Electric VTOL | Agenda | EVTOL Show Conference & Exhibition

8:30

Chair's Opening Remarks

FROM CERTIFICATION TO SCALE

Which Engineering Constraints Are Still Preventing Repeatable Commercial Deployment?

David Bausek, Chief Technology Officer – Volocopter

A certificated aircraft is a milestone. Scaling requires repeatable production, dependable aircraft availability and infrastructure that can support sustained utilisation. Which engineering constraints determine whether those requirements can be met together?

CERTIFY → PROVE → INDUSTRIALISE → OPERATE → SCALE

David Bausek will open the conference by mapping the critical dependencies across this journey:

CERTIFY: Demonstrating compliance across tightly integrated aircraft systems.
PROVE: Validating safety, reliability and performance beyond controlled test conditions.
INDUSTRIALISE: Maintaining conformity as production rates rise and supply chains expand.
OPERATE: Delivering maintainability, dispatch availability and predictable turnaround.
SCALE: Matching aircraft capability with energy infrastructure, airspace capacity and network demand.

Where does solving one problem expose the next? How do weight-saving decisions affect qualification, manufacturing and maintenance? Which assumptions about aircraft utilisation, charging and operational resilience still need validation?

Drawing on an OEM engineering perspective, David will identify where constraints are moving onto the critical path, which decisions create downstream dependencies, and what evidence is needed to resolve them. His opening address will establish the technical questions running through the day: what must be demonstrated, what must become repeatable, and what must work together before eVTOL can scale?

8:50

INSIDE eIPP — THE REGULATORY FRAMEWORK FOR EARLY eVTOL OPERATIONS

Operational Authorisations, Safety Requirements, Airspace Integration & the Boundaries of the Programme

Jose Fierro,

AAT eIPP Program Manager Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

The FAA's eVTOL Integration Pilot Program (eIPP) represents a critical opportunity to accelerate real-world advanced air mobility operations while developing the regulatory and operational experience needed for broader deployment.

But what exactly can be authorised under eIPP, what safety and certification requirements remain in force, and how will the FAA determine whether early operations provide sufficient evidence to inform future regulatory decisions?

This technical briefing will examine the programme's regulatory framework, operational limitations and safety oversight, clarifying the distinction between pilot programme authorisations, aircraft certification and the requirements for routine commercial operations.

Key Technical & Regulatory Focus Areas:

Regulatory Framework: eIPP objectives, programme structure, participating projects and FAA oversight.
Operational Authorisations: Aircraft eligibility, permissible activities, operating limitations and approval requirements.
Certification Boundaries: What eIPP enables, what it does not exempt and which existing certification obligations remain.
Airspace Integration: ATC coordination, operating environments, infrastructure interfaces and operational procedures.
Safety Evidence: Data collection, risk assessment, operational performance and regulatory learning.
Beyond eIPP: How demonstration outcomes may inform future standards, authorisations and repeatable commercial operations.

9:10

Panel

FROM eIPP DEMONSTRATION TO REPEATABLE OPERATIONS

What America’s First AAM Operations Reveal About the Path to National Scale

Jose Fierro,

AAT eIPP Program Manager Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

Matthew Maass,

Director, UDOT Division of Aeronautics, Utah Department of Transportation

Matt Friedman,

Chief, Office of Aviation Planning at California Department of Transportation

Mazdak Hobbi,

Senior Director - Engineering and Certification at General Aviation Manufacturers Association

Brent Klavon,

Chief Strategy Officer, ANRA Technologies

Across eight partnerships spanning 26 states, eIPP operations are generating real-world evidence on integrating AAM with airports, airspace, procedures, infrastructure and regulation.

The challenge is translating individual demonstrations into repeatable operations and scalable approval pathways.

KEY PANEL QUESTIONS

What have early operations revealed that planning did not?
Which airspace, operational and infrastructure assumptions are being challenged?
What remains specific to each aircraft, route and location?
Which evidence and safety cases can be reused across deployments?
Where could approvals become a bottleneck as operations multiply?
Which procedures, data interfaces and infrastructure requirements need standardisation?
What changes when demonstrations become routine commercial operations?
What must eIPP prove to enable repeatable deployment at national scale?

