[rkomorn]

No. Airliners can't even take off on their own yet, and are only allowed to auto-land with zero visibility at a few dozen airports when the pilots, plane, and runway are all current/recently checked.

Look up the Airbus ATTOL project's first automated takeoff a few years ago.

Also, there's virtually no automation when it comes to interacting with ATC.

[SoftTalker]

An airplane will take off when it is properly configured and it hits a certain speed. It's simple aerodynamics/physics. Pilots are there to react to failures and unexpected events.

[3ple_alpha]

There's a bit more to it since you do need to do last bit of configuration (pull up the nose) just as you hit the target speed. But yeah, automatic take-off is quite a bit easier than automatic rejection of take-off.

[Sohcahtoa82]

Even manually pulling up the nose once you reach Vr isn't necessary if you just trim for a little extra nose-up. It'll eventually get off the ground with just enough speed.

[rkomorn]

There's no lack of online arguments about whether or not Vr is "real" or should exist.

I just followed what my CFI and Cessna's manual for the C172 said (which iirc was giving input to rotate at 55kts).

[rkomorn]

Sure. It'll also land if you don't care about anyone surviving.

[glitchc]

And the air is within acceptable temperature and pressure ranges. I assume configuration takes weight into account as well.

[rwyinuse]

Yeah temperature, wind, altitude, weight, runway slope all matter, and then there needs to be enough spare space for the aircraft to successfully take off even with engine failure in the worst possible moment. Then there's the question of fuel consumption too. Takeoff power isn't typically configured to get the aircraft off the ground as fast as possible, but to minimize fuel consumption, while still leaving enough margin in case of engine failure.

It wouldn't be that hard to fully automate a flight from gate to gate when everything works perfectly. But the various failure modes, human error like airport vehicles entering active runway, all that requires human backup. Self-driving car can just stop to the side of the road and turn on emergency lights if its engine fails, with a plane things get much more complicated.

[nradov]

One of the hardest parts is just getting radio comms right. ICAO phraseology is supposedly standardized but when anything unusual happens then things get messy, especially if there are multiple aircraft involved.

Cars can drive around without needing to talk to other cars or controllers.

[rkomorn]

And you don't need rudder input or any aileron input because of crosswind, and other bits that falls into "technically correct but not particularly relevant" territory.

It's fun to see/feel planes do stuff "on their own" (eg making them oscillate, or level on their own, or feeling ground effect, or even your own wake on steep turns) but it's not something you'd want to rely on (maybe with the exception of ground effect on short field takeoffs, but I digress).

[johnisom2001]

> Also, there's virtually no automation when it comes to interacting with ATC.

Check out the Cirrus Autoland feature in their aircraft. They are all small personal aircraft, but the tech is pretty cool. Will talk to ATC and fully auto-land for you in the event of an emergency where the pilot is incapacitated.

[kotaKat]

"Talking to ATC" is a bit of a huge ask. The system basically just hops on 121.5 (and maybe the nearest/local unicom/tower frequency) and start an automated callout with its intentions that it will be doing. It operates on the assumption that all other airspace users will hear the radio calls and stay clear of the emergency aircraft.

[rkomorn]

I'm aware of it, though I've never flown a Cirrus. But AFAIK, it announces what it's doing. It's not communicating.