They're also all triply redundant control systems with rad hardened computers and error correcting memory... you won't find that level of redundancy in passenger cars; and Toyota outright lied to NASA about the type of memory that was used in the 2005 Camry. (Claiming it to be ECC when it was not.)
On top of that: pilots of any caliber undergo far more rigorous training than what is required of a licensed driver in the US. They routinely have to train for the autopilot systems they use, etc. -- I trust a pilot to react appropriately when the fly-by-wire system goes haywire moreso than the average driver.
The automotive industry has quite a ways to go before I'll consider their safety critical engineering to be anywhere near the level of robustness present on even the oldest commercial airliners in service.
While safety relevant ECU's are not triply redundant, they ARE doubly redundant with error correction memory. So I don't know what Toyota used to do, but, from my experience, nowadays, auto companies take safety relevant applications VERY seriously.
Actually, for the division I used to work for, a lot of the people programming ECU's for cars came from aerospace. They built radars for planes, now they build radars for cars.
Also, the safety of the systems tends to improve with time, as technology matures.
Also, another interesting anecdote, the Flexray communication protocol used more and more in cars these days was first used in planes.
On top of that: pilots of any caliber undergo far more rigorous training than what is required of a licensed driver in the US. They routinely have to train for the autopilot systems they use, etc. -- I trust a pilot to react appropriately when the fly-by-wire system goes haywire moreso than the average driver.
The automotive industry has quite a ways to go before I'll consider their safety critical engineering to be anywhere near the level of robustness present on even the oldest commercial airliners in service.