Cars also operate in a 3-dimensional environment. They have to take grade into account, can go up/down layers of roads (such as parking garage) that give the same map location, have to observe elements high and low, etc.
In terms of complexity, ground space >>>> air space; the latter is exceptionally more predictable.
That's why planes have been using autopilot as the norm for over half a century, well before modern computers were available, while even present day cars have the most limited automation. It's also why planes can fly themselves but won't taxi on their own.
Just look at the colossal array of cameras and sensors on the car in the OP. It's nuts. And that has to be combined with the most advanced algorithms to try to interpret what's going on on the road around it.
Of course the guidance system on planes can "read" the flight parameters. That's what it uses to pilot the plane automatically. I have no idea how you can pretend they don't -- that's how automation works. Planes can absolutely detect one another with systems like TCAS. For other collision precautions, look to how heavily controlled airspace is, and the presence of pilots still.
Nobody is saying flying isn't complicated, of course it is. That's why they still have pilots on planes. But the physical control of an airplane is fairly straight-forward to automate since there isn't much unexpected to account for. Getting the plane in the right place, velocity, altitude, etc, are all perfectly manageable.
On the other hand, interpreting camera images and trying to figure out from the countless number of scenarios what in the world is happening... that's an exceptionally complex challenge. I say this as someone who works in commercial automation.
Your nasty attitude towards others makes this seem a worthless endeavor.
I am not being the least bit "nasty." I am simply trying to explain something to you that I seem to know more about from personal experience.
To understand the significance of the 3D aviation environment and the differences I am attempting to communicate to you, imagine that another car could not just come down the street or across an intersection towards you, but over a building from ten stories above you, or up through the street under you, from any possible direction. Anyone who has flown much has felt the holy terror of having another airplane appear nearby seemingly out of nowhere, perhaps closing on you at a couple hundred knots. As I've explained already, not all airspace is heavily controlled. Most of it in fact is not controlled at all.
I owned an airplane with a TCAS system and while they are getting better they are very far from accurate or foolproof. Not a substitute for eyeballs. As the air traffic system transitions from the radar and transponder based system in place for decades into the NextGen system with ADS, the ability to report traffic in real time will be vastly improved. Yet, by no means will every airplane in the sky have these capabilities. This means in effect the aircraft that do will have to compensate for those that don't (just as self-driving cars would have to account for the fact that not every car on the road has this capability).
Sure, various kinds of autopilots have been around for decades. In their more basic forms they are wing-levelers and course and altitude holders. They work so long as the air is relatively calm but can easily be overwhelmed by even modest amounts of turbulence. You might not be able to easily see the variables in the sky, but they are there, very much so, and they challenge automation just the same as the variables on the ground do for automating cars.
Finally, please don't get the idea that cross country high altitude flying is in any useful way the same as flying at low altitude in traffic. They are completely different exercises. The distances between takeoffs and landings can occupy the vast majority of time aloft and are relatively easy to manage (and automate), because they involve mainly holding courses and altitudes and can tolerate significant margins for error. But that is not where the accidents happen. They happen maneuvering at low altitudes in proximity to terrain, obstructions, and other aircraft, where the margins of error are much smaller. That environment is very complex and unpredictable. The variables are no less than faced by cars, just very different and the consequences of system failure that much greater.
You can accept that or not, it makes no difference to me. It will be true in either event.
