The Skyportz patented Vertipad solution to deal with one of the biggest issues facing electric aviation – fire risk- has been assessed by David Ison PhD, (aviation planner at the Washington State Department of Transport) for the Air Mobility Research Group.
Aviation Researcher | Advanced Air Mobility (AAM) & Airport Planning Expert | Published Author & Consultant | Expert Witness (Aviation Cases) | Views expressed here are my own and do not represent those of WSDOT
The Thermal Runaway Challenge at Vertiports
As electric air taxis move closer to reality, the industry faces a fire safety challenge unlike any in traditional aviation. Lithium-ion battery fires – especially those caused by thermal runaway (an uncontrolled self-heating chain reaction within battery cells) – behave in ways that defy conventional firefighting. Once a battery cell goes into thermal runaway, it releases enough heat, fuel, and even its own oxygen to ignite neighboring cells, making the fire self-sustaining. Suppression agents like foam or water sprayed from outside cannot easily penetrate the sealed battery modules to stop the internal reaction. In short, once thermal runaway starts, it’s almost impossible to extinguish with traditional methods.
Researchers have bluntly called such fires “unstoppable by conventional firefighting methods”, and real-world incidents back this up. For example, a U.S. safety investigation found that electric vehicle (EV) battery packs can reignite multiple times, even days after firefighters think the blaze is out, due to residual “stranded” energy in damaged cells. One Chevrolet Volt battery infamously burst back into flames three weeks after a crash, long after the initial fire was thought to be quelled. Such events underscore the formidable challenge: a lithium-ion fire isn’t a normal fire – it’s a chemical chain reaction that resists being put out.
Vertiports (the ground facilities where eVTOL aircraft take off, land, and charge) introduce new stakes for this problem. They will concentrate high-energy battery packs in confined areas (e.g. charging bays), often atop buildings or in urban settings, where an out-of-control battery fire could be catastrophic. A recent expert panel study by David Ison (2025) identified thermal runaway propagation, delayed fire detection, and the limits of standard facility-wide sprinklers as critical risks in vertiport operations. In the vertiport context, a battery fire isn’t just an aircraft issue; it’s an infrastructure and safety issue for the entire facility. The panel’s consensus was that a multi-layered approach is needed: advanced early detection, targeted suppression, containment of fires, and robust emergency protocols. In practice, this means vertiports must be designed assuming a battery could ignite, and equipped to react swiftly before a small thermal anomaly escalates into a full-blown inferno.
Yet even with better detection and diversified suppression tools (water, foam, inert gas, etc.), experts acknowledge we may not reliably stop a runaway battery once it’s underway. Instead, current best practices often focus on containment and damage control – or even letting the battery burn itself out under controlled conditions. Fire authorities around the world have effectively adopted three strategies for EV battery fires: “Cool, Burn, or Submerge.” They either try to cool the burning battery with massive amounts of water, let it burn out while protecting surroundings, or, where possible, submerge the vehicle in water to quench the fire and prevent spread. Each approach has trade-offs, but the fact that “submerge” is on the list highlights a key point: sometimes the only way to truly extinguish a lithium battery fire is to literally drown it.
Skyportz’s Immersion Vertipad: A “Dunk Tank” for eVTOLs
Enter Skyportz, an Australian vertiport developer with a bold proposal: build the dunk tank right into the vertiport. Skyportz’s patented vertipad design incorporates a hidden water immersion system beneath the landing pad. In the event an eVTOL’s battery overheats or catches fire, the landing platform can drop into a pit and flood with water, submerging the entire aircraft. Essentially, any eVTOL that experiences a battery fire after landing would be swiftly dunked into a water bath at the touch of a button (or automatically, if sensors detect a thermal runaway). This post-landing immersion concept aims to cool every cell of the battery pack and snuff out flames in one decisive action, rather than battling the fire from the outside. Skyportz calls it the only realistic way to conclusively extinguish an eVTOL battery fire and prevent it from reigniting.
