It is possible for a computer to fly a plane from point A to B but this would require radical changes in current Aviation regarding all the regs and ATC etc.
The cost would be enormous but IF enough savings can be made then it is possibly economically advantageous. The question is can a computer think creatively to solve problems like the human can? Can they see the outside world like a human can?
There are lots of cases where an automated plane may have prevented poor Pilot error mistakes. But how many times has a computer done something bizarre (e.g QF72) and the Pilots saved the plane? I suspect most of these occurences would be small problems that don't get reported, but if it was an automated plane these could be serious.
What about when a Pilot has creatively saved a plane? For example the overused Hudson incident and what about the Gimli glider? A pilot landed a 767 on a drag racing strip (the plane went back in to service).
Pilot's are not perfect nor are machines and that is why there is a combination of both being used. The real future outcomes are more likely to be a one Pilot plane or fully automated. The ground station idea is just silly in my opinion, you still have to pay a Pilot (I would rather get a different job than be a ground station Pilot) and then there is the risk of communication jamming or something similar to that, why not have the single Pilot in the plane?
I personally would get on a driverless train and elevator, however I would not enjoy being in a driverless car, boat or plane (or any of these controlled by a remote ground station).
As a 17 year old, I and my "tech-loving" friends that I have asked about this all said they would not go on a Pilotless plane.
Last edited by JSeward; 28th April 2013 at 23:50.