Media: Vigilant Aerospace CEO Discusses BVLOS and Detect-and-Avoid on Rethink Vertical

Craig Mahaney:
Welcome to the Rethink Vertical Podcast, where we cut through the hype. This podcast delivers insight into emerging aviation technologies without the fluff, so you can better understand where the industry stands today—and where it is headed.

Today’s episode is sponsored by the UAS Cluster Initiative.

I’m joined by Kraettli Epperson, CEO of Vigilant Aerospace Systems. Kraettli brings more than 25 years of experience as a software developer, systems architect, product manager, and technology executive. He is widely recognized for his leadership in unmanned systems innovation and is a frequent speaker at major aerospace and UAS industry conferences, addressing topics such as detect-and-avoid, flight safety, and airspace management systems.

Kraettli has served on multiple Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and industry committees, including the FAA Aviation Rulemaking Committee for Beyond Visual Line of Sight (BVLOS) operations, UAS flight roles, ASTM F38, and RTCA committees focused on technical standards for unmanned aircraft. He is an FAA-certified Part 107 remote pilot and has participated in numerous UAS flight tests, including work at NASA’s Armstrong Flight Research Center and the Oklahoma State University Unmanned Systems Research Institute.

He is also a co-inventor on four technology patents. Vigilant Aerospace Systems, headquartered in Oklahoma City, was founded in 2015. The company focuses on licensing and commercializing NASA flight safety technologies, as well as developing advanced situational awareness, detect-and-avoid, and autonomous flight products for both crewed and uncrewed aircraft.

Our conversation today focuses on beyond visual line of sight drone operations and the role detect-and-avoid technologies play in enabling safe, scalable, and eventually autonomous flight.

Kraettli, welcome to the Rethink Vertical Podcast. It’s great to have you.

Opening Exchange

Kraettli Epperson:
Thanks, Craig. I’m very glad to be here and looking forward to discussing the current state of the industry.

Craig Mahaney:
One of the questions we hear frequently—especially from people outside the industry—is why drone delivery to their homes still isn’t commonplace. Can you talk about some of the challenges holding that back today?

BVLOS and Regulatory Constraints

Kraettli Epperson:
Absolutely. Many people are looking forward to the day when a pizza or grocery order can be delivered by drone directly to their doorstep. While progress is being made, there are still several regulatory and technical constraints in the United States that limit those operations today.

One of the primary restrictions is the FAA’s requirement that small unmanned aircraft operate within the visual line of sight of the remote pilot. That requirement significantly limits range and operational flexibility. There are ongoing regulatory efforts and new rulemaking initiatives aimed at enabling longer-range flights, particularly for small drones, which will be critical for delivery use cases.

There are limited delivery operations happening today, and you may have seen announcements from companies such as Walmart. However, most of these operations are either conducted within visual line of sight or under highly constrained waiver conditions.

Another important factor is certification. Carrying goods for hire requires operators to meet additional requirements, including air carrier certification in some cases. For drone delivery to become broadly useful, beyond visual line of sight operations are essential. Without BVLOS capability, deliveries are effectively limited to very short distances.

Safety is the central issue underlying all of these constraints. That is where detect-and-avoid systems become critical. Our focus at Vigilant Aerospace is on developing safety systems that enable drones of all sizes to operate reliably and predictably in shared airspace. Closing that safety and technology gap is essential to unlocking scalable drone operations.

Craig Mahaney:
That makes sense. There are already many commercial drone operations today, such as infrastructure inspection, but carrying goods for hire introduces additional regulatory requirements. Once you move beyond visual line of sight, a major question becomes how an uncrewed aircraft avoids other aircraft. Can you explain the detect-and-avoid concept and how Vigilant approaches that problem?

Kraettli Epperson:
Detect-and-avoid is a foundational safety requirement. It refers to a drone’s ability, and the remote pilot’s ability, to remain aware of nearby aircraft and avoid conflicts or collisions. This is particularly important for crewed aircraft, such as helicopters or general aviation aircraft, that may operate at low altitudes where drones are flying.

Under FAA rules, particularly Part 107, drones must be operated in a way that allows the pilot to see and avoid other aircraft. Section 107.31 requires visual line of sight. To operate beyond that, an operator must obtain a waiver. A key component of those waiver applications is demonstrating awareness of surrounding air traffic when the aircraft is no longer visible.

There are multiple ways to accomplish that. Cooperative aircraft transmit their position using transponders. Those signals can be received either onboard the drone or from ground-based systems. However, not all aircraft are required to carry transponders. These non-cooperative aircraft must be detected using other sensor technologies, such as radar, acoustic sensors, or optical systems.

Our focus is on integrating those data sources into a coherent, real-time picture of the airspace. Detecting aircraft is only part of the challenge. Presenting that information in a usable form to the pilot, and enabling safe avoidance actions, is equally important.

