# data[].attributes.body
This article points out Airbus's intentions to create commercial airplanes without pilots, which is said may be in use by the middle of the 2030s ( I don't believe so). In order to allow the aircraft to fly independently, the company will be using technology like artificial intelligence, machine learning, and advanced sensors. This allows the industry to save tons of money but at a big risk for them and the passengers.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
commercial and general aviation aircraft

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Are we one step closer to pilotless commercial jets? | CNN

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Airbus has confirmed one of its test aircraft has successfully taken off automatically at Toulouse-Blagnac airport in France.

# data[].attributes.headline
Pilot Shortage And Risk of Automated Flights

# data[].attributes.subject
Pilot Shortage And Risk of Automated Flights

# data[].attributes.body
This article focuses on three areas, cybersecurity, human-machine interaction, and sensor reliability.  This article is looked at the potential problems connected to pilotless airplanes.  As technology develops, hackers may attack pilotless systems, which might have catastrophic effects. In the event of a system failure, it is also necessary to make sure that human operators( pilots) can interact with and control the aircraft successfully. If these systems fail the plane goes down, but with pilots, they are taught to fly on the good old instruments

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Forget standing seats, in-flight VR or luggage-tracking apps. It's unmanned flight that could be aviation's next big transformation.

At this year's Paris Air Show, Airbus said it's trying to attract aviation regulators to the idea of pilotless commercial travel. So is rival Boeing.

Their timing couldn't be better. With demand for air travel soaring, over 800,000 new pilots may be needed over the next 20 years. However, the supply of new pilots is struggling to keep up with demand, producing what Boeing has called "one of the biggest challenges" facing the airline industry.

But while pilotless technology offers relief, it poses challenges of its own that could ultimately stand in the way of autonomous airlines taking to the skies. Here are three of them.
Politics
Innovation invariably creates winners and losers. The introduction of the automobile shifted consumer demand away from trains much like the railways had, in decades prior, displaced canals and waterways as major forms of transportation. The result was job offers for some workers and pink slips for others. This reality is best summed up by Nicholas Carr, in his book, The Glass Cage, Automation and Us: "There is no economic law that says that everyone, or even most people, automatically benefit from technological progress."
You might also like:
Pilotless planes are a prime example of this. While the technology promises to revolutionise travel, its asking price is jobs - specifically, piloting jobs. The airline industry employs tens of thousands of aviators worldwide - skilled professionals who ferry billions of passengers across trillions of kilometers. Delegating this task to machines would produce widespread unemployment among pilots, culminating in a struggle to ply their skills to a new trade. That's hardly an easy task considering the unique skillset flying demands.

That's where politics come in. Airline pilots are backed by powerful labour unions, organisations that use collective bargaining, campaign contributions and political lobbying to influence issues affecting their members.

Take the Air Line Pilots Association (Alpa). Representing over 63,000 aviators worldwide, a compelling example of Alpa's influence dates back to the 1960s. In decades prior, airplanes required a third crew member in the cockpit. This flight engineer monitored airplane instruments and assisted pilots with troubleshooting. However, technological advances made flight engineers obsolete and manufacturers started producing airplanes with only two crew in mind.

However, given the inevitability of job losses among its members, Alpa resisted the adoption of these craft, waging what was by one account "a long struggle, contractually to get management to give (flight engineers) meaningful duties". Similar tactics are likely should pilotless technology reach maturity. Alpa has already voiced opposition to further reducing crew numbers.

Labour unions have allies in their fight against algorithms. That's because automating flying doesn't just threaten commercial airline jobs. Corporate flight academies train an increasing number of today's aviators. So do universities, colleges and small flight schools. These institutions employ tens of thousands of personnel - like flight instructors, ground lecturers and simulation experts - to run pilot training programs worldwide. Pilotless technology also threatens these professions.
Insurance
Aircraft aren't cheap. The Boeing 737 - a small, single-aisle passenger jet - costs upwards of $100m (£80m) apiece. Its larger, twin-aisle counterpart - the Boeing 777 - costs over $300m (£240m). Though airlines get discounts for bulk orders, the final bill can still be substantial. In 2011, American Airlines spent over $30bn (£24bn) on revamping its fleet. Indigo Airlines - an Indian start-up carrier - forked out an equally hefty amount for its fleet. Recovering those costs means putting airplanes to work and that can be risky. Though crashes are rare, they do happen and when they do, airline balance sheets take a hit.