9:40

COOLING WITHOUT THE WEIGHT PENALTY

Engineering Battery & Power-Electronics Thermal Hardware for High-Power Electric Aircraft

Adrian Serna,

VP Engineering – AdvanTech International

eVTOL batteries, inverters and other power electronics generate significant heat during high-power flight and rapid charging—but every cooling plate, heat sink, fluid channel and housing adds mass.

The challenge is not simply removing heat. Thermal hardware must manage demanding flight → charge → turnaround cycles while minimising mass, volume, pressure loss and manufacturing complexity.

As aircraft power levels increase, cooling-hardware design becomes an aircraft-level trade-off between thermal performance, weight and production readiness.

Key Technical Questions

Which thermal loads and repeated operating cycles determine cooling-hardware sizing?
How should cooling-channel geometry balance hot-spot prevention, heat transfer and pumping power?
How far can material selection and thinner cooling plates reduce mass without compromising performance or integrity?
Can cooling functionality be integrated into structural housings to reduce total system mass?
Which manufacturing and validation approaches enable the transition from prototype hardware to repeatable aerospace production?

10:00

WHEN AN ACTUATOR FAILS

Maintaining Control Authority Through Fault-Tolerant Electric Actuation

Adam Bargh,

Technical Director – Olsen Actuators

Electromechanical actuators control flight-critical eVTOL functions, from aerodynamic surfaces to propulsor positioning. What happens when an actuator jams, runs away, degrades or loses position feedback—and how much control authority remains?

Fault-tolerant actuation must detect and isolate failures within the aircraft’s response window, distinguish mechanical faults from sensing or drive faults, and preserve controllability without unacceptable penalties in mass, power demand and complexity.

Key Technical Questions

Which failure modes drive the most demanding aircraft-level control cases?
How quickly must faults be detected and isolated to preserve controllability?
Where should redundancy reside: sensing, electronics, motors, mechanical load paths or aircraft architecture?
How are conflicting sensor signals resolved without masking a genuine fault?
How is control redistributed when an actuator becomes unavailable or remains jammed?
Can monitoring distinguish normal wear from degradation requiring intervention?
How are fault detection, isolation and residual control authority demonstrated through analysis and representative testing for certification?

10:15

Morning Networking Break

Hosted By

10:55

HIGH-VOLTAGE ARCHITECTURE: 800V, 1kV AND BEYOND

Engineering the HV Electrical Architecture for Megawatt-Class eVTOL

GP Gopalakrishnan,

Senior director of Aerospace & Defense Strategy – Infineon Technologies

Higher voltage can reduce current, conductor mass and distribution losses. At 800V, 1kV and beyond, however, insulation integrity, partial discharge, arc faults and EMI/EMC become aircraft-level design constraints.

The challenge is selecting a voltage and distribution architecture that balances efficiency and total system mass with fault protection—and preserves sufficient propulsion capability for safe flight and landing following an electrical failure.

Key Technical Questions

Where is the optimum system voltage once insulation, cooling and protection penalties are included alongside conductor-mass savings?
How do altitude and electrical/thermal cycling affect partial discharge and lifetime insulation integrity?
How should arc faults be detected and isolated, and where do solid-state devices offer advantages over contactors and fuses?
How should HV buses and propulsion loads be partitioned to contain faults without excessive redundancy or mass?
How do switching behaviour and protection choices affect EMI/EMC, lightning and HIRF compliance?

11:15

THE HV INTERCONNECT PROBLEM

Managing Partial Discharge, Insulation & Connection Reliability as eVTOL Voltage Increases

David Amet,

Business Development Manager – Amphenol

At 800V, 1kV and beyond, connectors, terminals and HV cabling must maintain electrical isolation and connection integrity despite altitude, vibration, temperature cycling, contamination and repeated maintenance.

The challenge is keeping these interfaces lightweight, compact and serviceable without insulation, shielding and spacing penalties eroding the benefits of higher voltage.

This session examines how interconnect design and qualification can address those competing requirements throughout aircraft service life.

Key Technical Questions

How should creepage, clearance and insulation be designed to control partial discharge at operating altitude?
How do vibration, contamination and thermal cycling affect contact resistance, temperature rise and insulation integrity?
What failure modes arise from repeated mating and maintenance, and how can interfaces remain reliably serviceable?
How should shielding and HV interlocks be integrated without excessive mass or packaging penalties?
What qualification evidence demonstrates electrical and mechanical integrity across the intended service life?

