Synthetic vision really is the opposite of the "cockpit automation" mentality that has dominated civil avionics. That mentality comes from the perspective that pilot duties are complex, and therefore need to be automated away. The result is pilots who spend most of their time tending the autopilot.

The unfortunate effect of such automation-centric avionics designs is that pilots become more removed from reality because they are lost in automation and less aware of the airplane's situation. A long long list of tragic accidents support this finding. Synthetic vision embraces a different perspective.

Synthetic Vision comes from the viewpoint that the pilot will be the best prepared decision maker when the computer is used to reveal the aircraft's situation as clearly as possible to the pilot. Fog outside the window? Then show a picture of the outside anyway (from a database) to avoid terrain. Airspeed indicator out? Then use the GPS to create an estimate of airspeed, but put usable speed on the display so the pilot doesn't loose control. Computers can create meaningful information for pilots when plain instruments present easily confused data.

Synthetic vision is descendant from extensive military research into how to make pilots effective in complex and dangerous situations using Head Up Displays. Tremendous resources went into testing such displays. Aircraft systems like those on the F-35 continue to force this important finding forward. Flying is about what's outside the cockpit, not what's in it.

Computers can enhance a pilot's ability to be aware of the aircraft's situation, and that helps pilots make great decisions. Civil aviation avionics vendors and the authorities that regulate them are missing out on a big safety opportunity by dragging their feet here. And those feet are still dragging.

What is stopping the development of unmanned cargo aircraft?

If SpaceX can deliver cargo autonomously to the space station, I somehow fail to believe that flying an unmanned 747 from one airstrip to another is exceedingly complex.

To be clear, I mean that the aircraft is autonomous, not that it is flown by a remote pilot.

Once these systems are shown to be safer than human flown cargo planes, they technology will be widespread. After a decade of implementation, it can then spread to passenger transport as the ultimate auto-pilot. The pilot then just becomes the flight director, and takes over in case there are any failures.

Sadly, I'm sure the Burj high stack of regulatory documents prevent even experimentation in this field, let alone commercial implementation.