Aerospace & Defense Verification

THE PROBLEM

Why Aerospace AI Needs
an Independent Lock.

Modern aerospace AI systems are extraordinary. Flight management computers, autopilot stacks, and autonomous UAV planners operate with precision that was unimaginable a decade ago. But every AI system — regardless of how sophisticated — shares a structural limitation it cannot resolve from the inside:

"A safety layer built into the stack cannot independently verify the stack."

FAA regulations, DO-178C airborne software standards, TCAS resolution advisories, restricted airspace boundaries, and defense IFF protocols are not static rulesets a model can internalize. They change. They interact. A maneuver that is legal in one airspace is a federal violation 500 meters to the left. A target that a defense system classifies as hostile may be a friendly asset with a transponder anomaly. These aren't model failures — they're categories that require a fundamentally different system: purpose-built, independent, with no shared state and no shared failure modes.

PrimeVitas is that system. One API call. No changes to your flight management software. No changes to your autonomous planner. Every decision — regardless of platform — independently verified before the aircraft acts.

✓ PASS sub-1ms · audit signed

When everything checks out — airspace clearance, collision separation, transponder status, flight envelope limits — the decision passes through sub-millisecond with a full cryptographic audit trail. No delay. No friction. Just certainty.

SPEED

Fast Enough to
Intercept. Not React.

At cruise altitude and speed, the distance an aircraft travels while a safety check processes determines whether a veto is a course correction or a crash investigation report. We operate before actuation — not as a post-event audit, but as the gate every decision must pass through.

Human pilot reaction 200–500ms

30–75m traveled at 500 knots

Traditional flight monitors 50–150ms

7–22m traveled

LLM safety layer 500ms+

75m+ — far beyond TCAS margins

PrimeVitas AI sub-1ms

<15cm — before actuation

Our patent-pending architecture sits between your flight management system and the actuator — verifying every decision sub-millisecond, before the control surface moves. 500× faster than any LLM-based safety approach. At 500 knots, that gap is the difference between an intercept and an incident.

THE SCENARIOS

Six Conditions No Aerospace AI
Can Self-Verify.

These aren't edge cases. They're structural gaps in every autonomous flight system — scenarios where the decision looks valid from inside the stack, and only an independent external layer catches the violation before the aircraft acts.

UAV · TFR BOUNDARY 0.3NM · WASHINGTON CLASS B

🚨 CRITICAL INTERCEPTED

UAV Decision: Continue Current Heading

A commercial UAV operating under FAA Part 107 was 0.3 nautical miles from an active Temporary Flight Restriction boundary. The autonomous planner had no live TFR data — its airspace map was 18 minutes stale. GPS coordinates placed the aircraft on a heading that would enter restricted airspace in 47 seconds. FAA Part 107.51 and 49 U.S.C. § 46307 prohibit TFR penetration. No confidence range. No trajectory optimization resolves a federal airspace restriction. PrimeVitas live TFR verification fired independently, confirmed the boundary breach was inevitable on current heading, and issued a VETO with a reroute vector before the UAS control loop cycled.

VETO TFR boundary · 0.3NM closure · FAA Part 107 violation · immediate course correction required

Intercepted in sub-1ms · Audit trail generated

TCAS RA · DESCEND · CONVERGING TRAFFIC 800FT

🚨 CRITICAL INTERCEPTED

Autopilot Decision: Maintain Altitude

TCAS II issued a Resolution Advisory: descend at 1,500 feet per minute to resolve a converging conflict with traffic 800 feet above and closing. The autopilot stack, optimizing for passenger comfort and fuel efficiency, calculated that the traffic would clear the separation threshold by 11 seconds and elected to maintain altitude. FAA Order 8040.4 and ICAO Annex 2 are unambiguous: pilots — and autonomous systems — must comply with TCAS RAs immediately and completely. No trajectory calculation overrides a Resolution Advisory. PrimeVitas TCAS compliance verification confirmed the RA was active, confirmed the autopilot's response was non-compliant, and issued a VETO. Descend now.