The technical rationale is straightforward: total submersion attacks the fire on three fronts at once. First, the water instantly begins cooling the battery pack from all sides, including its interior, dragging cell temperatures below the critical threshold where thermal runaway propagates. This complete thermal interruption is something partial measures (like a surface spray or mist) can’t achieve, because those often leave the core of the battery pack still hot and reacting. Second, immersion cuts off atmospheric oxygen from feeding the fire – and while lithium battery fires generate some oxygen internally, depriving any external oxygen helps smother the flames and combustion of flammable gases. Third, keeping the aircraft underwater acts as a heat sink and containment system: any fiery re-ignition or flare-up that might occur (due to residual energy in the cells) is immediately cooled and contained within the tank, rather than igniting surrounding structures. In short, once an eVTOL is underwater, it can burn as hot as it wants – but it can no longer spread flames or project hot debris to its surroundings, and it will cool down much faster than in open air. Continuous immersion for an extended period ensures no “hot spots” are left smoldering; the aircraft is only removed once the battery is truly stabilized and all chemical reactions have run their course.
Clem Newton-Brown, Skyportz’s CEO, has framed the solution this way: we can’t fight a lithium battery fire in mid-air, but if we know the vehicle will likely be on the vertiport during high-risk moments (especially during charging, when batteries are stressed and vulnerable), we can design the vertiport to fight the fire on the ground. Unlike cars that could catch fire anywhere, eVTOLs will charge in fixed, controlled pads – giving a unique opportunity to pre-install an immersion system at those very spots. By making the suppression system part of the infrastructure (as opposed to carrying it onboard the aircraft), the Skyportz approach also avoids adding weight or complexity to the eVTOL itself. Every eVTOL, no matter its design, could use the same standardized dunk tank on landing, rather than each aircraft needing an onboard halon extinguisher (which likely wouldn’t stop a battery fire anyway). This ground-based strategy is gaining attention because it flips the script: instead of asking “How do we extinguish a lithium fire in an aircraft?”, Skyportz asks “What if the vertiport itself could be the extinguisher?”.
Notably, the Skyportz vertipad also contains the aftermath. The water used for submersion is fully contained in the pit, not sprayed all over, which means any toxic runoff from the battery (and there will be some, as burning batteries release nasty chemicals) stays in a controlled basin. This prevents contaminated water from flooding city streets or seeping into the environment – a critical consideration for urban vertiports. After the incident, the contaminated water can be treated or disposed of properly. Moreover, once the fire is out, the pad can be drained and reset relatively quickly. Skyportz claims this would allow vertiport operations to resume with minimal downtime. Compare that to the alternative: if an eVTOL battery fire had to simply burn itself out on a rooftop pad, that pad (and likely the whole facility) could be offline for hours or days, and potentially suffer structural damage. Indeed, industry observers note that right now the “current alternative” to a system like Skyportz’s is essentially waiting for the battery to burn out, which is hardly acceptable for busy operations. A vertiport can’t function if one of its landing pads is an all-day bonfire or if firefighters are flooding the site with tens of thousands of liters of water. Immersion promises a faster, cleaner, and more definitive fix.
How It Stacks Up Against Other Fire Suppression Methods
Is dunking an aircraft in water really the best we can do? It sounds dramatic, but there’s a strong case that total immersion may be the only method that actually stops a lithium-ion battery fire dead in its tracks, rather than merely containing it. To understand this, it’s important to compare immersion with other suppression and safety strategies being considered for eVTOL vertiports and aircraft. Industry experts – including those in Ison’s 2025 e-Delphi consensus study – have explored a spectrum of measures: from high-tech fire detection and sprinkler systems, to gas flooding systems, to better battery enclosure designs, to on-board fire extinguishers and beyond. Each has merits, but also critical limitations when facing a true thermal runaway event.
Water Sprays & Mists: Traditional sprinklers or water mist systems are a likely fixture at vertiports. Water is readily available, relatively inexpensive, and excellent at cooling fires. In fact, the e-Delphi expert panel gave high marks to localized water-mist systems (often paired with inert gas) as one of the most effective suppression approaches for vertiports. The idea is to directly target the eVTOL’s battery compartment with a fine mist that can absorb heat rapidly while smothering flames. However, water mist or spray has a limited impact on the inside of a lithium battery pack. As one expert bluntly put it, spraying a battery fire is like “putting out a kitchen fire by spraying water on the roof of the house” – the cooling might slow the fire, but it doesn’t reach the core problem. Firefighters have found that even pouring thousands of gallons of water onto an EV fire often will not fully extinguish it; the water mostly cools the outside while the inner cells continue to burn.
For example, London’s Fire Brigade reported EV battery fires that required on the order of 30,000 liters of water (roughly 8,000 U.S. gallons) to finally suppress – an order of magnitude more water than a typical car fire. Most municipal water systems and on-site tanks simply aren’t designed for that volume. A vertiport sprinkler might slow a battery fire’s spread, but without immersion, you could be in a scenario of fighting the same stubborn fire for hours, using up vast water resources, and still not guaranteeing it’s fully out.