That's where insurance comes in. Airlines buy policies to cover losses if an aircraft is damaged or destroyed. These policies also protect carriers against claims stemming from crash-related injuries and property damage. Exactly how much airlines pay for insurance coverage is anyone's guess - insurers guard their rates to maintain a competitive edge. However, premiums collectively cost the industry billions annually, making this expense a key determinant of an airline's potential profit (or loss).

An important question facing pilotless technology is how its introduction will affect premiums. Conventional wisdom suggests premiums should drop. After all, pilotless planes - powered by a sophisticated array of sensors and software - eliminates the culprit implicated in most airplane accidents: humans. This means that while crashes today are rare, they will - in the era of pilotless flight - be rarer. Fewer crashes will mean fewer payouts by insurers and the ensuing savings should be passed along to airlines in the form of lower premiums.

At least, that's the idea. The reality may be more complicated.

Today's airliners are already algorithmic heavyweights. Unlike their predecessors that relied on mental muscle to fly, modern jets count on software. The Boeing 787 Dreamliner - a staple of fleets worldwide and state-of-the-art aircraft - is powered by millions of lines of code. More code allows for more safety-enhancing features - things like turbulence detectors that pre-emptively sense rough air, diagnostic systems that monitor an aircraft's health and smart sensors that automatically stabilise an airplane if the cabin depressurises.

But more code, while used in the interests of improving safety, also creates a new type of risk, replacing one type of human frailty for another. In 2015, government regulators warned that the Dreamliner could experience failures of its electrical system. The reason? A software glitch - undetected by engineers - that could lead to a " loss of control of the airplane". Airbus recently faced similar issues with its flagship jet, the A350. The plane was found prone to a " partial or total loss of some avionics systems or functions, possibly resulting in an unsafe condition ". The culprit, once again, was software bugs that engineers failed to catch.

A related algorithmic risk is hacking. As code becomes more complex, thoroughly testing it for weaknesses becomes harder. This opens the door to exploitation by hackers. In 2008, government regulators warned that the Dreamliner's flight control system could be accessed via the airplane's entertainment system, allowing passengers to override pilot commands.

According to a government document, the airplane's design allowed for "new kinds of passenger connectivity to previously isolated data networks connected to systems that perform functions required for the safe operation of the airplane". More recently, a team of professionals managed to remotely hack a Boeing 757 using radio waves.

These risks are set to rise with pilotless planes. As software's influence becomes absolute, the number (and danger) posed by coding follies will grow. This doesn't mean the pilotless planes won't be insured. There is a saying amongst underwriters: there's no bad risk, only a bad rate.

Put simply, anything is insurable if the price is right. But what is that price and is it one airlines are willing, or are even able, to pay?
Salaries
Pilots pocket much of an airline's earnings. The average pay for flying a jetliner - assuming at least five years of experience - starts at $147,000 (£117,630) annually. Senior pilots can make nearly $300,000 (£240,000). Such hefty figures reflect the reality facing an industry keen to control costs: pilots are in short supply and learning to fly is both arduous and pricy. These factors push salaries up making them a key influencer of an airline's labour cost and - along with fuel - among an airline's biggest expenditures.

Pilotless technology should of course change this. Swiss bank UBS estimates that removing humans from the commercial cockpit could produce savings upwards of $35bn (£28bn) annually. That figure would boost profits in an industry that has often struggled to make money.

Algorithms' cash-saving virtues are well-known. From energy to retail to defence, software is widely credited with slashing costs by automating tasks once delegated to humans. Why can't the same approach be adopted in commercial aviation?

Aerospace manufacturers seem to think it can. In 2017, a Boeing executive embraced the idea of pilotless airplanes, saying, "the basic building blocks of the technology are clearly available". Similar sentiments were voiced by his Airbus counterpart earlier this year. The company's chief commercial officer said Airbus already has "the technology for autonomous flying".

