Mike RO'Channel - I did concede earlier that it was a psychological difficulty, bur consider this:
When fly-by-wire first came in people said "no way am I flying that, unless there is a mechanical linkage" - they were afraid that the computer between them and the aircraft might screw it up. This is not a dissimilar argument. I accept that people would not want to put their families on robot airliners, but if these were proved to be far safer than humans what then?
People have eye surgery done on them by computers wielding lasers every day. Why? Is it because the human surgeons can't be @rsed to do it or is it that computers are better at some things than humans?
The reverse is also true, but if ever there was a job that could be broken down into a set of rules its flying and is therefore a prime candidate for improvement in this way.
I don't relish the days when chaps like me can never fly again, but the technology is maturing to make it happen. And saying the public won't wear it is, I feel, somewhat shortsighted. Precedents abound - moving from horses to cars; the machine wreckers; going to the moon (try doing that better without computers).
And would I put my family on an unmanned aircraft that had proved safe under the no-doubt relentless testing?
If it removed the high percentage of accidents down to pilot error then why not? Seems logical to me.