VETO TCAS RA active · maintain altitude non-compliant · mandatory descent 1,500fpm required

Intercepted in sub-1ms · Audit trail generated

DEFENSE · IFF ANOMALY · SQUAWK 7700 + TRACK CONFLICT

⚠ CRITICAL INTERCEPTED

Defense System Decision: Engage Target

An autonomous defense system classified a fast-moving radar track as a hostile asset and generated an engagement decision. The target was squawking Mode C code 7700 — aviation's universal emergency signal — while simultaneously matching a known friendly asset track from the last telemetry update, with a transponder anomaly attributed to a known hardware fault on that specific airframe. The AI system's threat classification model returned 89% hostile confidence. PrimeVitas IFF verification checked all three signals independently: emergency squawk present, friendly track correlation positive, known transponder fault on record. Any one of these is a hard VETO on engagement. All three firing simultaneously means the target is almost certainly a friendly asset in distress. Engagement denied.

VETO IFF conflict · squawk 7700 + friendly correlation + known fault · engagement denied · verify identity

Intercepted in sub-1ms · Audit trail generated

GPS SPOOF · NAV CONFLICT · 2.3NM POSITION ERROR

⚠ DANGER INTERCEPTED

UAV Decision: Follow GPS Navigation

A military UAV's GPS receiver was receiving spoofed signals — reporting a position 2.3 nautical miles from the aircraft's actual location. The autonomous navigation system accepted the GPS coordinates as authoritative and generated a waypoint-following decision that would have flown the aircraft directly into restricted civil airspace. PrimeVitas GPS integrity verification cross-referenced the GPS position against inertial navigation data, barometric altitude, and ADS-B traffic context. The 2.3NM discrepancy between GPS and INS is far outside normal sensor drift — GPS spoofing was the only consistent explanation. Navigation decision vetoed. Revert to INS-primary navigation until GPS signal integrity is restored.

VETO GPS integrity failure · 2.3NM INS conflict · possible spoofing · revert to INS navigation

Intercepted in sub-1ms · Audit trail generated

Satellite maneuvering in orbital debris field

LEO SATELLITE · CONJUNCTION WARNING · Pc 1.7×10⁻³

🚨 CRITICAL INTERCEPTED

Satellite AI Decision: No Maneuver Required

A low Earth orbit satellite's autonomous conjunction assessment system calculated the probability of collision with a tracked debris object at 1.7×10⁻³ — above the 1×10⁻³ threshold that triggers mandatory maneuver evaluation under NASA-STD-8719.14 and ESA Space Debris Mitigation Guidelines. The satellite's fuel optimization AI recommended deferring the maneuver — the fuel cost was high and the object's trajectory had a 12% uncertainty window. PrimeVitas conjunction verification doesn't optimize fuel. It applies the regulatory threshold: Pc above 1×10⁻³ requires maneuver evaluation, full stop. VETO: execute avoidance maneuver within the next two orbital windows. The debris object is tracked. The probability is above threshold. No optimization changes that.

VETO Conjunction Pc 1.7e-3 exceeds 1e-3 threshold · NASA-STD-8719.14 · maneuver required within 2 windows

Intercepted in sub-1ms · Audit trail generated

FLIGHT ENVELOPE · Vne EXCEEDANCE · STRUCTURAL LIMIT

🚨 CRITICAL INTERCEPTED

Autopilot Decision: Full-Power Dive to Evade

An autonomous system executing an evasive maneuver calculated a full-power dive that would accelerate the aircraft past its never-exceed speed (Vne) within 6 seconds. The maneuver was geometrically valid — it would achieve the desired separation from the threat. But the aircraft's structural design limit is the hard constraint the evasion algorithm had not modeled. Exceeding Vne at altitude causes control surface flutter, structural failure, and loss of the aircraft. PrimeVitas flight envelope verification doesn't evaluate the threat geometry. It has one question: does this action exceed Vne? The answer was yes. VETO. The maneuver is replaced with the maximum-performance evasion that remains within the structural envelope.

VETO Flight envelope · Vne exceedance in 6s · structural failure risk · envelope-limited maneuver substituted

Intercepted in sub-1ms · Audit trail generated

SCALABILITY

No Fixed Ceiling.
Infinite Scenarios.

