VH-UFO:
I can see it happening with Cargo into maybe remote specifically designed airfields
This may work in the USA but over here we're crowded enough that you'd find it hard to prang a 172 without hitting someone on the ground (OK, an exaggeration!), and there's no space to build new airfields anywhere useful.
What would be the point of taking the cargo to somewhere remote, when it's wanted at its (presumably usually urban) destination? The extra surface transport costs may well scupper the economics.
In fact I think the economics will defeat it all together - saving the cost of 2 pilots but having to build specialist airfields, with "unstoppable" electronics (what does a pilotless aircraft do when it needs navaids to land, and they're offline?) just doesn't add up. As far as I can see, the only people pushing this idea are the electronics firms who need to project future projects / revenue, and the free-thinkers who haven't considered all the ramifications. And journalists wanting to sell papers, of course.
Remember, the UPS at Birmingham AL didn't even have a glideslope (in fact neither did Asiana at SanFran) which would have made both places inaccessible to a robot aircraft.
Incidentally, we have had AutoLand for some decades, but I don't think *anyone* has AutoTaxy, even in testing? Apart from anything else, it would add to the Ground controller's workload, and I can't see them accepting that.
@joy_ride:
I agree completely, and I'd hate to be the software designer who tries to specify what to do with a double engine failure on short final. And I think everyone considering pilotless aircraft should say out loud: "Remember Sully!"