Originally Posted by
LeadSled
Folks,
I won't be around to see it, but I forecast that the regulatory framework, and the cost of compliance will be so great that it will make the cost and flexibility of a human crew the winner in a cost/benefit contest.
If you know anything about the restrictions (the law) around space launches, you will understand what I am getting at.
Tootle pip!!
There is another elephant in the room but, given that pilots have very little to do with aviation insurance matters, it is only natural that dialogue centres around the technical aspects of single or no crew operations.
From a previous life I still maintain contact with a few underwriters as well as their up coming juniors and the mere mention of single crew long haul and more particularly pilotless aircraft generates expressions of disbelief and horror. The actual hull insurance won't be such a problem, increased somewhat to allow for additional risk, as they see it, but the liabilities insurances for passengers and particularly third party will increase to billions and the premiums increasing by several fold, possibly enough to render the whole idea of a pilotless operation futile. Legal liability and professional indemnity premiums for the manufacturers of the equipment, both airborne and ground could run to telephone numbers.
When all those problems have been resolved, if ever, there remains the question of the travelling public, will they accept a pilotless aircraft at a cheaper price or will they be prepared to pay a few dollars more for a human piloted one? We are talking about the premium fares here, First and Business, not the LCC ones.