Sensor Integration and Avoidance Logic

Craig Mahaney:
That leads to the next challenge. Once you detect another aircraft, what happens next? How do you determine what action to take to safely avoid a conflict?

Kraettli Epperson:
That is where our core expertise lies. Sensors provide raw data, but that data must be fused, analyzed, and acted upon. We integrate information from cooperative sources, such as transponder signals, and non-cooperative sources, such as radar.

All of that information is combined into a three-dimensional airspace model. Our software continuously evaluates aircraft trajectories and predicts potential conflicts. When a risk threshold is reached, the system provides an avoidance recommendation.

Those avoidance maneuvers are based on FAA-accepted standards. We use the latest version of ACAS X, which is the successor to the Traffic Collision Avoidance System (TCAS) used in crewed aviation. These algorithms have undergone extensive FAA testing and define specific maneuver guidance for different conflict scenarios.

Using established standards allows operators and regulators to rely on a known safety framework rather than developing custom logic from scratch.

FAA Waivers and Regulatory Pathways

Craig Mahaney:
How does the FAA evaluate these systems today? How do they decide which sensors and software are reliable enough to support BVLOS operations?

Kraettli Epperson:
The FAA primarily evaluates safety through a waiver-based approach today. Operators proposing advanced operations submit detailed descriptions of their aircraft, sensors, procedures, training programs, and risk mitigations.

Many of the early BVLOS waivers have been granted for lower-risk environments, such as rural infrastructure inspection. In these cases, the presence of physical obstacles like power lines already limits the likelihood of crewed aircraft operating nearby.

We are seeing broader waivers emerge as well. Some include radar-based detect-and-avoid systems that enable longer-range flights without reliance on infrastructure corridors. These approvals are important because they demonstrate increasing regulatory confidence in integrated safety systems.

This incremental approach allows the FAA to evaluate real-world performance while rules are still evolving.

Urban Operations and Sensor Tradeoffs

Craig Mahaney:
Some recent waivers have allowed statewide operations, such as rail inspections. But many business models depend on operating in denser environments. How do sensors and safety requirements change in suburban or urban areas?

Kraettli Epperson:
Urban environments introduce both advantages and challenges. Physical obstacles limit high-speed crewed aircraft, but low-altitude traffic such as helicopters remains a concern.

Radar can be effective, but it has limitations in environments with many obstructions. Acoustic sensors can help detect aircraft presence, although they may not provide precise tracking alone. Coordination systems, such as unmanned traffic management, become increasingly important in these environments.

Urban operations also require additional mitigations, especially for flights over people. These include parachute systems and other means to reduce ground risk. The FAA has begun issuing approvals for these operations, and we supported some of the early demonstrations under the Integration Pilot Program.

Economic scalability is another factor. Urban operations will require higher levels of autonomy, allowing a small number of pilots to supervise multiple aircraft. That makes automated detect-and-avoid capabilities essential.

Unmanned Traffic Management (UTM)

Craig Mahaney:
UTM is often discussed as both a safety and efficiency tool. How do you see it fitting into future operations?

Kraettli Epperson:
UTM is ultimately about coordination. It enables aircraft to share intent and position information in a structured way. The challenge is universal adoption. Mandating equipment across all aircraft has historically been difficult, as seen with ADS-B and Remote ID.

We expect adoption to be driven by incentives rather than mandates. Operators seeking broader access and greater operational flexibility will adopt more advanced systems and share more data.

From our perspective, UTM complements detect-and-avoid systems. Radar-based awareness, transponder data, and networked coordination can all work together. Over time, these systems will become more interconnected, similar to how cellular networks operate today.

FlightHorizon Overview

Craig Mahaney:
Can you describe FlightHorizon and where you see it being used?

Kraettli Epperson:
FlightHorizon is Vigilant Aerospace’s detect-and-avoid and airspace management software platform. It is based on two NASA patents and integrates multiple data sources, including transponders, radar systems, FAA data feeds, weather information, and airspace classifications.

The system can be deployed onboard an aircraft or as a ground-based solution supporting multiple operations. It provides predictive conflict detection and generates resolution advisories based on FAA-recognized standards.

FlightHorizon is currently used in civil, research, and defense applications. We have supported projects with NASA, the FAA, and the U.S. Air Force, and we continue to expand its use across both crewed and uncrewed operations.

Looking Ahead

Craig Mahaney:
As we wrap up, what should industry stakeholders be paying attention to over the next few years?

Kraettli Epperson:
Technological progress often looks slow until it accelerates. Sensor miniaturization, automation, and data fusion are advancing rapidly. Capabilities that seem difficult today will become practical sooner than many expect.

We are closely monitoring those developments and working with partners to integrate emerging technologies responsibly. As safety systems mature, operations that are currently limited will become routine.

Craig Mahaney:
Kraettli, thank you for joining us and for providing clarity on these topics.

Kraettli Epperson:
Thank you, Craig. I appreciate the opportunity.