Yet autonomous does not mean humanless. While sensors and software curb the need for manual labor, that need isn't - contrary to we're told - purged entirely. In fact, you'd be hard pressed to find one industry where algorithms work without any human involvement or oversight whatsoever. The reason? Automation is imperfect. It errs just like humans do, and when that happens the results can - depending on the industry - be catastrophic.

Take the airplane autopilot. First introduced in 1912, "George", as it is colloquially known, has become a staple of the modern cockpit. When engaged, its algorithms can crunch data faster and more reliably than a human pilot ever could, ultimately producing a safer, smoother flying experience.

But autopilot failures have also been implicated in several air incidents and crashes. That's why its use is only approved under the watchful eye of a human pilot. Regulators know that George can't - for all his virtual virtues - be trusted to get it right all the time, every time. You'd be hard pressed to find an aerospace manufacturer who disagrees with such reasoning.

Manufacturers could try curbing the number of crew on board. UBS estimates that going from two to one pilot in the cockpit would still produce some savings (though $20bn (£16bn) less than going fully pilotless). According to UBS analyst Celine Fornaro, so-called "single-pilot operations", could become a reality as early as 2022.

But this proposition is equally problematic. That's because it assumes the sole human pilot will intervene on time, every time automation fails. Manufacturers are wary. This explains why the single-pilot cockpits - being developed by the likes of Boeing and Airbus - includes remote supervision.

The idea is simple. With one pilot behind the controls, a second always stands ready to provide additional support. However, rather than being in the cockpit, the second aviator monitors the aircraft from the ground. It's a nice idea, but it is one which raises an important question - how many airplanes should the second pilot watch? After all, paying this individual to just monitor one aircraft wipes out the $15bn (£12bn) cost advantage offered by a single-pilot cockpit. Under these conditions, airlines are better off keeping two aviators on the flight deck. But if remote monitoring costs can be distributed over multiple aircraft, the idea becomes economically more feasible.

It also becomes riskier. After all, can one remote pilot really be expected to help a distressed aircraft while keeping an eye on several others? What happens when multiple aircraft need help? Can aerospace manufacturers and airlines guarantee this setup - one that tests the limits of human attention and memory - won't compromise passenger safety?

Until they can, the concept is unlikely to fly.

--
Ashley Nunes studies transportation safety, regulatory policy, and behavioral economics at MIT. If you liked this story, sign up for the weekly bbc.com features newsletter, called "The Essential List". A handpicked selection of stories from BBC Future, Culture, Worklife, and Travel, delivered to your inbox every Friday.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The three things that could kill the pilotless airliner

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Forget standing seats, in-flight VR or luggage-tracking apps. It's unmanned flight that could be aviation's next big transformation. At this year's Paris Air Show, Airbus said it's trying to attract aviation regulators to the idea of pilotless commercial travel. So is rival Boeing. Their timing couldn't be better.

# data[].attributes.body
This video is a perfect example of why technology is not advanced enough for modern aviation yet. This video explains the development of autopilot and how it may affect commercial pilots in the future. The movie describes how airplanes have increasingly been equipped with autopilot systems since the middle of the 20th century, allowing them to fly certain portions of a flight without human assistance. Given the fact that Automated technology is becoming more advanced, the video makes it clear that it is doubtful that commercial pilots would be completely replaced by machines. The video makes the case that while some aspects of flying, like takeoff and landing, may be automated. But the complexity of other scenarios such as weather or flight control emergencies still requires human instinct.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Will Commercial Pilots Be Replaced? - A Brief History Of Aviation Automation And It's Future

# data[].attributes.body
There are three parts to the book. The early history of flying, including the Wright brothers and other early aviation leaders, is discussed in the first section. The evolution of commercial aviation, the development of airlines, and the difficulties they encountered are covered in the second section. The book's final portion explains aviation's future, covering upcoming technology and innovations reshaping the aviation industry. The author uses intriguing stories to communicate important topics and ideas throughout the book. Anyone interested in aviation will enjoy this book.

