Re: Remote pilots?
One fairly valid argument against emergency remote piloting is the number of incidents when a cockpit pilot achieves an effective emergency maneuver that other pilots...
A non - staffed flight deck, resulting in a need for "remote piloting", inevitably means that there would need to be an external radio interface to facilitate that remote control, and an external interface means a convenient entry point for a malicious attack - a hack on an unthinkable scale.
Just prior to the "Remote Pilots" part of this thread Voland's right hand wrote Boeing is still taking personally the fact that two of its aircraft were used to perform architectural modifications on the New York skyline.This is more about "you are not ramming this aircraft into this building even if you wanted to" than about shortage of pilots. Having an external interface makes "architectural modifications" more likely, not less, with no risk to the perpetrators.
The need for "remote control" would be greater than just taking over in an emergency. Departing or arriving flights often have to "hold" at a designated point whilst an other aircraft (or even more than one) clears the runway; that "hold" can be on the ground or in flight ("holding pattern") and those holds occur under the direction of ATC; given that necessity,"remote control" would turn out to be a routine requirement that was available more or less all the time from any number of locations, albeit not all at the same time.
The security implications of fully automated flight with no human interface on the flight deck are truly terrifying.