Media: Rethink Vertical- By the UAS Cluster Initiative

Welcome to the Rethink Vertical podcast. On today’s episode, I sit down for a follow-up conversation first started last year with Kraettli Epperson, CEO and founder of Vigilant Aerospace Systems.

If you missed the last episode, Vigilant Aerospace is a provider of “detect-and-avoid” and airspace management software for uncrewed aircraft systems (UAS). The company’s product, FlightHorizon, is based on two National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) patents and uses data from multiple sources to display a real-time picture of air traffic around a UAS, including automated avoidance maneuvers to prevent collisions. The software is designed to meet industry technical standards that support safe flight and enable UAS to operate beyond visual line of sight (BVLOS).

In this episode, we go deeper into “detect-and-avoid” methodologies, uncrewed traffic management (UTM) concepts, and what airspace management could look like as commercial UAS operations scale. I also ask Kraettli about projects on the company’s roadmap, including a recent partnership between Vigilant Aerospace and the Drone Port Network focused on integrating airspace solutions to support future commercial UAS operations.

Welcome to the Rethink Vertical podcast. Joining me today: Kraettli Epperson, round two. We met last year on the podcast, and there’s a lot going on with Vigilant Aerospace and the FlightHorizon product. I’m interested to hear more about what you’re building, and about the projects and partnerships shaping industry growth.

Host: Welcome to the podcast, Kraettli.

Kraettli Epperson: Thank you. I’m eager to be back and to talk through developments and announcements from the last few months, and what’s coming next.

Host: Before we dive in, I’m sure some listeners didn’t catch the first episode. Can you give a quick overview of Vigilant Aerospace and what you do?

Kraettli Epperson: Sure. I’m the CEO and co-founder of Vigilant Aerospace Systems. We provide multisensor, standards-based “detect-and-avoid” systems—collision avoidance systems for drones, Advanced Air Mobility aircraft like air taxis, and other autonomous aircraft.

We build software that allows these aircraft to detect, assess, and avoid conflicts and collisions with other aircraft. That’s a core safety function. Our work is based on patents we licensed from NASA, and we’ve been developing these systems for several years.

We have ground-based versions that connect to a range of sensors. We connect to transponder receivers to pick up aircraft broadcasts, and we connect to radar to detect aircraft that may not be transmitting. We also connect to the autopilot on a drone or air taxi so we always have awareness of the vehicle’s status.

In addition to ground-based systems, we have onboard versions. We’re currently developing an onboard system for the U.S. Air Force, and we’ve also completed projects for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and NASA, along with research institutions advancing the state of the art. Increasingly, we’re also working with commercial organizations, which we’ll discuss today.

Ultimately, what we focus on is standards-compliant safety software that fills an important gap in the market. As we often say: there’s no autonomy without autonomous safety—you need an aircraft to be able to recognize and respond to other aircraft around it in order to operate autonomously.

Host: The safety piece is key, and it’s what regulators are working through now. The technology is advancing quickly, but the question is how to ensure safety is equivalent to— or in some cases better than—traditional aviation, especially in dense and complex environments.

With FlightHorizon, there are two major components: airspace management and “detect-and-avoid.” “DAA” is a common term in the industry, but people use it differently. It would be valuable to define what “detect-and-avoid” means, what pieces are well understood, what’s still debated, and how regulators are thinking about the level of capability required for autonomy.

Kraettli Epperson: Absolutely. When we use “DAA” or “detect-and-avoid,” we mean a full end-to-end system with a high degree of autonomy.

Sometimes you’ll see “detect-and-avoid” used to describe a sensor—like radar or transponders—that can detect an aircraft that might come into conflict with a drone. That’s part of the system, but it’s not the whole system.

A full, end-to-end “detect-and-avoid” system requires several components:

1. Detection of other aircraft.
2. Prediction of that aircraft’s trajectory and how it relates to the aircraft you’re responsible for keeping safe.
3. Conflict determination—whether the encounter will violate required separation or create an unsafe condition.
4. Avoidance maneuver selection—calculating the appropriate response.

Another important aspect is recognizing the difference between cooperative and non-cooperative aircraft.

• Cooperative aircraft are broadcasting, typically using an automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast (ADS-B) transponder. That allows detection at longer distances.
• Non-cooperative aircraft are not broadcasting and must be detected using other sensors—most commonly radar.

Radar is widely used for this, ranging from small portable systems to larger surveillance and terminal radars.

We also focus on standards-compliant avoidance maneuvers. For example, we align with ASTM F3442 for smaller drones and RTCA DO-365 for larger aircraft. These standards define how detect-and-avoid systems should behave and the collision avoidance logic they should implement. We integrate sensor data, track and predict trajectories, and generate avoidance maneuvers that are aligned with those technical standards.

So when we say “DAA,” we mean the full chain: cooperative detection, non-cooperative detection, trajectory prediction, conflict determination, and standards-compliant maneuvering.

