Recently, Greg Farris posted:

In article ,
says...

While "the industry" wonders what "equivalent" means, some obvious
issues appear to be minimized, if not ignored. It's not difficult to
understand that any flight control methods that depend on remote
radio control and communication will be inadequate to provide safety
in civil airspace. TCAS is a necessity, but still does not provide
separation for aircraft without transponders. Until AI is advanced
enough to allow UAVs to act autonomously, they will not even
approach the loosest interpretation of equivalence.



Here we are, back on the assertion that remote control of airplanes
requires an advanced degree of artificial intelligence - NOT.

It has been successfully demonstrated since WWII.

Indeed, remote control of airplanes is possible with no AI at all. The
question, though, is what will it take to make it possible to insert
remotely controlled vehicles in civil airspace and maintain safety
equivalent to the existing civil environment? The answer to that question
*does* depend on autonomous action to provide "see-and-avoid" behavior. It
doesn't seem like an insurmountable problem, but it is insurmountable if
nobody is working on it, which is the implication of the article.

Neil