Gas-Based Suppression: Another approach is flooding the area with inert gas (like nitrogen or argon) or aerosolized suppressants to choke the fire of oxygen. Many aircraft cargo holds and server rooms use such systems. Vertiports could, in theory, have a vault or enclosure that fills with CO₂ or a clean agent gas when sensors detect a battery fire. The e-Delphi study participants did favor hybrid systems combining water mist and gas to attack fires from multiple angles. But relying on gas alone is problematic for lithium battery fires. Firstly, as mentioned, lithium fires produce their own oxygen from chemical reactions, so even in an oxygen-depleted environment the battery can continue to combust internally. Secondly, open vertiport areas are not sealed chambers – any gas you release might dissipate too quickly to be effective, especially in an outdoor or ventilated rooftop scenario. And thirdly, gas doesn’t cool the battery; it may snuff visible flames, but without cooling, the thermal runaway can keep generating heat and reignite once air returns.
Experts in the e-Delphi panel had mixed views on gas sensors and systems for vertiports, citing concerns about reliability and maintenance complexity for such equipment. In practice, inert gas might be a helpful component of a fire suppression system (for instance, flooding an enclosed charging cabinet with argon to delay a fire), but by itself it’s not a cure – especially not for a large, self-oxidizing battery fire.
On-Board Extinguishers or Firefighting Drones: Could eVTOLs carry their own fire suppression, or could responders use drones to extinguish a battery fire from above? These ideas have been floated. An onboard extinguisher (halon or dry chem, for example) could tackle small fires in the cabin or electronics. But for a battery pack fire, any built-in aircraft extinguisher would face weight and effectiveness issues. The suppressant might not even reach inside a sealed battery module, and dedicating space/weight for a massive fire bottle goes directly against the weight-sensitive design of eVTOLs.
The Skyportz philosophy explicitly avoids this, arguing that the vertiport can house heavy suppression gear so the aircraft doesn’t have to. As for firefighting drones, they might one day help by dropping water or suppressant on a burning eVTOL that’s in an inaccessible location, but they don’t fundamentally solve the problem of internal cooling. In short, no onboard or aerial gadget can compare to simply submerging the threat – it’s the difference between trying to spray at a problem versus dunking the problem entirely.
Traditional Firefighting After Landing: Perhaps the simplest plan (and indeed the default if no special system is in place) is to rely on human firefighters with hoses and extinguishers once an eVTOL lands in distress. But here timing is everything. If a battery is in full thermal runaway, every second counts – the fire can escalate so fast that by the time responders arrive and deploy hoses, it may be too late to prevent major damage. The e-Delphi experts emphasized the need for automated, immediate suppression activation for vertiports – essentially not waiting for a person with a hose. Traditional firefighting is also often too slow and too limited in water volume for these intense fires. Case in point: several high-profile EV fires continued to reignite despite firefighters’ efforts, until those vehicles were eventually submerged or completely burned out.
Additionally, letting a battery “burn itself out” at a vertiport is undesirable not only due to downtime, but because of the risk of structural damage and toxic smoke in populated areas. This is why vertiport design briefs (such as the FAA’s Engineering Brief 105A) are starting to call for built-in fire suppression and isolation features – you don’t want to improvise when a burning aircraft is on your rooftop.
Battery Containment and Thermal Barriers: Another angle is to make the battery itself more resilient to fires, through design. This includes things like modular battery enclosures with fire-resistant walls, intumescent (fire-swelling) materials between cells, and pressure-release vents that direct hot gas away safely. The e-Delphi panel strongly agreed on requiring standardized fire-resistant battery enclosures in eVTOLs – essentially, batteries should be built to contain a fire internally as much as possible. Such design features can indeed slow down or limit the spread of thermal runaway. For instance, a robust enclosure might keep a battery fire confined to that battery, preventing it from immediately igniting other parts of the aircraft or nearby equipment. However, containment is not extinguishment.