11:35

THE SOFTWARE-DEFINED AIRCRAFT

Managing the Certification Burden of Increasing Software & Systems Complexity

Tim Reed,

COE – Lynx Software Technologies

eVTOL aircraft rely on software for flight control, distributed propulsion, energy management, fault detection and reconfiguration. As these functions become interconnected, assurance must address individual behaviour, system interactions and the consequences of failure or change.

The challenge is containing that complexity while maintaining a defensible requirements → architecture → implementation → verification → certification evidence chain.

Software and hardware assurance under DO-178C and DO-254, supported by model-based systems engineering, must remain coherent as aircraft configurations evolve through development, production and service.

Key Technical Questions

Which architectural decisions reduce verification effort without compromising safety?
How should safety-critical functions be partitioned to prevent fault propagation and address shared-resource dependencies?
Where can model-based development strengthen traceability and verification—and what evidence still requires testing?
How can configuration control and change-impact analysis preserve assurance through hardware changes and post-certification software updates?
How should cybersecurity assurance integrate with safety assessment where threats could affect aircraft control or availability?

11:55

THE WEIGHT vs CERTIFICATION PROBLEM

How Far Can We Optimise the eVTOL Structure Without Increasing the Substantiation Burden?

Mischa Pollack,

Director of Innovation – Collier Aerospace

Every kilogram of eVTOL structure affects payload, range and energy consumption. But pushing structures closer to their theoretical optimum can increase analysis, validation, manufacturing-control and physical-test requirements.

Complex load paths, material choices, laminate families and joints may remove mass while multiplying the evidence required for certification. The real optimisation is therefore the lightest structure that can be confidently substantiated, consistently manufactured, inspected and maintained.

Key Technical Questions

How much structural mass results from uncertainty in loads, material properties and manufacturing variability—and what evidence can reduce unnecessary conservatism?
How can high-fidelity analysis optimise strength, buckling, fatigue and damage tolerance together while maintaining defensible substantiation?
When do additional materials, laminate families or joint designs create disproportionate qualification and testing demands?
Where can validated analysis reduce physical testing, and what correlation evidence is needed?
How do production tolerances, inspection access and repairability change the optimum structural design?

12:15

FROM TEST RIG TO CERTIFICATION EVIDENCE

How Do We Prove the Behaviour of Increasingly Integrated Electric Aircraft Systems?

Peter Blume,

President – BLOOMY

eVTOL systems cannot be substantiated solely in isolation. Batteries, power electronics, propulsion and control software interact dynamically, particularly during high-power transients, degraded operation and failures that may be unsafe to reproduce in flight.

The challenge is demonstrating those interactions through a coordinated combination of simulation, component testing, hardware-in-the-loop (HIL), integrated rigs and aircraft testing—with the fidelity, repeatability and traceability needed to support certification.

Key Technical Questions

Which behaviours must be demonstrated in simulation, HIL, integrated rigs or aircraft testing—and how should evidence connect across these environments?
What model validation, timing accuracy and hardware representation are needed for HIL results to support certification credit?
How can fault injection reproduce transient and state-dependent failures to verify detection, isolation and reconfiguration?
How should requirements and safety assessments guide test coverage without creating an unmanageable test matrix?
When hardware, software or models change, which results remain valid—and what must be repeated?

Are we demonstrating integrated aircraft behaviour—or testing individual systems and assuming the interactions?

12:35

WHEN RECOVERY BECOMES THE LAST LINE OF DEFENCE

The Role and Limitations of Whole-Aircraft Parachute Recovery in Electric Aviation

Adrian Viña,

Head of Engineering - Ballistic Recovery Systems, Inc.

Whole-aircraft parachute recovery offers an additional layer of protection in an emergency—but its effectiveness depends on the aircraft’s condition, altitude, airspeed and available deployment time.

In this short address, BRS Aerospace will examine the engineering considerations involved in integrating ballistic recovery into electric aircraft, including installation mass, structural load paths and the conditions within which recovery can be effective.

Key Technical Questions

Which emergency scenarios can whole-aircraft recovery address, and where are its limitations?
How do aircraft configuration, altitude and airspeed affect deployment and recovery?
What integration and validation work is required to establish a credible recovery capability?

