Un-manned Airliners.

[SYDCBRWOD]

It is not the ability to do it, it is error and bug free code ... every possible scenario, all possible failures, the code has an answer that does not end up in crash. That is what NASA has nearly achieved with SST, getting to 95% may seem like enough, but those last 5% are critical when the crap hits the fan. Do you trust your life on code written by Airbus? what took down air france 408? A single data point entry error leading to a cascade of issues... plane down.

I wonder if it is even achievable with today's or near off tech.

Do you understand how the later FBW fighter aircraft fly? They are completely unstable designs that could not be flown by a pilot without the computers being switched on and working correctly. As in, if the the computers shut down whilst in the air the F-16 for example would instantly become uncontrollable, and the pilot would have to eject.

The pilot doesn't actually fly these aircraft, he merely provides inputs to the flight control computers - as in "pull back on the stick = pilot wants to go up". The computers then translates these pilot inputs into additional movements on the control surfaces (additional to the tens of control system inputs required to keep the aircraft in the air). Since what, 1979? in the case of the F-16 this aircraft has been kept flying by computer code and lots of it. You don't hear of stacks of F16 falling from the sky do you? There are two instances I can recall of computer issues causing crashes - the F-22 that belly landed due to code problems and the B-2 prang - caused by eroneous data from sensors, much as AF 447 was( I assume that's the flight you are referring to). In any case a far better example for your side would be the Qantas flight uncommanded pitch down problems over Learmonth.

I'd say its possible, and possible now, you only need to see that Northrop Grumman obviously have perfected the computer code required.