A battery box might hold in the flames for a while, but the energy inside still has to go somewhere. If the box is truly airtight and strong, it might act like an oven – extremely high pressures and temperatures could build up, potentially leading to an explosion or violent rupture if not properly vented. More commonly, containment solutions are about buying time: they delay propagation to give passengers time to evacuate or to let an aircraft land. In the vertiport context, a fortified charging cabinet or vault could prevent a fire from spreading to adjacent vehicles or structures. The e-Delphi study indeed highlighted modular containment units with self-sealing barriers as a crucial component of vertiport safety. But after containment, you’re still left with a burning battery that needs to be dealt with. This is where an immersion system can complement containment – the containment buys a few critical minutes of safety, and then the dunk tank finishes the job by actually extinguishing the fire.
Cooling and Thermal Management Systems: Beyond active firefighting, what about preventative measures like cooling systems? Some eVTOL designs include active battery cooling (for example, liquid coolant loops) to manage temperatures during flight and charging. Could these be amped up to stop thermal runaway? In theory, a robust battery thermal management system can prevent many problems – keeping cells from ever reaching the runaway point during normal operation. However, once a cell goes into failure (say due to internal damage or a short circuit), the heat generation often overwhelms any built-in cooling. There’s emerging research on technologies like Battery Immersion Cooling (BIC) – essentially bathing the batteries in a non-conductive cooling fluid as a preventative measure.
Experts in the e-Delphi panel had mixed feelings on this: they acknowledged immersion cooling is highly effective at reducing battery temperatures, but noted its “high operational costs and maintenance requirements” make it hard to implement at scale. In other words, keeping every battery submerged in coolant all the time is expensive and complex (and adds weight to the aircraft if onboard). Thus, even with good thermal management, a vertiport still needs a contingency for when things go wrong. That’s where Skyportz’s concept – which is essentially immersion cooling only in emergencies – comes into play: you’re not carrying the weight of coolant in every flight, but you have the dousing capability ready on the ground when needed.
Summing up the comparison, most conventional and high-tech suppression methods can slow down or contain a lithium battery fire, but few can outright stop the thermal runaway reaction. Water mist cools but may not reach the core. Inert gas smothers flames but doesn’t cool. Fire blankets or enclosures contain the fire but let it burn inside. Onboard extinguishers add weight and do little against a battery inferno. Even hybrid approaches, which the expert consensus strongly recommends for general safety, often aim to contain and control rather than extinguish a runaway event. Total water immersion emerges as uniquely effective because it tackles both core needs: it cools the batteries rapidly and suppresses the fire comprehensively. In fact, a 2020 research review noted that immersing a burning lithium-ion battery in water was the only method that fully stopped the combustion and prevented re-ignition in tests. While other measures shouldn’t be dismissed – indeed, an ideal vertiport will employ many of them in tandem – immersion stands out as the closest thing to a “silver bullet” for a worst-case battery fire.
Feasibility, Trade-offs, and the Road to Certification
If dunking eVTOLs in water is so effective, why aren’t all vertiports already planning to do it? The answer lies in feasibility and trade-offs. Building a vertiport immersion system is no small task. It requires significant engineering: a sturdy platform that can lift and lower an aircraft, a waterproof pit or tank, plumbing to rapidly flood and drain thousands of liters of water, and sensors and automation to ensure it works correctly under emergency conditions. Cost will be a factor – this setup is undoubtedly more expensive than a simple helipad with a few sprinklers. There’s also maintenance: any water storage needs anti-corrosion measures and possibly water treatment to prevent microbial growth if the water sits idle.
After an activation, the contaminated water would need to be disposed of or filtered, which can be costly (battery runoff contains hazardous chemicals). Additionally, the logistical complexity is non-trivial. For vertiports in cold climates, for instance, the system must be designed so the water doesn’t freeze in standby. For rooftop vertiports, the structure must support the weight of the water and the aircraft (water is heavy – 1 cubic meter is 1,000 kg). These challenges mean an immersion solution must be very carefully integrated into vertiport designs and likely will appear first in larger, well-funded facilities (like major city hubs or airport vertiports).
Operationally, there are questions to iron out. How to ensure the eVTOL is precisely on the immersion pad when a fire risk is detected? (Skyportz’s vision is that eVTOLs would always land on an immersion-capable pad when coming in for charging or emergency landing, and that automation could guide a stricken vehicle to the pad.) What if a fire starts mid-flight? – in that case the priority is to land immediately at the nearest vertiport or safe landing zone. Clearly, in-flight fires remain a nightmare scenario; no vertiport can help if the aircraft can’t make it to ground in time. This is why preventative measures and early detection are still paramount – we want to catch battery issues before they erupt in flames.