12:50

Luncheon

Hosted By

13:35

HOW MANY KILOGRAMS CAN WE TAKE OUT OF THE THERMAL SYSTEM?

Take a Conventional eVTOL Thermal Architecture—Then Engineer Out the Weight

Bret Trimmer,

Applications Engineering Manager – NeoGraf Solutions

Cooling plates, heat spreaders, coolant, pumps and housings manage heat—but add aircraft mass. The challenge is reducing that mass while maintaining temperature limits, uniformity and performance across high-power discharge and rapid charging.

Start with a representative eVTOL battery or power-electronics system. Establish its thermal loads and conventional cooling-system mass, then demonstrate what can realistically be removed, replaced or reduced.

Using that baseline, this session examines whether advanced graphite and highly anisotropic thermal materials can improve heat spreading at source and reduce metallic hardware or active-cooling demand. Savings must be assessed across the complete system, including interfaces, encapsulation and integration hardware.

Key Technical Questions

Where is the mass in the baseline architecture, and which components offer credible savings?
What can graphite replace—and where is active heat removal still required?
How should heat-spreading performance per gram be assessed under representative discharge and charging cycles?
What net system-mass savings remain after integration, and what could they deliver in payload, range or reserves?
What thermal, mechanical and durability evidence would an OEM need to qualify the redesigned system?

13:55

FROM CONCEPT TO CERTIFIABLE HARDWARE

The Manufacturing Bottleneck Defining eVTOL Development Timelines

Steve Ricketts, VP of Business Development– MISUMI | FictivInc

As eVTOL programmes mature, a critical constraint is how quickly engineering changes can become production-representative hardware suitable for certification testing.

Changes in geometry, tolerances, materials and interfaces must pass through manufacturing before they can be physically validated. If manufacturing cannot match development velocity, the design → build → test → redesign loop becomes a programme bottleneck.

The challenge is shortening that loop while preserving configuration control, process consistency and the evidence needed to establish conformity.

Key Technical Questions

How can design-to-hardware cycles be compressed without compromising dimensional accuracy, material integrity or process control?
When must prototype methods become production-representative to keep test results relevant to the intended aircraft?
How should design for manufacture inform evolving geometries, tolerances and material choices before changes become costly?
How can rapid revisions be introduced while maintaining configuration control, inspection records and material/process traceability?
How should supplier capacity, tooling and process readiness be managed to prevent low-volume, high-mix builds delaying validation?

14:15

CAN ONE OF THE LAST HIGHLY MANUAL AIRCRAFT MANUFACTURING PROCESSES BE AUTOMATED?

Industrialising Electrical Wiring & Interconnect for eVTOL Production at Rate

Stephan Krause, New Business Development Director – Q5D

Aircraft wiring remains labour-intensive: harnesses must be assembled, routed, terminated, secured and inspected. For eVTOL, distributed propulsion, HV power and numerous control and sensing interfaces increase complexity as OEMs seek lower mass and faster production.

Automation could go beyond assembling conventional harnesses faster. Integrating conductors directly onto aircraft structures could reduce separate harnesses, fixings and installation steps—but must preserve electrical integrity, inspectability and maintainability.

The challenge is establishing where automation delivers repeatable production benefits without creating a greater qualification or repair burden.

Key Technical Questions

Which assembly, routing and termination processes can realistically be automated?
Where can conductors be integrated onto structures, and what net mass, part-count and assembly-time savings result?
How are insulation, separation and shielding maintained across different voltage and signal requirements?
How can automated inspection and traceability demonstrate the conformity of every electrical path?
How can integrated wiring accommodate design changes, damage inspection and repair without disproportionate requalification?

Are we demonstrating integrated aircraft behaviour—or testing individual systems and assuming the interactions?

14:35

FROM PROTOTYPE SUPPLIER TO CERTIFIED PRODUCTION

What Must Change When eVTOL Components Move From Development Aircraft to Production at Rate?

Armando Zanchetta,

General Manager – NICOMATIC North America

Supplying prototypes is fundamentally different from consistently reproducing components for certificated aircraft. As programmes industrialise, materials, tooling, processes and configurations must become qualified, controlled and traceable—while preserving the performance demonstrated during development.

The challenge is moving from prototype flexibility → qualified processes → controlled configuration → repeatable production without supplier capacity or manufacturing variation constraining aircraft output.

