realizes it is not of the utmost priority. There are so many things that Tesla is working on currently within its own vehicles, especially attempting to solve self-driving.
Back in February, Bloomberg had reported that Tesla was still working on bringing CarPlay to its vehicles, but it had not due to app compatibility issues and incredibly low adoption rates of iOS 26.
This bottleneck could buy Tesla the proper amount of time to develop CarPlay for its vehicles. It would be a welcome addition, and could be brought on with either the Summer or Fall 2026 Software Updates.
Tesla’s Navigation Nightmare: Why the easiest part of FSD might be the hardest
Tesla Cybertruck driver gets pickup seized for ‘legitimate concerns’ in UK