# data[].attributes.body
This article dives into the challenges linked to the advancement in technology and the idea of pilotless aircraft in the future of aviation. The author also discusses the advantages of unmanned aerial vehicles, such as decreased costs, increased effectiveness, and decreased pilot error, To guarantee that pilotless flights comply with the essential safety standards.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This year's graduating cadre of young cadets could possibly be the last to enjoy full, four-decade careers as traditional commercial airline pilots. By the time they are ready to retire, around 2060, pilot jobs as we currently know them will "start to become obsolete," according to Richard de Crespigny. He's the Qantas captain who led a five-pilot team that safely landed a severely crippled A380 in Singapore in 2010.

Pilotless aircraft "will eventually be built," he predicted, perhaps in production by 2040. "Innovative airlines will buy them. Adventurous passengers will fly them." Boeing is conducting flight tests related to autonomous or reduced-crew civil aircraft in a two-year project at Moses Lake, Washington. The tests include using a modified vehicle for an autonomous taxi, autonomous flight algorithms in a simulator, flight tests of an artificial intelligence (AI)-based system in a Cessna Caravan, plus engine start, pushback, taxi, manoeuver and takeoff roll using a Boeing 787 Dreamliner technology testbed. The objective is to determine if such aircraft could be operated for freight or passenger-carrying missions with the same levels of safety as current manned aircraft.

"A pilotless airliner is going to come; it's just a question of when," said James Albaugh - in 2011 when he was president and CEO of Boeing Commercial Airlines. "You'll see it in freighters first, over water probably, landing very close to the shore." Sixteen years ago in 2002, Craig J. Mundie, then chief research and strategy officer for Microsoft (now senior advisor to the CEO), made a $2,000 public wager with Eric Schmidt, then CEO of Google, that "by 2030, commercial passengers will routinely fly in pilotless planes." Mundie's logic was that "if we stay on this Moore's law kick - (computers) will be about 4,000 times more powerful," adding that "with computers increasingly a part of critical infrastructure, the industry is going to have to focus a lot more on making machines that just don't fail." Schmidt's contrary argument claimed, "the training and timing around handling emergencies such as engine failure at rotation are not going to be transferrable to autopilots and machines."

"We are quite confident that technologically, the toolkit is filled. With respect to a commercial aircraft, there is no doubt in our minds that we can solve the problem of autonomous flight," stated John Tracy, Boeing's chief technology officer, now retired, two years ago. "It's a question of certification procedures, regulatory requirements and, even more significantly, public perception."

"The future pilot will still be needed, but he or she will sit in an office flying and managing the aircraft from the ground like the drone pilots already do," said Capt. Tilmann Gabriel, chairman of the International Pilot Training Association (IPTA), which assists ICAO with expertise in developing training and simulation guidance.

Not surprisingly, many experts believe commercial airliners will never go pilotless. What happens if the computer flying the plane malfunctions? According to NASA data, an aircraft system malfunction occurs on 20% of flights, Moreover, AI would follow "by the book" rules-based judgments and might not be able to make human-type "generative intelligence" decisions such as the emergency ditching in the Hudson River by Capt. Chesley Sullenberger. "Humans are particularly good at adaptive problem-solving and discovery, areas where there has been little machine intelligence progress," explained Michael Feary, a research scientist at NASA Ames Research Center.

Scenarios of "cascading failures" occur many times, noted Keith Hagy, the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) director of engineering and safety. "Those are the kind of abnormal situations when you really need a pilot on board with that judgment and experience and to make decisions."

A skeptical public

"The issue has never been could you automate an aircraft and fly it autonomously?" said Dr. R. John Hansman, professor of aeronautics and astronautics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Director of the MIT International Center for Air Transportation. "The issue is could you put paying customers in the back of that aircraft".

A majority of people, 54%, said they would not fly in a pilotless plane (even if the ticket price was cheaper), according to a UBS survey last year. Only 17% said they would, though this percentage increased for those with higher educations and incomes. In the 25-34 age group, 30% responded that they were very likely or somewhat likely to fly in an autonomous airliner (versus 40% who were unlikely or very unlikely to do so). In the 55-64 bracket, the unlikely group rose to 60% with only 10% likely or unlikely.

Americans are far more interested with 27% very/somewhat likely to fly in a pilotless plane, compared with only 15% for respondents from the UK, France and Germany. The 8,000 people surveyed are more inclined to try a driverless car (30%), though the research was conducted before a pedestrian was killed by an Uber test vehicle operating in autonomous mode. In a Travelzoo survey, 38% said they would prefer a Star Trek-style teleporter (at the moment, a fictional device).