Key Technical Questions

What evidence demonstrates that a component supplier is ready for certificated serial production?
Which materials, processes and critical characteristics must be qualified and controlled before production ramps up?
How are manufacturing variation and configuration drift detected before they affect component performance or conformity?
What traceability connects each delivered component to its materials, process history, inspection results and approved configuration?
How should design changes, process changes and second sources be managed without unnecessary requalification or disruption?

What must be established today to reproduce the same conforming component tomorrow—and at higher production rates?

14:55

YOUR AIRCRAFT IS ONLY AS CERTIFIABLE AS YOUR SUPPLY CHAIN

Closing the Supplier Qualification & Production-Readiness Gap Before Rate Ramp

Jayaraj Rajapandian,

Head of Aerospace & Defense at Tata Elxsi

An eVTOL OEM does not certify an aircraft in isolation. Motors, actuators, connectors, sensors, batteries and structures introduce material, process and supplier dependencies that must support aircraft conformity.

A component may meet its specification while the processes and upstream sources needed to reproduce it remain insufficiently controlled—particularly when technology originates in automotive, electronics or battery supply chains.

The challenge is establishing qualification, traceability and change control across supplier tiers before production rates expose gaps.

Key Technical Questions

What additional qualification and process controls are needed when commercial or automotive technologies enter aerospace?
How should OEMs identify critical dependencies across Tier 2, 3 and 4 suppliers, and determine where oversight must extend?
What evidence connects supplier materials, manufacturing processes and inspection results to aircraft conformity?
How should supplier changes, second sources and evolving battery or electronics technologies be assessed against the approved configuration?
How can OEMs verify that supplier capacity and process capability will deliver conforming hardware as production rates increase?

Which unresolved supplier dependency could become the aircraft programme’s next production bottleneck?

15:15

THE MAGNET MATERIALS BOTTLENECK

Can eVTOL Scale Without a Secure Supply of High-Performance Magnet Materials?

David Bushi,

Senior Vice President of Manufacturing – USA Rare Earth

High-power-density permanent-magnet propulsion depends on materials whose properties directly affect motor torque density, efficiency, mass and thermal behaviour. For eVTOL, magnets must maintain predictable performance through high-power take-off, hover, temperature variation and repeated flight cycles.

As programmes move towards serial production, the challenge is securing qualified magnetic materials with consistent properties, controlled manufacturing and traceable supply at aircraft-production scale.

Key Technical Questions

Which magnetic properties deliver the required torque density, and how do material choices affect motor mass, efficiency and cooling requirements?
How do temperature excursions and repeated high-power duty cycles affect demagnetisation margins and long-term performance?
How does manufacturing variation affect magnet consistency, and what characterisation, process control and traceability demonstrate repeatable properties?
What evidence is required to qualify a second source or alternative chemistry, and which changes require motor-level revalidation?
Can qualified magnet supply meet aircraft-production rates, and where could material availability or manufacturing capacity become the bottleneck?

Are we designing propulsion around materials that can scale reliably to thousands of aircraft?

15:35

LIGHTER — BUT STILL CERTIFIABLE

Where Can Advanced Materials Remove Aircraft Mass Without Creating a New Qualification Problem?

Jim Parrish,

Development Engineer – Greene Tweed

Advanced materials can reduce eVTOL mass, improving payload, range and energy performance. But composites, thermoplastics and new material systems introduce characterisation, qualification, manufacturing-control and durability requirements.

The opportunity extends beyond material substitution. Part consolidation can remove fasteners, interfaces and assembly steps—but savings must be assessed alongside design margins, inspection and repair requirements.

The challenge is identifying where advanced materials deliver a worthwhile aircraft-level benefit with predictable performance throughout service life.

Key Technical Questions

Where can material substitution or part consolidation deliver the greatest net mass saving once joints, interfaces and supporting hardware are included?
Which properties govern suitability—strength, stiffness, fatigue, creep or temperature resistance—and how do environment and ageing affect them?
What characterisation, design allowables and inspection evidence are needed to substantiate the component?
How can manufacturing variability be controlled at production rate, and when does the qualification burden outweigh the mass saving?