The e-Delphi experts strongly supported AI-driven battery monitoring and multi-sensor detection systems (thermal cameras, gas detectors for electrolyte vapor, etc.) to detect a failing battery early and perhaps prompt a precautionary landing. In an ideal world, an eVTOL might receive an automated alert that a battery cell is venting or overheating, and divert to the nearest Skyportz-style pad before it actually ignites. The combination of smart detection and an available immersion pad could make the difference between a non-event and a dramatic fire. This interplay will be an important part of operational protocol: pilots, vertiport operators, and emergency responders will need clear procedures for routing an aircraft to an immersion pad if a warning sign appears.
Regulatory and certification considerations for a system like this are evolving. Aviation regulators (FAA in the U.S., EASA in Europe, etc.) have been working on standards for eVTOL and vertiport safety, and battery fire risk is a central theme. Already, EASA’s draft rules for urban air mobility infrastructure (2024) hint that vertiports may be required to have lithium-ion fire containment or suppression capabilities on site. Regulators will likely ask: Can a vertiport demonstrate it can contain a worst-case battery fire without endangering people or property? If using an immersion system, questions will include: does it activate reliably? How quickly can it immerse the aircraft? Does it have backup power (in case a fire knocks out electricity, the system still needs to operate)? How do you ensure a partially damaged or off-nominal landing doesn’t jam the mechanism? These are all certifiable parameters.
Skyportz has indicated its design is being developed with input from engineers and likely will undergo extensive testing (they even animated a demo at the Paris Air Show to help regulators visualize it). From a certification standpoint, one advantage of a ground-based system is that it can be certified as part of the vertiport infrastructure – it doesn’t necessarily complicate the aircraft’s certification. In fact, if such a system becomes standard, aircraft manufacturers might be able to rely on ground infrastructure for fire mitigation, potentially easing some aircraft design constraints (e.g. perhaps they wouldn’t need as heavy fireproof enclosures onboard if it’s assumed an immersion pad will be available). However, that hinges on vertiports being ubiquitous and equipped – a chicken-and-egg situation for early eVTOL deployments.
We must also weigh the safety trade-offs. Immersing an eVTOL in water raises some new risks – chiefly electrical safety (water and high voltage batteries can be a dangerous mix if not done carefully). The system must ensure that by the time personnel interact with the submerged vehicle, there’s no electrocution hazard. Typically, once a battery is submerged and cooled, the high-voltage system will short out in a controlled way, but procedures will likely require waiting and monitoring. Additionally, retrieving a water-logged aircraft will be a messy task. It may be effectively a total loss (electronics ruined, etc.), but that is a small price to pay for preventing a fire from spreading. Cost vs. benefit is a major trade-off: the Skyportz pad will cost more to build and maintain than a basic pad plus some fire extinguishers.
Yet, consider the cost of a single uncontrolled vertiport fire: it could damage multi-million-dollar aircraft, shut down a hub for days, and, worst of all, cause injuries or worse. From a safety investment perspective, an immersion system is akin to a sprinkler system in a building – an upfront cost that one hopes to never use, but one that can avert disaster. As vertiports scale up (imagine an “air taxi” station with dozens of movements a day), the economics start to favor anything that minimizes downtime and maximizes safety. A fire that halts operations could incur huge losses in revenue and public trust. By enabling a fire to be put out in, say, 5–10 minutes via immersion, versus possibly hours with conventional means, the system could literally pay for itself by preserving operational continuity in the face of incidents.
The e-Delphi expert consensus points toward this multi-pronged cost-benefit analysis. They advocated a balanced integration of passive measures (like better battery design) and active measures (like suppression systems), noting that advanced solutions must be weighed against practical considerations like cost and maintenance. In other words, an all-out immersion pad at every vertiport might be ideal for safety, but it has to make sense financially and logistically. One possible pathway is that immersion systems might be installed at key vertiports first – for example, rooftop pads in dense urban centers where a fire would be most dangerous, or vertiports serving high volumes of traffic. Lower-traffic “vertistop” locations might rely more on containment and a good emergency plan (perhaps a mobile water tank that can be brought in, etc.). Over time, if the technology proves its worth, standards could make it a baseline requirement.