The UBS report claimed the aviation industry could save up to $35 billion a year by eliminating pilots in the cockpit: more than $26 billion in pilot salaries, benefits and training costs, $3 billion for business aviation, $2.1 billion for civil helicopters, over $1 billion in fuel savings from computer-driven flight optimisation, plus $3 billion from lower insurance premiums.
How about one pilot?
"The more disruptive approach is to say maybe we can reduce the crew needs for our future aircraft," Airbus chief technology officer Paul Eremenko said recently. "We're pursuing single-pilot operation as a potential option and a lot of the technologies needed to make that happen have also put us on the path towards unpiloted operation."

Boeing Research and Technology vice president Charles Toups said it may take a "couple of decades" to persuade passengers to take a single-pilot jet, suggesting public support for the concept would start with proliferation of self-driving cars.

"They are going to remove the co-pilot," stated Stephen Rice, a human factors professor at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University. "The manufacturers like the idea because they can redesign the cockpit. The airlines I've spoken to like the idea because it saves costs in the same way that removing the third person from the cockpit did decades ago."

The future pilot will still be needed, but he or she will sit in an office flying and managing the aircraft from the ground like the drone pilots already do.

Capt. Tilmann Gabriel Chairman, International Pilot Training Association

To support a single-pilot cockpit, French Air and Space Academy (AAE) and NASA Ames/Rockwell Collins research recommends a ground-based operator, much like today's military drone operators who control aircraft from half a world away. According to Jean Broquet, an AAE member and former designer of automated satellite control systems, Pilot-Ground operators (PGs), would be qualified as pilots, including holding a type rating (there goes some of those personnel and training cost savings.)

The AAE estimates one PG can simultaneously manage up to five flights in short- to medium-haul operations. In the NASA "super-dispatcher" concept, a trained pilot could remotely oversee the flights of as many as a dozen aircraft at once. If an airborne pilot needed help because of equipment malfunction or medical emergency, the ground-based aviator could help fly the aircraft.

The airline flight crews who participated in their single-pilot simulator-based research "weren't as negative as I thought they would be," said NASA research psychologist Walter Johnson. "They don't want to fly alone, but what I got from them was that, [with a copilot on the ground], it probably would work."

"The main issue for single-pilot operations is cybersecurity," said Joel B. Lachter, NASA computer scientist. "In order for it to be done safely, automation or ground operators would need authority to be able to step in in the case of off-nominal issues such as pilot incapacitation. If they can eliminate the cybersecurity threats surrounding those operations, I think it is feasible."

The chief executive of the International Air Transport Association (IATA), Alexandre de Juniac, said he is "not convinced by the single-pilot issue. I don't see the plus. I do see the minus."

Flying above traffic jams

Mashups of technology companies, automotive companies, traditional aviation OEMs and startups are attempting to create a new market niche known as "urban air mobility" (UAM), aka "flying cars" or "flying taxis."

Google is testing a two-person, electric powered air taxi in New Zealand known as Cora, which uses three onboard computers to calculate its flight path - no pilot necessary - with 12 lift fans for vertical takeoff and horizontal flight, and with a parachute (similar to the Cirrus fixed-wing aircraft). Top speed 93 mph. Altitude 3,000 feet. Range 62 miles. German startup Lilium, which has recruited key personnel from Airbus and Tesla, is touting a five-seat vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) electric jet which could fly in excess of 180 mph and transit from London to Paris in an hour. The first "functional crewed flight" is expected by next year and the on-demand air taxi service by 2025.

Pilotless aircraft will eventually be built...innovative airlines will buy them. Adventurous passengers will fly them.

Capt. Richard de Crespigny Qantas Airways

Airbus has multiple short-haul aircraft ventures spinning up. Project Vahana from their Silicon Valley-based A3 research centre is a self-piloted single passenger VTOL with automated obstacle detection; a production model is targeted for 2020. The CityAirbus with four ducted fans would seat 3-4, operated by a single pilot (but evolving to fully autonomous operation in the future) - look for a demonstrator and a piloted test flight in 2019. Airbus is also working with Audi on the Pop.Up Next driverless car/drone/air taxi.