15:50

Afternoon Networking Break

Hosted By

16:30

THE SELF-AWARE AIRCRAFT

Interpreting Aircraft Health & Available Capability for Future Autonomous Operations

Loay Elbasyouni,

Founder & CEO, AstraQua Inc

Removing the pilot does not remove the need for the aircraft to understand what is happening to itself.

Future autonomous eVTOLs must assess system health, degradation and available performance—and determine whether they remain capable of safely completing the mission.

The challenge is moving beyond fault detection to interpreting aircraft condition, anticipating loss of capability and selecting a safe response when reality departs from the expected mission.

Key Technical Questions

How can propulsion, battery, flight-control and structural-health data form a reliable aircraft-level assessment of available capability?
How can onboard intelligence distinguish sensor anomalies from genuine degradation or emerging failure, while accounting for uncertainty?
How should changing aircraft capability, weather, traffic and landing options determine whether to continue, divert, reconfigure or land?
How can autonomous decisions remain within demonstrated safety limits when conditions were not explicitly anticipated during development?
What verification evidence is needed to substantiate health assessment and decision-making, particularly where behaviour is adaptive?

What must the aircraft know about its own limitations before we can safely remove the pilot?

16:50

FROM PILOTED TO AUTONOMOUS

Lessons from EHang’s Sandbox, Demonstration & Early Commercial Operations

Conor Yang, CFO – EHang

EHang has reached significant milestones in pilotless passenger aviation: its EH216-S holds Chinese type, production and airworthiness approvals, while operators in Guangzhou and Hefei have received approval for commercial passenger services at designated sites.

Its experience extends to Thailand’s AAM Sandbox, urban flight demonstrations in Benidorm, Spain, and a demonstration and maintenance hub in Tsukuba, Japan. These projects provide distinct settings for examining aircraft, ground supervision, infrastructure and regulatory integration.

This session examines lessons from those projects—and what must change when controlled demonstrations become repeatable operations.

Key Technical Questions

What did real-world projects reveal that development and simulation did not anticipate?
What lessons emerged about ground supervision, communications and contingency management?
How did local infrastructure, weather and turnaround requirements affect operational readiness?
Which procedures and evidence transfer between locations—and what requires fresh validation?
What remains to be demonstrated before operating boundaries and fleet utilisation can expand?

What should American AAM developers learn from EHang’s deployment experience?

17:10

THE ENERGY SYSTEM BEHIND THE AIRCRAFT

What Does It Actually Take to Electrify High-Utilisation eVTOL Operations?

Brett Oakleaf,

Strategic Partnership Manager Innovation, Partnering, and Outreach (IPO) Group – National Laboratory of the Rockies (formerly known as NREL)

Commercial eVTOL operations depend on more than the aircraft battery. Charging, thermal conditioning, grid connections and any supporting storage must sustain repeated turnarounds throughout the day.

As fleets scale, varying arrival states of charge, departure schedules and overlapping charging windows create fluctuating demand. A site may have sufficient daily energy yet lack the power capacity or resilience needed to dispatch aircraft on schedule.

The challenge is sizing the complete energy system around fleet operations while accommodating future aircraft requirements.

Key Technical Questions

How do arrival state of charge, charging curves, turnaround targets and simultaneous aircraft movements determine peak power and daily energy demand?
When do grid capacity and utility-upgrade lead times constrain deployment?
How should stationary storage be sized and controlled to manage charging peaks without becoming depleted during sustained operations?
What capacity and redundancy are needed for battery/cabin conditioning and continued operation during power interruptions?
How can site architecture accommodate changing battery technologies, charging requirements and fleet utilisation without costly rebuilding?

Can the energy system sustain the operating schedule—not just charge an individual aircraft?

17:30

THINK BIG, START SMALL & SCALE FAST — ACCELERATING THE eVTOL MARKET

How Do We Build Infrastructure Now When Demand, Aircraft Utilisation & Grid Requirements Remain Uncertain?

George Karayannis,

Public Sector Segment Leader – Schneider Electric

Jason Hewitt ,

Managing Partner of Infrastructure, Sustainability Partners

Chip Snowden,

SVP, Aviation Market Principal, Hanson

AAM Operators, Developers, and OEMs are faced with infrastructure challenges as they seek to be ready for operation in a complex environment where the timing of aircraft certification, route approval, energy availability, and customer demand must be managed.

