The Real Reason Airliners CAN’T Have This!

Main ideas / lessons conveyed

• An extreme real-world example shows why auto “ground collision avoidance” matters

  • The video discusses a cockpit recording from a U.S. Air Force F-16 where the pilot goes unconscious due to very high G-forces, yet the aircraft does not crash because an automated system takes over and recovers the aircraft away from the terrain.
  • The incident occurred May 5, 2016, during basic fighter maneuvers (BFM) with two F-16s (call sign “Sully” mentioned), reaching up to ~8.4G.

• G-induced loss of consciousness (G-LOC / “G-lock”) is the physiological failure mode

  • At high G, blood flow to the brain becomes inadequate → loss of color → tunnel vision → gray-out → unconsciousness (“G-lock”).
  • G-suits (“Guits”) and training (muscle tensing and breathing techniques) can delay G-LOC, but cannot prevent it indefinitely.

• The auto-recovery system activates at the brink

  • When the pilot loses consciousness, he stops managing inputs and the aircraft begins to descend rapidly (nose down to ~55° below the horizon).
  • The system intervention is described as:
    • HUD warnings appear (including a flashing X and “fly up” cues)
    • An audible tone occurs
    • Fly-by-wire controls automatically:
      • Level the wings
      • Pitch the aircraft up to a safer trajectory

• Auto GCAS (Automatic Ground Collision Avoidance System) is credited with multiple life-saving events

  • Mentioned claims include:
    • 75% of certain F-16 pilot fatalities historically tied to controlled flight into terrain/sea, linked to disorientation, saturation, or G-induced loss of consciousness.
    • NASA was involved in systems development and states this was the 4th time Auto GCAS saved an aircraft/pilot after integration began in 2013.
    • Lockheed Martin credits Auto GCAS with saving 12 pilots (as stated in the video).
    • The system is also being integrated into F-35s more recently.

• How Auto GCAS works conceptually

  • The aircraft continuously estimates risk by comparing its predicted trajectory to a terrain database.
  • It computes the last point where actions like wings-level + a ~5G pull-up would prevent impact.
  • When the aircraft reaches that point, it intervenes until a safe trajectory is regained or the pilot takes over.

• Why this is harder in civilian airliners than in fighters

  • A key practical design tension:
    • The system must be safe and non-intrusive (no harmful or nuisance activations).
    • But it must also be reliable under complex, dynamic flight.
  • Fighter jets’ trajectories are more dynamic; airliners are more conservative, which makes prediction easier—yet the bigger hurdle becomes trust in data.

• Comparison: Auto GCAS vs airliner terrain warning systems (EGPWS)

  • Current airliner systems (example given: Boeing 737’s Enhanced Ground Proximity Warning System, EGPWS) primarily warn pilots, not take control.
  • Differences described:
    • Older GPWS used radio altimeter logic mainly looking downward; could be late for terrain ahead.
    • Modern EGPWS uses a terrain database + GPS position, speed, and descent rate to estimate terrain closure rate, producing:
      • Caution callouts (e.g., “terrain terrain”)
      • Later pull-up warnings with enough time for escape maneuvers
  • Pilot procedures for escape maneuvers with EGPWS are described as similar in spirit to what Auto GCAS would do (maximum thrust + wings level + pitch up, with safeguards).

• The “trust in data” problem is emphasized via GPS spoofing/jamming risk

  • GPS jamming: receiver loses GPS signal → must fall back to inertial/other sensors.
  • GPS spoofing: false signals are accepted → aircraft may compute a wrong position/altitude, leading to potentially spurious terrain warnings.
  • The video references a past incident involving an Airbus over the Middle East where EGPWS gave strong “pull up” warnings at high altitude due to GPS spoofing that corrupted navigation data.

• Why reliability against GPS interference matters more as automation grows

  • The message is that GPS isn’t only for navigation—it’s increasingly used by safety-critical automation.
  • Therefore, anti-spoof/jam robustness becomes a system-level requirement.

• Potential mitigations: multi-constellation / alternative satellite timing and positioning

  • Alternatives to GPS are discussed:
    • Other constellations like GLONASS and Galileo, though signals can still be vulnerable (weak signals and jamming/spoofing concerns due to being far away from Earth).
  • A highlighted example is the King Air Medivac accident discussed earlier, where a “Spidertracks” system used:
    • Iridium PNT satellites (“PNT” = positioning, navigation, timing)
    • Low Earth Orbit (LEO) signals that can remain usable in places where GPS fails (e.g., under trees, buildings, tunnels).

• Practical concluding question

  • Since conflicts and GPS interference are growing, the video argues for exploring resilient alternatives or layered navigation—especially for systems that could take control of the aircraft.

---

Methodology / instruction-like content (procedures and system logic)

Auto GCAS logic (as described)

• Continuous monitoring

  • Maintain a 3D terrain elevation map (via onboard terrain data).
  • Use navigation data to place aircraft on the map.
  • Continuously estimate the aircraft’s trajectory relative to terrain.

• Risk computation

  • Determine the latest point where a corrective action would prevent impact, specifically:
    • Roll wings level
    • Initiate a ~5G pull-up (system-limited)

• Activation trigger

  • When the predicted “no-collision” point is reached, Auto GCAS intervenes via fly-by-wire.

• Corrective maneuver

  • Level the wings
  • Pitch up until reaching a safe trajectory or until the pilot intervenes.

EGPWS escape maneuver (airliner pilot procedure described)

When EGPWS issues a pull-up/escape-type warning, pilots are described as doing a maneuver that includes:

• Apply maximum thrust
• Roll wings level
• Pitch up to at least a minimum attitude of 20°

• Ensure speed brakes are stowed

• Note on the comparison

  • The video contrasts this with the F-16 Auto GCAS case, stating that (as far as known) the F-16 Auto GCAS does not use an auto-throttle (and asks viewers to correct the point if wrong).

---

Speakers / sources featured (as stated in the subtitles)

Primary narrator / on-camera voice

• Ben Watts (host; “I’m Ben Watts. You’re watching Mentor Now.”)

Organizations / named sources

• NASA (stated involvement in systems development)
• Lockheed Martin (claims about pilot lives saved)
• Mentor Now (channel/brand associated with the host; sponsor segment also appears)
• Incogn (video sponsor; referenced for personal data removal)

Systems / aircraft entities referenced

• U.S. Air Force F-16 (primary incident platform)
• F-35 (later integration mentioned)
• Boeing 737 / airliners generally (EGPWS context)
• Airbus (GPS spoofing incident example)
• King Air Medivac (accident referenced for Spidertracks example)

Satellite/navigation systems referenced

• GPS
• GLONASS
• Galileo
• Iridium PNT (Spidertracks)