Study Finds No Significant Difference in Collegiate Pilots' Willingness to Fly Near Remotely Piloted vs. Autonomous UAS

A peer-reviewed study published this week in Collegiate Aviation Review International found no statistically significant difference in collegiate pilots' willingness to fly near unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) depending on whether those aircraft were remotely piloted or fully autonomous. The study was authored by Selim Ozyurek.

Researchers surveyed 52 pilots enrolled at an FAA Part 141 flight school in southwest Michigan, with certifications ranging from private pilot through CFII and averaging approximately 168 flight hours. Each participant was presented with two hypothetical VFR flights in a G1000-equipped Cessna 172 under clear-weather conditions. In both scenarios, medium-to-large civilian UAS operated below FL180 and were segregated from manned aircraft; one scenario featured remotely piloted UAS and the other featured fully autonomous aircraft. The study found no significant effect associated with UAS control method and no significant difference associated with pilot rating. Ozyurek wrote that "the nonsignificant findings are therefore more accurately characterized as inconclusive rather than as evidence of equivalence or indifference."

The study carried several limitations: it was substantially underpowered for comparisons among pilot rating groups, some of which included only one to three participants; researchers presented the remotely piloted scenario first to every participant rather than randomizing the order; and UAS remained segregated from manned traffic in both scenarios. The findings contrast with a 2022 study of 380 U.S. pilots that examined highly automated urban air mobility (UAM) aircraft operating alongside manned traffic, comparing passenger-carrying UAM aircraft with a pilot aboard against aircraft monitored remotely. That study, by researchers Lakshmi Vempati, Sabrina Woods and Scott Winter, found a statistically significant effect: professional pilots were more willing to operate around UAM aircraft when a human pilot was aboard, leading the researchers to conclude that "automation level influenced pilots' willingness to operate an aircraft in integrated airspace."

Taken together, the two studies suggest that pilot comfort with unmanned or autonomous aircraft is not a fixed attitude but one that shifts with the scenario tested: segregated below-FL180 UAS traffic versus passenger-carrying UAM integrated with manned aircraft, students versus professional pilots, and airspace where humans and machines are kept apart versus airspace where they share the same corridor. Any research into airspace acceptance of unmanned systems has to specify exactly which scenario it measured before its results can be compared to another study's.

Ozyurek's own limitations point to what would need to change for a firmer reading: a larger and more balanced sample across pilot ratings, randomized scenario order, and testing under integrated rather than segregated traffic conditions. He named traffic density, weather and emergency procedures as the specific variables that still need testing. Until those conditions are varied, the current inconclusive result should not be read as a broader industry finding that autonomy is a non-issue for pilots sharing airspace with UAS.