I wonder if it's worthwhile considering the sort of legal advice that has been provided to airline CEOs? This may or may not be germane to the whole issue. It seems to me that "the boss" will do whatever he (or she) can to save money, but with the proviso that it's not likely to end them up with crippling law suits etc.
I feel sure that they will all want to embrace the so-called "pilotless aeroplane" concept, as a way to save significant sums of money. But they need to consider the issue of public confidence first and, then, public liability - for the time when the technology might all turn to worms, killing... what... 400 people? 800 people? More?
Pick up just about any book of fictitious action/drama and you'll find that many authors have already postulated the effects of EMP on airline aircraft. Whether or not those effects are real, one would have to think that the risk is magnified these days by terrorism and the so-called war against terrorism.
I don't want to sidetrack this debate down that particular path. I merely use it as an example of the potentially ruinous public liability claims that could arise after implementation of airline aircraft that fly by themselves. I'm aware that the possible effects of EMP might well be beyond the control of even the most skilled aircrew and so maybe the airline CEOs see it the same way. Thus, whatever legal advice might have been given to them might help us to determine the liklihood of the system going the way that Oz Ocker suggests.
Any legal eagles out there have any thoughts on this?