This is called the electronics failure rate curve. AKA a bathtub curve.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bathtub_curve

Yes, electronics have a little bit of black magic.
You can actually see the magic smoke emitted from some type of circuit when it goes bad.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_smoke

When these system are built they will use decision tree with multiple computers. In a 3 computer system as long as 2 of them are functioning we shouldn't have to worry. Military fighter jets already use a similar decision tree.

Reminds me of the joke from many years ago:
The announcement after take-off: "Welcome aboard the world's first fully automated airplane with no pilots aboard. Sit back, relax, and be assured nothing can go wrong...go wrong...go wrong...go wrong..."

What happens when the total robotic portion of the aircraft goes haywire? Yes, including all the redundant backup systems. Will the aircraft still have the capability and visual senses to manually set down in a remote field or airport for repairs?

Too many points of failure, between Communications, reliability, and skin in the game, people in the cockpit make the most sense:

http://flyingandtechnology.blogspot.com/2013/06/1500-hours-or-nothing.html

Remember AF447 was flown by pilots because the automation gave up (bad information confused everything/everyone).

This is my post, same topic, from an engineering forum... -WKTaylor
----------------
To add another couple of facets to this picture...

The obvious intent is to have the single pilot augmented with the vast array of UAV technology, which is here to stay. I presume that there is an assumption that one or more back-up UAV pilots would always be available to assist. The problem with UAV technology is that it can, and has been, interfered with intentionally or unintentionally; and/or can be negated by any number of unique crisis on board a large commercial aircraft that often requires the perceptions and attention of the second crewman while the first continues to fly the aircraft. I also suspect that there is a wild-card "hedge" in-this-mix: there is likely to be another airline/freighter pilot dead heading who could be called forward to assist the solo pilot. Problem with emergencies in an airliner is that this second pilot many not be able to gain entrance to a secured cockpit in a timely manner... and should have been "up-there 5-minutes ago" to be of any value.

NOTE.
Airmanship is a vital element of flying. As a pilot you experience the reality of the of the aircraft and the flying experience; the sights in/out side of the cockpit, vibrations, sounds, smells, forces, etc that arise moment-to moment during different phases of flight. Currently two or more crewmen are on duty in the cockpit, side-by-side, living the same visceral experience. Anything out of the ordinary usually attracts one or both of the crew’s attention; and is quite often experienced before any instrumentation changes or warnings... at least to an alert crew. Also there is another critical factor: any threat to safety is a real threat to the crew, which revs-up creative/command thinking to solve the problem or overcome sudden circumstance changes… that may never be apparent to a UAV driver that has never actually been bathed in real-cockpit-sweat of an equivalent aircraft. Some might believe this remoteness would help the UAV copilot to retain professional detachment that could lead to a more positive outcome in a critical situation; however, I‘m not one of those believers: there is always some critical factor missing when going remote. Also, when needed, then who-is-in-charge... and/or what are their roles? The in-cockpit pilot or the UAV pilot? Will crews rotate duties; one-day in cockpit one-day in the UAV cockpit [monitoring multiple flights]??

Oh yes… and crashes never hurt UAV pilots very bad. Those of us in the accident investigation world never forget that "the cockpit crew always arrives at the scene of the accident first; and they sure-as-h*ll don’t want to be there, so they will fight hard/heroically to stay out of a crash site."

NOTE
A good friend of my wife is also a long-time Flight Attendant [FA] [+35-yrs]. When I asked her what FAs were thinking about ‘RE single pilot airliner operations’ she gave me a very odd look: there is no such concept being floated to/among the FA community. I actually had to explain the concept of single pilot operations to her. Disbelief turned to incredulity… especially since the FA community appears to be uninformed about this potential, and monumental, change to the cockpit crew. When I mentioned that 747 freighters are routinely flown with just a pilot and copilot, and no one else, she 'got-that'. However the concept of flying any large passenger aircraft ‘solo crewman’ was unconscionable with her… especially considering variables that occur on even routine flights… not to mention the sense of loneliness/isolation that would accompany such as position.

