Sadly, Sam, my knowledge of commercial airliners is lacking. When I first heard the story I heard it was “the 707 prototype”. Fortunately, there’s google.
This page from Boeing says [emphasis mine]:
So Manny and Cecil are correct that it was a 707. But it was called the “Dash-80” at the time.
Yahoo! I love me the smell of zombies in the morning…
Girl younger than thread sits in a cockpit first time ever, flys an A320 and lands it with only voice directions.
ETA: In a simulator.
Leo Bloom, is it true a good part of the commercial airline fleet now has computerized landing systems? Pilot just needs to punch in “land at LAX” and the rest is all automated.
I was thinking this revival was going to be about the #1 item on this Cracked list.
There’s an app for that ?!?
Really scientific research, I don’t know. But Mythbusters did an episode where one or both (I don’t recall) tried to land an airliner (in a simulator, of course) with no instruction, and at least one of them crashed. With an expert ‘talking them down’, they succeeded. Obviously there’s a lower pressure factor if you know you’re not going to die though.
A lot of the issue from more sophisticated a/c would be how much rote, cook book instruction do you need to set the plane to most of the work itself. It’s not considered safe for an operator to have such little understanding or ability to overcome problems, but it might succeed most of the time.
The OP though asked about small general aviation a/c which up to now generally haven’t had a lot of automated aids. OTOH for general aviation to become much more prevalent, also mentioned in the OP, one of the necessary ingredients is probably that the small plane also would be able to do most of the work itself. That could be a controversial statement in some respects, but I think just in terms of ‘what it would take for small planes to relieve congestion on the roads?’, ie huge increase, largely (safely) self-flying planes would have to be part of it.
But assuming it’s an old fashioned all manual general aviation plane, I think the answer is that only pretty naturally talented or lucky people could make a safe landing with just a bit of verbal instruction on the ground, a lot of people could take off successfully with that level of instruction, and almost anyone could fly along in a straight line in good weather, that’s what the plane wants to do.
As for the OP’s 15-year-old comment about ordinary people flying planes rather than driving cars in the future: there too many idiots who can’t even handle operating a vehicle in two dimensions, let alone three.
You just need to install the right driver.
What I thought was laughable was the remark that it can reduce congestion in road traffic. Umm – reducing the number cars commuting in Chicago from 3-million to 2.9-million by putting 100,000 planes in the air and building enough landing strips to land them all between 7 and 9 am within walking distance of The Loop. Sounds like a well-thought-out plan.
Well, it’s only about two miles from Meigs Field to the loop. People could just land their cars there and… Oh, wait a minute… 
A friend of mine tells the tale of pounding out code in a converted hanger and the total hassle of driving in rush hour commute, fighting at the airport gate to get in and still having to walk a mile to his office.
… but he could tie down his Cessna 172 right outside his window …
I am honored, and not a little puzzled, that this query is addressed to me–I know jack all about airlines/planes, just like to hang out in GQ threads about them, and subscribe to that YouTube channel (as well as Air Boyd) for fun.
Also, honestly, for continuity of Straight Dope about stuff and proper bibliography, I try to find the most appropriate thread to revive no matter how moldy.
However, next time Richard Pearse or LSLGuy sign on, you can bet I’ll them know just who they’re dealing with.
Pretty much, though it’s both more and less complicated than that. An autoland is something that will happen if you are on an ILS and you don’t disconnect the autopilot. The system runs various checks to ensure redundant equipment is functioning, but it’s basically a do-nothing system. On the other hand to get the plane on to the ILS with gear and flap down can take a fair bit of planning and flight management. Even though an autopilot is controlling the plane directly, the pilots are still controlling it indirectly and there is plenty of opportunity to completely stuff it up (not necessarily in a crashy way, just in terms of efficiency and passenger comfort.) Last minute changes by ATC don’t help.
Flying can be very easy, and it can be very challenging. Typically the passengers wouldn’t know which was which because part of the challenge is doing things smoothly and efficiently.
The first autoland capable airliner was certified in 1968, so this is not new technology by any stretch. The system is designed for very low visibility conditions and generally has lower wind limits than if the pilot was landing manually. The Avro RJ autoland system, for example, has a crosswind limit of 10 knots while the limit for a manual landing is 35 knots. The lower limits work because low visibility is normally associated with fog, and fog normally forms when the winds are light. Limits for the B747 are given in the link below, and though the manually flown limits aren’t given, you be sure they are significantly higher, particularly the headwind and one engine inoperative limits.
Not even a by-your-leave?
Harrumph.
I’ve read that the hardest thing about getting autoland systems working is training the pilots to sit back and keep their hands to themselves.
Could be. At least with autoland you have your hands and feet on the controls. It’s harder letting the first officer land, it’s considered a bit rude to handle the controls when they’re flying. 
