I'd resist making any predictions or saying "never" to drones. 20 years ago we fought a war in the ME with dumb bombs, no Internet and no drones. Now, drones are soon to replace most combat aircraft, the Army uses a drone helicopter lifter (Kaman Max) and drones are being tested on carriers--Top Gun will soon be Top Desktop.

Self-driving cars aren't far off and no one would have believed it 10 years ago, after 9/11, I might note. Pretty recent. As far as pax are concerned, an airliner today might as well be a drone--pilots are locked in, rarely seen. The whole process from ticketing to flying is designed to eliminate the thought of what's occurring.

GF

Well put....

They make pilotless airliners because of Les Abend. His moustache so far has pushed the idea back...

JungleBus.....awesome article!

You are a talented writer and very few APC lurkers or posters can do better. I'm shocked by the negative responses. So many wonderful sunsets and star filled skies wasted on those petty enough to miss the poetry in your piece as well as your subtle jabs at the industry.

Our generation needs a Len Morgan, and I'm happy you have taken the first step to fill that role.

Cheers brother!

I find it hard to believe anyone would have any interest in a self-driving car.

Do you realize how many texts I could send and how much I could be on FB?

The thing that always amazes me is how the military and even civilian aerospace is always a few generations ahead of what you currently see out there everyday. These are the things being designed, tested, refined, conceptualized, and so on. Who's mind wasn't blown when the B2 showed up? To this extent, we'd be downright ignorant to think that Boeing, Airbus and others are not investing in highly automated aircraft that will be single-pilot capable. They may not have it certified as such right out the bat, but you can bet they've done analysis and figured out many of the things we ask questions about on a daily basis. They'd love to have a "single pilot" operation that can be crewed by a pilot and a "helper" like an FA that will serve drinks, but be in the cockpit during critical times. The airplane would be redundant enough with enough auto-land systems that it would be able to function just fine with only the "helper", likely though commands, datalink, or just AI. There are numerous ways around most of the obstacles presented. Sure, the technology isn't ready to be fielded, but I'm sure it's being looked at heavily, behind closed doors, in secret programs, heavily guarded corporate R&D, etc. The step after that would be full automation, and we won't have that for a long while, but the march in that direction is steady.

What about "an Regional Jet pilot" as opposed to "a Regional Jet pilot" Naht so much!

Heh, yeah - it's one of those rules you usually don't have to look up because the wrong way feels so obviously wrong when you say it. But I did have to look up "an RJ" vs "a RJ" when Flying chose that title.

I don't doubt it's being developed. Flight International just reported a few weeks ago that Boeing, in conjunction with Honeywell, Thales, and a few other companies is developing a single-pilot cockpit that would use utilize a human "copilot" on the ground to monitor and if necessary override the pilot in the air. It's thoroughly doable with technology only a little more advanced than that in widespread use today. I could even see them convincing the public that it represents a safety advance, considering nobody is watching those persnickety pilots right now, much less in a position to override them. The real problem is securing the datalink. Thus far the only really foolproof way to secure networks against attack and infiltration has been to make them closed loop - and even then the larger the network, the more vulnerable. By the very nature of the system, the aircraft monitoring & control network would be open-loop and worldwide. It would be a terrorist's wet dream and the ultimate hacker challenge. The real advance in technology needed for single-pilot or no-pilot aircraft to become a reality is network security. It's not even close to where it needs to be for the FAA to dream of certifying the system. In my lifetime, maybe. But I don't see the cost savings justifying the development & certification cost + infrastructure + added risk anytime soon unless pilots get massively more expensive. We can only hope ;).

First off, is there a link to the Flying Magazine web site for the article.

Second, I'm sure that somewhere down the road, you may see either single pilot or pilotless drone flying cargo and passengers. The big question is not if they can do it, it will the public accept it and will the airlines buy it. Current military UAS programs are no cheaper to run than manned systems. The advantage is in pilot safety. Until the airlines get a picture about how much money they can save, if any, our jobs are safe. Public acceptance will be harder to get. It will come down to how many lives are lost due to pilot error vs. how many die when the computers shut down.