Host: That helps clarify why the acronym can cause confusion. It’s not just “seeing” traffic—it’s responding in a way that meets a defined technical requirement.

Now, shifting to airspace management: as we talk about projects with the Drone Port Network, how does “detect-and-avoid” fit into airspace management? People use “airspace management” in different ways, too.

Kraettli Epperson: For us, airspace management is closely tied to the sensor integration and tracking required for “detect-and-avoid.”

Our system provides an integrated display of air traffic detected and tracked by deployed sensors. That display can be used for situational awareness across a facility or range: a drone port, a small airport, or another operational area.

The goal is to provide an organized moving map that can be shared—on a big screen, for example—so that operators and responsible personnel can see the air picture, understand the traffic environment, and coordinate operations. That shared situational awareness supports procedures, deconfliction, and ultimately the safety functions needed for standards-compliant “detect-and-avoid.”

Host: I want to touch briefly on UTM as well. “Detect-and-avoid” and UTM often get brought up together, but they are not the same thing. Can you walk through what UTM is, and what’s needed for it to work?

Kraettli Epperson: UTM—uncrewed traffic management—is a related, parallel set of technologies and protocols. It’s not the same as “detect-and-avoid,” but they can work together.

UTM is primarily a reservation and coordination framework: a set of rules, standards, and services that lets operators communicate about where and when they intend to fly. The concept is that different UTM vendors can interoperate using shared protocols—similar to how cell phone networks allow users to communicate without knowing which tower or network the other person is on.

UTM supports strategic deconfliction—agreeing not to occupy the same space at the same time when everyone is participating.

“Detect-and-avoid” supports tactical deconfliction—responding to an immediate conflict, including aircraft that may enter the area unexpectedly or are not part of a shared reservation system.

Detect-and-avoid systems can also feed tactical traffic information into a UTM framework, depending on how the overall concept of operations is designed.

Host: That comparison to traditional aviation layers makes sense: Big Sky theory, then air traffic control, then traffic management at scale.

Let’s move into the drone port concept. We think about drone ports as shared infrastructure—physical and digital—because expecting every operator to bring the full stack to every site isn’t scalable. That includes sensors, remote ID, communications, and airspace management.

A few weeks ago, we announced a partnership between Vigilant Aerospace and the Drone Port Network, with FlightHorizon as the airspace management component for drone port projects. How do you see that partnership and the shared infrastructure model playing out?

Kraettli Epperson: The shared infrastructure model is fundamental. At airports, you don’t bring your own tower or controllers. It’s shared infrastructure built through a mix of public and private partnerships. The same principle applies to drone operations at scale.

We’re excited to partner with the Drone Port Network because of your expertise in developing public-private partnerships and enabling infrastructure deployment. Those capabilities are necessary for industry growth—across drones, larger UAS, and eventually Advanced Air Mobility.

Drone Port Network helps communities figure out how to structure partnerships and build the infrastructure. From our perspective, we provide the technology stack that has benefited from years of NASA, FAA, and military research. Our job is to deliver a system that reduces the “science experiment” aspect of deployment—integrating sensors and providing a proven approach that facilities can adopt.

Host: I appreciate that. We see a big need to move from pilot projects to commercial deployments, where systems are available to real customers and real operations.

We’re also looking forward to partnering on the first drone port deployment—bringing FlightHorizon into Skyway 36 outside Tulsa, setting up airspace management, and making it available for testing and eventually commercial operations.

Kraettli Epperson: We’re excited about it as well. The Tulsa region, the Osage Nation, Skyway 36, and the state of Oklahoma are investing in enabling the next generation of aviation. Skyway 36 is one of the key locations where infrastructure, partnerships, and flight activity are converging. We’re looking forward to supporting the operations that will occur there.

Host: Before we wrap, can you share a few updates on other projects you’re working on?

Kraettli Epperson: Sure. A few examples:

• We’re increasingly working on projects that incorporate remote identification (Remote ID) data. We’ve announced a partnership with Pierce Aerospace, which develops advanced Remote ID solutions for both civilian and military markets. Integrating high-quality, longer-range Remote ID data can be valuable for safe operations, including in more complex environments.
• We’re integrating an increasing number of radar systems, including larger radars that provide longer-range coverage for customers who need to support extended-area operations—industrial inspections, wide-area agriculture, and similar use cases.
• On the onboard side, we continue to advance FlightHorizon PILOT, our onboard detect-and-avoid product, including the Air Force program we’ve already announced and other manufacturer engagements, including efforts related to air taxis. Over the next 24 months, we expect to see more aircraft flying with these safety systems onboard as standards and approvals mature.

Host: Very helpful. There’s a lot moving in the regulatory space as well. It will be important to see how draft rules—often discussed as Part 108—take shape for public comment and how industry responds.

Thanks again for the time today, Kraettli.

Kraettli Epperson: Thanks, Craig. I appreciate it.