It's not simply about designing a remotely piloted/autonomous/single pilot aircraft and calling the matter settled. As it is, Boeing and Airbus can't put a conventional aircraft into service in under 10 years these days, and in Boeing's case, they can't even put new iterations of aircraft that have been around for decades into service without significant cash and time costs incurred, never mind an aircraft that doesn't have the regulatory and certification framework developed for the aircraft themselves, let alone the complete overhaul that would be necessary for the global ATC system to handle these aircraft (we don't even have nationwide CPDLC yet!), the ground handling and airport infrastructure in place to accommodate these aircraft, training programs for all involved personnel and employees and on and on. All of these would require years of testing and evaluation and proof of safety and reliability to meet or likely exceed the same standards of safety and reliability that we enjoy today. Resolving the logistical, legal, economic, public perception, labor resistance, and technological hurdles will be eye-wateringly expensive. Who is going to pay for all that? For-profit aircraft operators? For profit aircraft manufacturers? What about the cargo airlines? Have we forgotten that most cargo operators utilize fleets of old hand-me-down aircraft? How about the economics of all that combined with public perception? If too great an amount of the public is unwilling to fly on a pilotless aircraft, then it's all for nothing in a for-profit environment. I can't help but think of these high speed rail boondoggles that have cost billions of dollars, years in delays, all in attempt to build a conventional high speed train between large population centers...and we think we are going to just wake up in a year or two to skies full of pilotless heavy jets?

The military flies lots of RPAs, and in spite of the bottomless source of funding of the US Gov, still aren't even in the same universe of acceptable safety and reliability for public commercial use.

We don't have any meaningful use of autonomous/driverless surface vehicles yet. Cars? Trucks? Trains? Ships? Operating a freight train on rails, in only two directions, without humans on board...I think there is one in Australia operating on a single line, thru sparsely inhabited desert, and it came at a cost of about $1B. For a train.

True single pilot ops... Won't be a thing. You'll need the ability for zero pilots. The one pilot on board has a heart attack and kicks the bucket while at the controls, your contingency is either autonomy or remotely piloted. Would you trust your life or your family's lives on a remotely piloted aircraft? Data/network/comm/nav signals get jammed, fail, spoofed, and hacked all the time. How do you ensure the same level of safety as we have today with those weaknesses?

And of course there will also be battles with pilots and their unions fighting these measures.

NHTSA is starting to walk back Tesla and its "autopilot" and it's starting to look like a failed experiment. Ironic that he used the word autopilot to sell the idea that it does the driving itself. Last I checked, with THREE autopilots, two highly trained pilots monitoring, stringent monthly maintenance requirements for on-board equipment, and a highly controlled operating environment being managed by ATC, pilot intervention is regularly required. So hey, clearly $50K should get me a magic car that can just handle things.

I'm convinced that the industry hasn't the slightest idea how many seemingly tiny things an on-site human pilot does both in terms of safety and in facilitating operations. Literally hundreds or thousands of tiny decisions are made on a flight (starting well before departure). These decisions are made quickly, accurately, and in a timely fashion because the decisionmaker is in a physical position to gather and process information.

Justification for pilotless flying in the military are completely different. These include a much higher acceptable loss rate, high-g maneuvering, extended loiter time, etc. Airliners (even cargo) are full of live things as well as packages that will continue to require a controlled environment - which essentially eliminates many of the efficiencies of a pilotless aircraft.

I'm sure it's possible to make pilotless flight safe-ish. I don't think it will save anyone money - I think it will ultimately be more expensive and less reliable.

The answer to your questions can be complex and nuanced in the politically correct world.

The real world answer is even if it were explained to you, you’d still go outside and yell at clouds screaming “DOOOOOOOOOM!”

I ride a Waymo (driverless taxi) several times a week and it is absolutely the biggest quality of life increase for me in 2023. It’s way safer than taking an Uber. If you haven’t taken one, try it sometime when you are in LA, SF, or Phoenix.

If I order from Uber Eats, my order is often delivered from a delivery robot. No human involved. No tip required. It makes food delivery cost actually pretty reasonable.

How much of this stuff was commercially available 5 years ago? None. Now, does that mean the job market for ride-share drivers and food delivery drivers has changed. Not really. It will someday, but even that still has a ways to go.

Commercial airplanes without any pilots onboard is a long ways away, but that doesn’t mean it won’t ever happen. Technology moves fast.

Well, thank. God you were there on that roof top, lest it have gone unmanned.

Thank God you're here to say (ad infinitum) "I told you so."

Count those chickens now. There may not be time after they hatch.

[/size]

I am an introverted slam clicker, so this is great!! No more feigned interest "How is your day going?" BS.

Well, freight trains still have an engineer and conducter. I always though that as long as freight trains have 2, cargo pilots are safe. After all (not to dis train ops, but flying is much more dynamic). Then again, railway unions are much stronger than airline unions.

My dentist has a son who wants to be a pilot. I tell her I will worry about pilotless flights when I come in and find she has been replaced with a robot filling my cavity.

Waymo is a million times simpler than a pilotless aircraft, and every Waymo is restricted to a very small ODD. And even then they still need human intervention multiple times a day. No-one flying today will ever witness pilotless transport category airplanes during their careers.

The technology Waymo uses is not new, it was well known 5 years ago. These days the funding to attempt it is available, but it is not commercially viable. The problem is, that technology does not scale as far as they need it to. It's a technological dead end.

.

The arrogance! Tech is developing exponentially, add to this AI tech development - what some techies are calling sentient computers - plus the monetary incentives of breaking through, add the best most brilliant MIT grads working on this puzzle, but we’ll take the word of some Cessna 172 pilot who, with a little persistence, made it to what has now become a second tier airline.

****!