Reply to post: "Flight deck crew costs doesn't even enter into the picture."

"Flight deck crew costs doesn't even enter into the picture."

However that represents one recurring cost (pilot salary) versus 1 single payment (with a service contract as well?)

It also (might) represent several kilos of mass IE the 2nd pilot that does not have to be carried and can be replaced by more useful "stuff" (IE something the airline can charge you for rather than a cost they have to pay). TBH that 'bot looks quite heavy but then it's a PoC design and I don't think DARPA said it had to be lighter, just about the same as a pilot.

That said as a permanent installation in a commercial aircraft they could probably simplify the design and have its control boards share the equipment racks with other stuff and take various other measures to cut its weight below that of a meatsack. 10-20Kg below the average weight of a pilot might sound nothing but over the life of aircraft (and with some airlines on <1% profit) that multiplies up to a shed load of cash.

That said autoland systems are certified to 1 fail in 1x 10^9 operating hours. That sounds ridiculous but consider (using round numbers) 6000 737's in operation x 10 mins of autoland operation x # of flights a day --> 1000 hrs x # of flights a day. IOW you've racked up 1 billion operations in 3 years.

Demonstrating this system can have that level of reliability will be tough.

But it's going to happen in commercial aviation at least. The bottom line is (sadly) the bottom line.