Sure..lets fly a plane using electronics...then watch some lunatic on the ground take control with his tablet and fly it wherever...I can see the advoidance system as being a valuable asset, but for goodness sake keep at least 1 sane pilot in the cockpit incase of catastrophic failure

How would you tell this automated airplane that there was a medical emergency on board, how would the plane then communicate this to ATC etc, there are a million scenarios that would have to be foreseen before this could be considered. The pilots here, reexamine your most trying times in the front seat and imagine what an automated plane would have to do? You wouldn't catch me in one!

I heard that at Boeing in 1966! (...go wrong, go wrong, go wrong.)

All the dumbasses that are willing to get on a plane without a human pilot can be my guest! But when the first one crashes and kills 300 people I'll be damned if I'll feel sorry for them. Stupid is as stupid does! Forrest's momma was right all along!

Please no that will ruin my life

Well the computer in AF 447 certainly didn't save the souls on board.

Airplanes without human pilots on board seem to me to be like the people who cross busy streets without looking up from their mobile phones.

I think it's more a pipe dream for corporations who want to cut costs and get personnel out of the equation.

Even if the human component was eliminated from the flight deck there are still thousands of human hands required for a flight to take place. Providing it is even possible, how fare away is the code for anticipating every potential human error that could begin a cascade to catastrophic failure of the complex systems we call airplanes?

This sounds perfect for the 4 passenger several hundred mile battery powered commuter planes that are being developed to make greater use of the hundreds of small underused airfields the US has.

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/armstrong/Features/leaptech.html

that should read far away not fare away

its a relief to note they are just thinking of incorporating this system in cargo carriers ! though the insurance coverage rate may sky rocket - initially at least

Aside from the fact that people tend to think more technological is better... what is the true benefit of removing the human element from the cockpit? Why as a human species do we wish to do that to ourselves? Does anyone care that two people who otherwise could feed their families and support themselves, now have to find alternate work elsewhere?

Meanwhile what's the bottom line? More money for the company? So the CEO and others inside the corporate offices get to continue to support their families in their level of comfort? It's really all relative. What if they were replaceable? To me it's about human quality of life and giving people the opportunity to feel useful, not replaceable. What is the human price for making everyone feel expendable?

Too many variables (can you say frozen pitots; JAL runway incursion; Gear won't go down/up; Jack-screw failure); 3rd engine blowout UAL) that is ONLY survivable with a human at the "wheel". I'm just a pax, but I ain't getting on no flying machine that doesn't have a human in the pointy end who, preferably, knows how to arm-wrestle...

The thought of this is scary and ridiculous!

I don't like this idea. Show me a piece of man made equipment that hasn't failed and I might change my mind. I remember a flight I had in an F-86D in the late fifties. I was on an actual scramble from our base on Long Island. The ceiling was 100ft overcast but the visibility was fairly good. The plane only had VOR (no DME) low freq. ADF and VHF communications. All three quit on my return. My airborne radar still worked so I could see the outline of the shore, I knew I was still out over the water. I let down real slow hoping to break out above the water, which I did, at about 100ft, flew along the coast until I saw some landmarks I knew were off the end of our runway. I found the runway and was able to land with no more problems. So don't tell me multiple failures can't happen.

One of my offspring flies A320's and yes they can "do it all", but! When I hear about all the "unexpected",:sick passenger-divert or not?, deice or not? what kind of deicer? need to reboot the computer--etc,etc,etc.
Bottom line for me:if it is a drone-I'm not going and at my age I need not worry.

Not to worry. Computers can't taxi worth a damn.

I worked on my first computer in 1965. Sometimes the only way to fix a problem was to turn it off then turn it back on. Seems like we still do that at times today. Reading about the first electronic Digital computer in the late 1940's they had the same problem. Will that ever be solved? Maybe, but will the public really accept pilot-less planes? By the way we techs called these fixes FM.

Unfortunately the pilot profession will cease to exist within the next decade, maybe sooner at the pace this technology is advancing. Those who cannot see this shift coming are blind. The bottom line is that corporations see this technology as an opportunity to significantly reduce personnel and training overhead. And that is all that matters, it is a done deal.

This reminds me of a story a few years ago. A flight left Vancouver to Asia. After an hour in fight the intercom came on. "We are pleased to announce that this aircraft if being flown entirely by computers. There are no pilots on board. We assure you Nothing can go wrong...Nothing can go wrong...Nothing can go wrong...Nothing can go wrong."