The last flight build must preserve track order without hiding a timing fault.
Program readiness needs usable flight evidence, while the hardware configuration cannot absorb an unverified change.
Who you’d be doing this for
“I need to explain why those tracks moved backward, not just say the aircraft stayed on route.”
Vivek Rao · Autonomy Program Manager
Responsible for deciding whether the UAV integration has enough evidence to proceed to field evaluation.
What is at stake
Sensor tracks jump backward after navigation recovery, and the final flight window is already scheduled. You have to weigh usable flight evidence against deploying a change that cannot be casually undone.
Why it isn’t already fixed
Every obvious fix costs something else. That’s the part you’d have to decide.
- flight schedule vs. configuration confidence
- track continuity vs. fault visibility
- SIL and HIL evidence vs. live behavior
- targeted change vs. hardware stability
Why Applied Intuition
Axion integration joins autonomy software to aircraft autopilots, datalinks, sensors, and PNT/GPS/INS on real UAV hardware.
Written with these in mind
Not your kind of problem? 65 more at Applied Intuition, or browse every organization.
This is the setup. The work is inside.
Running it puts you in the room: the full situation and its constraints, stakeholders who push back in their own words, and the decisions that are yours to make. What you produce becomes a Day One Plan — work you can show someone instead of describing.