Agile is not the absence of planning. It's about adapting to change. When it comes to business software this makes sense because the end result is typically unknown. Aircraft avionics have a pretty well-defined end goal. The other big difference is really quality control. Most software doesn't invest heavily in quality because a failure isn't that costly. It's the same calculation that goes into producing absolutely everything. The cost of a quality failure in an airplane is humongous. I use apps that crash at least once a day, but I just restart them and keep going.

Yeah I guess I just very much do not agree with your stance on Agile, but that's okay. YMMV.

Yes, planning, lots of code reviews, lots of testing. Building your software so it can be tested. Its all doable but no one wants to spend the money - and if its not critical its good enough.

I've read with the space shuttle every line of code was reviewed in a meeting - its described here https://history.nasa.gov/computers/Ch4-5.html

>Agile is, for the most part, the absence of planning

That's just blatantly false. Agile is about adjusting to the changing environment.

Even wiki says: "Agile software development comprises various approaches to software development under which requirements and solutions evolve through the collaborative effort of self-organizing and cross-functional teams and their customer(s)/end user(s)."

I guess, on paper Agile's wiki may define itself as being "pro-adjustment", but I think in practice it's been pretty well-proven to be a "just plan less" approach.

You can take a positive spin on "We'll just figure it out iteratively as we go", but I think ultimately you get orders of magnitude less actual "planning" by kicking the can down the road. YMMV though, as with everything.