Piloci komercyjni

Pilots can do things robots can't. Somtimes you can't follow the rules and need to break them. Think about the gimli glider. The pilot had no landing gear, he was way too high and way too fast. He did a side slip menuveur, only able to be completed in glider aircraft. It was a risky move but it would have to be done if they wanted to land. They succeded by breaking the rules and testing the limits. That is somthing that can nevery be done by a robot.

The tech is just not there yet, federal laws definitely would not condone it, and public support behind such a rushed technology would probably be non-existent.

The artificial intllegence can't replace the human's emotion and it's way of thinking in some situations and must be supervised by a trained and experienced pilot

The technology required to do it is almost here, the only significant hurdle is the trust of passengers. Once the general population trusts AI/robots enough to put their lives in it's hands, pilots won't be as needed. However, that day may never come, and there are still things which technology can't do yet (respond to emergencies, handle passengers, aircraft repairs, etc.).

No flight is the same. No robot could do what sully did.

Autopilot is already a large part of flight, and as AI gets better, there could be a chance. Even though AI is not perfect, and some people don't trust it, remember that many incidents, if not a majority, such as Air France 447, resulted in human error. Pilot error accounts for about 60 to 80% of plane crashes.

The competent regulatory body, (FAA) is VERY conservative. So even if we had the technology, I doubt that they would allow autonomous commercial planes.
In this case, regulation is the hold-up, not the technology.

If the automated system went down because of a storm or someone forgetting to turn their phone on airplane mode then every passenger is screwed

People would not trust robots, which are feared, to fly them, especially when flying is also feared by most people. They would much rather trust humans who can reassure them and are experienced. Also, companies would also be hesitant to incorporate robots as many of them do not have the money required and any lawsuits following a crash would be devastating and would end the whole industry potentially.

I don't believe robots can take on the role of commercial pilots due to the potential risks involved.

Allowing robots to operate planes that carry varying numbers of passengers, such as smaller regional jets accommodating around 50 to 100 passengers, and larger airliners like the Boeing 737 or Airbus A320 series carrying between 140 to 240 passengers, or wide-body aircraft like the Boeing 777 or Airbus A380 with capacities ranging from around 300 to over 800 passengers, could pose significant risks to people's lives.

The possibility of robot malfunctions raises concerns about placing full trust in their abilities.

Most passengers feel like they need at least 1 human pilot to be safe. you can program a robot to do something but it has no clue what to do if something goes wrong.

The idea that the "public won't accept it" or "government won't go for it" is naive over a 20 year timescale. The question isn't "Will it happen imminently?"; there's a large emphasis on the two decades. Between "15 minute cities", limited travel, Net Zero, and carbon taxes (i.e. UN policies based on SDGs), it's unclear if there will be a travel industry in 20 years, let alone a need for large numbers of commercial pilots.

Rightly or wrongly, with the number of DEI initiatives at present and several recent high-profile transport incidents caused by user error, I foresee many people choosing AI over humans in life-or-death professions. I make no judgement on that, personally, but I know a lot of people are bearish on such hiring policies, especially in critical industries. As for the technology, one only need look at the progress of AI in automated driving since 2020 to see that self-flying planes will almost surely exist by 2045. (I'm a computer scientist, by the way. My own job will be gone too -- and much sooner. I'm opposed to AI on principle and I've grown to hate my own field. But I've also got to be honest about it because I understand where we are.)

People will not trust to get on a plane from the current generations unless there is a qualified pilot onboard. Many people already have fear of flying and this would just make it worse for them since there is no real human being in the cockpit and it is controlled remotely. Additionally, it is just generally safer for a real human pilot as they are able to use their experience and training across emergency situations. For example, AI is very procedural and programmed to do exactly what manuals and procedures say, but what if there is a catastrophic emergency that requires quick-thinking? Many emergencies are procedural however there are exceptions when a pilots own experience is necessary for the safety of others. Plus, a real pilot is going to have empathy and adrenaline in a emergency situation as they also want to save themselves.. A remote controlled plane or AI powered plane won't have this and it will be a completely different situation. Maybe 20-30 years there could be single-pilot operations but no full automation.

We already have the technology to automate aviation, but I see no chance of it happening in the next few decades. The FAA moves slowly, airlines are controlled by pilot unions, and the AI would much much more real world training to understand emergency situations before it would be trusted with autonomously flying an aircraft. Maybe by 2060 we might see some planes go automated, but until then it is still a very rewarding and fun career to pursue.

requires human interference in accidents and emergencies
have to be 1000% reliable in order to not cause problems
can scare public away

Simple. The pilot is the hierarchy within the system. Today, AI can indeed perform even complex tasks, but you can never trust an AI 100% to pilot an airplane. The critical factor is simple: if there is any change or problem with the aircraft, a pilot can act quickly by not strictly following airline protocols. Following protocols 100% does not always guarantee safety.

Examples like TACA Flight 110, where a Boeing 737-300 lost both engines, show this. Instead of following the manual and returning, the pilots landed on the grass ahead, which was the right decision. This applies to many situations. In the case of United Airlines Flight 232, it's another example. Following the correct protocols isn't always the right choice and can sometimes prevent worse tragedies.

In the United case, let's suppose an AI is in command and the plane loses all three hydraulic systems. The company's manual doesn't cover a situation where all engines are lost. At that moment, what would the AI do? Even if it follows the tower controller's voice commands correctly, it’s impossible to determine the flight's fate because there's no human inside. However, this isn't to say that following protocols is always wrong. It’s just a reminder to follow protocols, but if you ever need to break them, it should be in a life-or-death situation.

Because flying airplanes is very hard to do, if done not correctly, the plane could crash, the A.I is smart but some times the A.I will have errors that cannot be fixed. I think just that.

A human being is required to accept legal responsibility

They can't handle emergencies

I don't think robots will fully take over the "Commercial Pilot" job 'cause you always need human intelligence instead of artificial intelligence for a safe journey.