The Verdict: A Necessary Solution for a New Era of Flight
Lithium-ion battery fires present a new kind of threat in aviation – one that our current firefighting playbook struggles to address. The burgeoning eVTOL industry cannot simply borrow traditional solutions (like onboard Halon extinguishers or airport foam trucks) and expect success against thermal runaway. We have to innovate on the ground infrastructure side. Skyportz’s post-landing immersion system is an innovative and bold answer: it takes the most brute-force effective technique – drowning the fire – and makes it a built-in feature of the vertiport. By doing so, it offers something exceedingly valuable: certainty. Rather than a hit-or-miss attempt to control a battery fire, full immersion promises to end the fire decisively. It directly addresses the core technical reason these fires are so stubborn (the runaway heat inside cells) by quenching that heat en masse. It buys immediate suppression at the source of energy, something no manual firefighting or localized sprinkler can guarantee.
Of course, no single solution is a panacea. Immersion pads will work best in tandem with the broader safety net: intelligent monitoring to detect issues early, robust battery packaging to delay and contain fires, and well-trained emergency response protocols as backup. The vision that emerged from the e-Delphi expert panel is very much in line with this: a “multi-layered approach” where detection, suppression, containment, and emergency training all interlock to mitigate battery fire risks. Skyportz’s system fits into this vision as the heavy artillery in the suppression layer – arguably the layer that was missing a truly effective tool. Without immersion, the “suppression” layer at a vertiport might only contain or control a fire, not extinguish it, leaving the final outcome to chance or time. With immersion, vertiports gain a method to finish the job and extinguish the fire completely on-site.
For stakeholders in Advanced Air Mobility, the prospect of immersion-based fire suppression raises important considerations. Public perception is one: air taxi services must convince the public (and regulators) that they are safe. Demonstrating that you can handle a battery fire swiftly and definitively – even one as dramatic as dunking an aircraft in a tank – could bolster confidence, much like seeing a sprinkler system quell a fire in a building. It shows preparedness for worst-case scenarios. There’s also an operational resilience angle: a network of vertiports equipped with such systems could isolate and resolve incidents without cascading delays across the whole network.
On the flip side, there’s a need to ensure cross-compatibility and standards. If different vertiport operators pursue different suppression strategies, aircraft operators will have to adapt to varying safety equipment. This is where early moves by companies like Skyportz to offer their design (even licensing it freely in some cases to gain adoption) could set a de facto standard. Regulatory bodies are actively working on vertiport guidelines, and we may soon see requirements or recommendations for capabilities that essentially endorse what Skyportz is doing (for example, a rule that vertiports must be able to “fully contain and extinguish a high-energy battery fire on the pad”).
In conclusion, total immersion stands out as a uniquely powerful tool in the vertiport fire safety arsenal – perhaps the tool for truly halting lithium-ion thermal runaway in its tracks. Yes, it comes with costs and engineering hurdles, but the alternative is to accept that a vertiport battery fire would be an uncontrollable, burn-and-wait affair. For an industry premised on advanced technology and safety, that’s not an acceptable outcome. By investing in solutions like the Skyportz vertipad design, AAM stakeholders are effectively choosing to confront the thermal runaway problem head-on, using the one surefire way to cool the beast. As one fire safety study put it, once a battery fire is in full runaway, responders shift from trying to extinguish to focusing on containment – but Skyportz wants to give us a way to do both: contain and extinguish. It’s a formidable approach to a formidable problem. In the coming years, as eVTOLs begin commercial operations, we will likely see this and similar concepts put to the test. If they succeed, the phrase “dunking an air taxi” might just enter the lexicon of modern firefighting. And if that’s what it takes to make electric aviation safe, it’s a dunk we should be willing to take.
... SP 的筆記、,
Brought to you by #AMRG
&
Clem Newton-Brown
CEO and founder
Skyportz
關於作者
English 
Deutsch 
Italiano 
Français 
Svenska 
Nederlands 
Español 
Português do Brasil 
עִבְרִית 
العربية 
हिन्दी 
فارسی 
日本語 
한국어 
Bahasa Indonesia 
繁體中文 
简体中文 
Polski 
Русский 
Українська
更多故事
日本領先的 eVTOL 製造商 SkyDrive 擴展美國東南部的策略網路，重點放在佛羅里達州
FAA 重新考慮印第安納波利斯市中心直升機場的命運，2 月 26 日前接受公眾意見
Volocopter 優化供應鏈並加強 eVTOL 的開發
新的 BVLOS 空域管理設施在俄亥俄州啟用並開始運作
SkyDrive 的悄然崛起：將安全、日常的空中旅行從日本的智慧帶到全球的天空
Pivotal 在擴展 eVTOL 生產與製造階段前取得 AS9100D 認證
2026 年先進空中行動力的未來為何？