A Dutch company unveiled the first production model PAL-V Liberty flying car at the Geneva, Switzerland motor show in March. The $615,000 two-engine, two-seater can drive up to 105 mph on three wheels or fly at 112 mph using a rear-mounted propeller, traversing up to 300 miles on unleaded gasoline. Pal-V requires a short runway to take off and land, and operators will have to qualify as gyroplane pilots (there's an unpowered rotor which serves as a parachute).

Bell Helicopter (Fort Worth, Texas) is partnered with ride-share company Uber in a flying taxi initiative called Elevate, scheduled to debut in Dallas-Fort Worth, Los Angeles and Dubai in 2020. Initially, traditional pilots will be required, but they are hoping that "pilot augmentation technology will significantly reduce pilot skill requirements, and this could lead to a commensurate reduction in training time," similar to an FAA light-sport pilot licence. "Not only must the FAA be convinced, but the insurers who cover the risk of the operation will need to see that pilot skill and experience requirements are reduced."

Lowering the boom

Several commercial supersonic aircraft programmes are on the drawing boards in the US, Japan and Russia, and some of the initiatives are transitioning to a flight demonstration phase. Spike Aerospace (Boston, Massachusetts) flew an unmanned subscale version of their S-512 supersonic design in 2017. Denver, Colorado-based Boom Supersonic's two-crew, one-third scale XB-1 "Baby Boom" demonstrator is scheduled to fly sometime of this year. Aerion (Reno, Nevada), which has worked with Airbus, General Electric and Lockheed Martin, plans to proceed directly to full-size pre-production AS2 aircraft. All three programmes are targeting flight testing and initial production aircraft deliveries in the 2021-2025 timeframe.

To get there, the contenders not only need to design for Mach 1.2 to 2.2 speeds, they must address challenges of fuel efficiency, carbon dioxide emissions, noise levels on takeoff and landing, and the ultimate dilemma, sonic booms. Even so, they may not be allowed to overfly the US because of an FAA ban on flights exceeding Mach 1 that was implemented in 1973. The FAA is collaborating with ICAO technical working groups on recommended standards for noise and emissions, Mach cut-off (flight conditions in which sonic booms do not reach the ground's surface) and "low boom."

Dan Nale, Gulfstream senior vice president of programs, engineering and test, believes flying a supersonic business jet will be "very similar" to flying a subsonic jet. "Modern flight controls and fly-by-wire systems do an excellent job of compensating for the aerodynamic effects of transonic and supersonic flight. Where supersonic pilots are most likely to feel the effects of speed is on their displays. Distances will shrink at a surprising rate, airborne traffic will be quickly overtaken, and pilots will have to carefully plan their arrivals and descents to effectively transition from high and fast to the terminal environment."
This article has been reprinted and adapted by permission of Civil Aviation Training (CAT) magazine, Halldale Group.
Rick Adams, Editor of the ICAO Journal, is a Fellow of the Royal Aeronautical Society (FRAeS).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This year's graduating cadre of young cadets could possibly be the last to enjoy full, four-decade careers as traditional commercial airline pilots. By the time they are ready to retire, around 2060, pilot jobs as we currently know them will "start to become obsolete," according to Richard de Crespigny.

# data[].attributes.body
The Robb Report article explores why autonomous flight isn't progressing faster despite significant aviation advances in technology. The article describes the difficulties in putting autonomous flight technology into practice, including legal obstacles, safety issues, and the complexity of the aviation industry. The author also points out that, despite advancements in the development of autonomous technology it is still in the early stages and is not yet ready for use in commercial passenger flights. The article also highlights the significance of human pilots for ensuring safety in aviation, despite modern aircraft's growing automation.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Getty Images

In the 1950s, commercial flights required five people on board to fly the plane: two pilots as well as a flight engineer, a radio operator, and a navigator.

Technology helped pare the cockpit to the two-crew model that's been in use since the late 1970s. But as flying becomes increasingly automated, planes may not need pilots on board at all.

Airbus and Boeing have both demonstrated fully autonomous flight, but this year could represent a sea change, with several manufacturers working alongside the FAA to certify autonomous aircraft that transfer the pilot from the cockpit to a control center on the ground-a move expected to streamline operations, trim costs, and make flight safer.

