Very different standards - in its current form of emergency autoland it just needs to be proven to result in equal or better outcomes as a plane with no rated pilot onboard; the best case is another person that knows how to use the radio and can listen to instructions but the more likely case is a burning wreckage when the pilot is incapacitated.

To always auto land it needs to be as good as a fully trained and competent pilot, a much higher standard.

did you see the disruption to air traffic? everyone that needed to land had to go into a holding pattern. the plane was communicating to tower and was going to land since it was emergency. it was not observing other traffic, part of landing is knowing the location of other aircrafts to avoid collision. This doesn't seem to have collision detection/avoidance and space coordination with other aircrafts and entering holding pattern to delay programming yet. This is a good start.

If they designed it to be used for every landing those issues would be resolved. The rarer you use features like this, the more disruptive they will be.

Just draw the rest of the owl. Easy.

Easier than self driving at least.

That's a really big if, especially since not all traffic has a transponder, and not all airports are towered.

It would need to understand how to visually look for traffic with a camera, and understand what intentions other pilots are communicating on the radio.

Because it requires specific equipment that many airports do not have, for one. It also doesn't understand things like noise abatement procedures. It has to be setup properly. You don't want pilots forgetting how to fly the airplane. Any of a dozen other reasons.

You want your plane to still land when there's a citywide power outage.

We don’t have self driving cars.

I've confirmed with my own 2 eyes cars driving on the road without humans in them. I've also rode in a Waymo which had no driver. They definitely exist. Teslas also have self driving.

It's in the sense that there is no human driving the car.

These people are basically Moon-landing deniers. They crop up a lot these days, sadly. I wish they'd crop up somewhere else.

I define “self driving car” as level 5. Or at least 4. It should’ve able to drive itself under almost all circumstances. And well.

Tesla isn’t that. Nor Ford. Nor GM. Nor anyone else. Waymo is closest, but they limit the domain and clearly still have issues. Stick a Waymo in snow on rural roads is it good to go? Doubt it.

I define "self driving car" as anything that drives as well as I do.

We won't get into what happens when I drive on a rural road covered with snow and ice... no, really, let's not go there. Moving right along...

i assume it has to do with success rate. If a safety system is 99% successful, that’s really good. Not so good if you’re going to use it all time.