Perhaps you should take a look at your own predictions on this site. None have come true at all except Envoy sending 175’s info miami which was no secret to begin with.

Irony is ALWAYS ironic.🤣

Nice try. I am no longer going to feed you. Your own stupidity takes care of it for me.

I've been privy to the data on the number of military drone crashes. It's more than the public thinks. They've been doing AI pilots the longest and still don't have it figured out. I think it's quite distant in the future before they can rely on it for the hundreds of thousands of hours of commercial flying we do.

As someone w expert knowledge are these systems safe from hackers or foreign entities/ terrorists taking control of them? Since these will be private companies flying these with an emphasis on making money will they have the best security networks to prevent a breach? Seems like every year we hear of some huge company being compromised.

best, no. Sufficient, probably.

but that assumes a sophisticated hacker couldn’t take over a 787 or A350 already. I don’t see any reason that the current system isn’t vulnerable to significant loss of life or money from hacking.

heck, boeing has already programmed the 787 for diehard-style ILS hijinx

Yes, this is correct. By civil aviation standards mil drone loss stats are staggering, and almost none of it has been enemy action.

That's OK in the context of the mil, they're getting bang for the buck, persistence over the objective and in some case not risking loss/capture of a human in the wrong place.

The only circumstance where the mil is even considering using drones to carry humans is for emergency battlefield CASAEVAC. Same scenario as the garmin autopilot... it's not "safe" but it's safer than letting the casualty bleed out waiting for alternative transport.

It is not impossible to make commercial aircraft "reasonably" hackproof. The problem is that it adds cost and complexity, ESPECIALLY with regards to robust SATCOM systems ($$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$).

But even then there's a big problem. Statistical safety analysis assumes an event will happen with a certain frequency (based on engineering design and analysis). If a HYD pump fails, it's only going to fail on one airplane at any given time and there's no statistical link to other aircraft. So the entire statistical safety system as a whole is only subject to one failure.

But hacking is enemy action... you have to assume that if someone cracked the code, they know they're only going to get one shot to use their hack (before the weakness is pached, or delta force kicks in their door). So they are going for max damage, which means multiple targets all at once, perhaps hundreds or even thousands of airborne aircraft.

Point being, the folks doing safety analysis of a system subject to hacking have to weight the severity of any statistical weakness more heavily to account for the fact that multiple aircraft will be affected all at once.

Another problem... while you might convince yourself that you've designed a statistically hackproof system vis a vis your generic black hat, I doubt you could really have any assurance that any such system would be beyond the reach of a hostile, sophisticated nation-state. While a nation-state would not be inclined to directly perpetrate such a terror attack themselves (any more than they'd intentionally shoot down an airliner), it cannot be ruled out that a hostile nation might provide the tools to terrorists. Unlike most other weapons provided to terrorists or insurgents, hacking tools can be made untraceable.

Short answer: no. Building security systems is like building a bunker. You can keep making it a harder target, but they can keep making a bigger/smarter bomb. Military UAS has already been hacked in the past.

Great plan until the government blocks evictions thus causing your tenants to stop paying rent because they know you can't doo anything about it. Of course your bills are still due.