Autonomous flight now. Getty Images

However, there's a long way to go between the package-delivering drones you may soon see in your neighborhood and fully autonomous commercial flight involving a sci-fi picture with dozens of aircraft navigating crowded urban airspace, filled with passengers but no pilots.

"The biggest hurdle would be creating incredibly secure, unbreakable, un-hackable links to ground stations, with no risk," Richard Aboulafia, managing director of AeroDynamic Advisory, tells Robb Report, citing additional difficulties such as insuring the planes, as well as getting buy-in from pilots, aerospace worker unions, and, most important of all, the flying public.

Implementation will likely be in stages; eVTOL ("electric vertical takeoff and landing" aircraft) is expected to arrive over the next few years, though nobody expects these electric air taxis to be fully autonomous for many years. These will be followed by fully autonomous small cargo aircraft and then, in the 2040s, commercial travel. Several start-ups have emerged in the race to develop the technology, especially in the cargo realm, where operators can serve rural areas more effectively.

Airbus has already demonstrated autonomous takeoffs and landings on its commercial jets.

Instead of building a plane from scratch, San Francisco-based start-up Xwing has been conducting tests using a converted Cessna Grand Caravan similar to the ones in FedEx's fleet. Xwing's Superpilot uncrewed air transportation system is already capable of gate-to-gate autonomous flight, according to the company.

However, the FAA requires that a safety pilot remain on board until the technology is certified. Meanwhile, a human controller on the ground interfaces with air-traffic control and operates the Cessna remotely.

"In the future, aviation will become more automated," Xwing CEO Marc Piette tells Robb Report. "Once certified, we'll be able to bring full autonomy into the national airspace, which will significantly improve safety across all phases of flight, reduce flight costs, and increase community connectivity."

Start-ups like Xwing and Reliable Robotics are testing autonomous flight systems on the Cessna Grand Caravan, used for hauling packages in the FedEx fleet. Courtesy Reliable Robotics

Experts say autopilot technology can often operate more effectively than a human, diagnosing problems and handling certain flying conditions using algorithms for emergency landings and other scenarios. However, pilots must still direct the plane's systems.

Despite the myriad challenges, autonomous flight will arrive before autonomous vehicles hit the roads, says Robert Rose, CEO of Reliable Robotics. Rose, who worked at SpaceX and directly with Elon Musk on Tesla's first version of Autopilot, says driving presents more technical challenges and a tougher regulatory environment than flying.

Like Xwing, Reliable Robotics is testing a retrofitted Cessna Grand Caravan for autonomous taxi, takeoff, cruise, landing, and braking, with a lone pilot on board. The FAA approved the company's advanced navigation and autoflight system for testing last year. Both start-ups are working toward launching commercial operations by mid-decade.

Even if the technology is there, will passengers accept "pilots" being many miles away in a control center? Getty Images

"You don't need to invent a new type of aircraft to solve the regulatory challenges related to autonomous operations," Rose told CNBC.

Experts say fully autonomous commercial flights are about two decades on the horizon-short, regional flights are expected to begin flying themselves roughly a decade before that-but not everyone is excited, says Doug Gollan, founder of the industry buyer's guide Private Jet Card Comparisons. "One comment I hear a lot from private jet flyers is they want two pilots in the cockpit, so it will be a long road to zero."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Self-Flying Planes May Be Hitting the Skies Sooner Than You Think. Here's What You Need to Know.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Getty Images In the 1950s, commercial flights required five people on board to fly the plane: two pilots as well as a flight engineer, a radio operator, and a navigator. Technology helped pare the cockpit to the two-crew model that's been in use since the late 1970s.

# data[].attributes.body
This article is about autopilot systems, having been in operation for many years. Fully automated planes are still in the testing stage. A number of businesses including Airbus and Boeing, are developing these technologies.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
No Pilot, No Problem? Here’s How Soon Self-Flying Planes Will Take Off

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The aircraft are already here. Pilot unions are preparing for battle. And the FAA is playing it cool. Autonomous flight is coming to civil aviation sooner than anyone thinks, and it may prove to be a surprising boon for flyover country.