Very different standards - in its current form of emergency autoland it just needs to be proven to result in equal or better outcomes as a plane with no rated pilot onboard; the best case is another person that knows how to use the radio and can listen to instructions but the more likely case is a burning wreckage when the pilot is incapacitated.

To always auto land it needs to be as good as a fully trained and competent pilot, a much higher standard.

did you see the disruption to air traffic? everyone that needed to land had to go into a holding pattern. the plane was communicating to tower and was going to land since it was emergency. it was not observing other traffic, part of landing is knowing the location of other aircrafts to avoid collision. This doesn't seem to have collision detection/avoidance and space coordination with other aircrafts and entering holding pattern to delay programming yet. This is a good start.

Because it requires specific equipment that many airports do not have, for one. It also doesn't understand things like noise abatement procedures. It has to be setup properly. You don't want pilots forgetting how to fly the airplane. Any of a dozen other reasons.

We don’t have self driving cars.

You want your plane to still land when there's a citywide power outage.

i assume it has to do with success rate. If a safety system is 99% successful, that’s really good. Not so good if you’re going to use it all time.

350mph true cruise airspeed for the stock aircraft, so I suspect you had a bit of a tailwind there.

And also didn't know how to work thr radio? Surely autoland doesn't disable communication

There's a rumor, that you are propagating. One person, Tandem46, made this claim ... no evidence provided.