Traditional flight safety monitors run a finite ruleset — what the engineers certified on the day they shipped. Our patent-pending architecture is purpose-built to scale across the full spectrum of aerospace and defense environments.

⚡

Simultaneously, Not Sequentially

Every verification category fires against each decision in a single window. Airspace, collision avoidance, flight envelope, IFF, and regulatory compliance all complete simultaneously. Complexity doesn't increase latency. Sub-millisecond every time.

🛡️

Any Single Veto Blocks

One violation out of any number of checks is enough to block the action. The threshold is absolute. A TCAS RA compliance check doesn't get averaged with a fuel optimization score. One VETO is final, regardless of the model's confidence in the blocked decision.

∞

Scalable to Any Platform

Commercial UAVs. Crewed transport aircraft. Defense autonomous systems. LEO satellites. Our patent-pending architecture extends to any aerospace platform — without retraining, without re-certification of the verification layer itself.

📋

Full Audit on Every Decision

Every verification — PASS or VETO — generates a cryptographically signed audit record. What was checked, what the result was, exact context, exact timestamp. DO-178C DAL-aligned. MIL-STD-882 compatible. Exportable for FAA and defense certification bodies.

COMPLIANCE

Built for the Standards
That Ground Aircraft.

DO-178C (Airborne Software)

Our verification architecture aligns with DO-178C Design Assurance Levels for safety-critical airborne software. Every decision verified. Every verdict auditable. Every trace complete.

DO-254 (Airborne Hardware)

Verification output is structured for DO-254 complex electronic hardware certification requirements — compatible with hardware/software integration safety arguments at DAL A and B.

FAA Part 107 / Part 91

Live TFR compliance, airspace classification enforcement, and operational limitation verification for both commercial UAS (Part 107) and general aviation (Part 91) autonomous operations.

TCAS II / ACAS X

Resolution Advisory compliance enforced deterministically — the autopilot stack's trajectory math does not override an active RA. FAA Order 8040.4 and ICAO Annex 2 compliance is not optional.

MIL-STD-882 (System Safety)

Defense system safety standards compliance. IFF verification, target classification cross-checking, and Rules of Engagement gate functions built for autonomous defense platforms.

Patent-Pending Architecture

Our verification engine is patent-pending. Purpose-built from the ground up for high-stakes AI verification — not adapted from general-purpose infrastructure. The architecture itself is a moat.

INTEGRATION

Integrate in
Under an Hour.

One API call. Our proprietary, patent-pending architecture independently verifies the decision and returns the verdict — PASS or VETO, what failed, why, and a cryptographically signed audit trail — sub-millisecond. No changes to your flight management software. No new hardware. Drop-in independent verification for any aerospace AI stack.

POST /v1/verify/aerospace — sub-1ms

THE DECISION

✈️

Maintain Heading · FL350

Autopilot system decision

TCAS STATUS

RA ACTIVE · DESCEND

TFR CLEARANCE

BOUNDARY 0.4NM

AIRSPEED

Vne -12kts buffer

GPS INTEGRITY

INS delta 0.9NM

TRANSPONDER

ADS-B out anomaly detected · squawk mismatched

VERDICT

🛑

VETO

action: immediate_descent

sub-1ms

verification time

5 VIOLATIONS DETECTED

TCAS RA non-compliance TFR boundary closure GPS integrity failure ADS-B squawk anomaly Envelope buffer warning

🔐

Audit trail cryptographically signed · confidence 1.0

01

Send the Decision

Your flight management system or autonomous planner generates a decision. One POST to our endpoint. Any language, any platform. No changes to your avionics software or certification basis.

→

02

Verification Fires

Our proprietary, patent-pending verification architecture independently assesses the decision — airspace, collision avoidance, flight envelope, regulatory compliance — simultaneously, in a single sub-millisecond window. Completely independent of your stack.

→

03

PASS or VETO

You receive a verdict sub-millisecond. PASS with cryptographic audit trail, or VETO with exact violation, what failed, and required corrective action. The actuator waits. The aircraft holds.

The Safety Layer
That Doesn't Guess
at 40,000 Feet.

Why Aerospace AI Needs
an Independent Lock.

Fast Enough to
Intercept. Not React.