There are a whole lot less obstacles and unknowns in the air, as well as more planes (ha!) of separation available than a car.
When flying, you don’t really need to worry much about random pedestrians, for example.
If the entire system were completely automated, from the car all the way to ATC, and it’s essentially a taxi that you just tell what location to go to and it handles the rest… well that’s basically air traffic today minus the automated ATC part. (That isn’t to diminish pilots at all; just that I think it’d be a lot easier, in general, to replace a pilot than a taxi driver with automation. )
spankmonkey@lemmy.world 4 days ago
If you ignore take off and landing, birds, weather conditions, and everything else that makes flying more complex and dangerous than driving on the ground, sure.
DrunkenPirate@feddit.org 4 days ago
And if you ignore construction sites with high cranes and not documented buildings. Or overland high voltag power cables, wind mills, hobby drones, and local variations of birds.
It‘s just taking the complex challenges of autonomous drivinf into the third dimension. Making it even more complex.
hydrashok@sh.itjust.works 4 days ago
Other than the takeoff and landing, cars have to deal with those obstacles as well.
A computer running a citywide automated traffic system for cars would have all the same complexity, without the ability to separate traffic in three dimensions.
spankmonkey@lemmy.world 4 days ago
So yeah, if you ignore the parts that make it more complicated it seems easier!