Schneider Electric has assembled partners to offer the turnkey Vertiport-as-a-Service business model to address the high initial capital cost of vertiport development, help preserve capital, accelerate infrastructure deployment, and scale operations as demand warrants. The right planning support and involvement of an expert infrastructure partner can help Operators and Developers quickly assess site viability and utility capacity, and model tradeoff costs for infrastructure, energy, and operations against usage profiles, grid capacity, and options for on-site energy assets.

This panel will explain how Vertiport-as-a-Service works, how it can preserve capital and reduce operating cost volatility, and how to align key stakeholders, including the local utility, in the planning and implementation process to get to market quickly and cost-effectively.

Key Panel Questions

Early eVTOL infrastructure must support credible launch operations without locking operators into an expensive configuration that cannot accommodate future aircraft or demand.

The challenge is deciding what to build now, what to make expandable and which long-lead investments cannot wait. Grid connections, electrical distribution, charging interfaces and site layouts must support phased deployment while keeping initial capital requirements proportionate to uncertain utilisation.

Key Panel Questions

How do I know if a site and its existing utility service can support my planned vertiport operations?
What strategies are most effective for navigating grid constraints and aligning utility interconnection timeline with deployment schedules
What approaches can reduce financial, operational, and technical risk for my vertiport?
How can vertiport operators effectively manage peak demand and simultaneous charging events without compromising performance or economics?
What infrastructure and energy management strategies are required to maintain power quality, system stability, and protection in high-power charging environments?
What role do microgrids, energy storage, and other resilience solutions play in maintaining operations during grid disruptions?
How can Vertiport-as-a-Service models accelerate deployment, preserve capital, and allow operators and developers to focus on core business growth and revenue generation?
What planning methodologies help avoid costly overbuilding while ensuring infrastructure can scale alongside aircraft utilization and market demand?

What minimum infrastructure supports reliable initial operations—and which provisions for expansion must be designed in from day one?
How should uncertain demand and aircraft requirements influence grid capacity, charging equipment and site layout?
Which elements can be modular or shared across aircraft, and what interoperability must be established before investment?
How can financing and delivery models support phased expansion without creating stranded assets?
What operational evidence should trigger the next investment stage, and how do utility lead times affect that decision?

17:50

Panel

AIRCRAFT MEETS INFRASTRUCTURE

The Critical Engineering Interface Between eVTOL Aircraft, Vertiports & Commercial Operations

Panel Chair

Phillip Klein,

Founder & CEO, 26 Horizon Advisors

Jose Fierro,

AAT eIPP Program Manager, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

Edward Wanket,

Director, Economic Outreach & Industry Relations – San Joaquin Partnership

Craig Teasdale,

VP of Operations, Vertiports by Atlantic

Brent Klavon,

Chief Strategy Officer, ANRA Technologies

Brett Oakleaf,

Strategic Partnership Manager, National Laboratory of the Rockies

Matt Friedman,

Chief, Office of Aviation Planning at California Department of Transportation

Aircraft and infrastructure cannot be engineered independently. Charging, thermal conditioning, downwash/outwash, ground clearances and emergency response create requirements that cross the aircraft–ground boundary.

The challenge is aligning aircraft capabilities with site constraints and operating procedures so that promised turnaround times and utilisation remain achievable.

Key Panel Questions

Can 10–15-minute turnarounds accommodate charging, hot-battery conditioning, boarding and required safety procedures?
How do downwash/outwash, clearances and simultaneous movements constrain site layout and capacity?
What battery-fire, evacuation and disabled-aircraft provisions are needed?
Which physical, electrical and data interfaces require common standards?
Where can existing airports and heliports support operations—and which aircraft or infrastructure assumptions must change?

18:20

WHEN THE WEATHER DOESN’T COOPERATE

Engineering eVTOL Weather Capability for Commercially Reliable AAM Operations

Jason O’Neill, COO – Horizon Aircraft

Commercial AAM cannot depend solely on favourable weather. Icing, precipitation, wind and temperature extremes affect mission completion, while instrument-flight procedures, holding and diversion introduce additional demands.

For electric aircraft, battery conditioning, ice protection and competing thermal loads can consume energy or reduce available performance. This session examines Horizon Aircraft’s hybrid-electric approach and the engineering implications of designing for IFR and FIKI capability.

The challenge is achieving dependable dispatch within a demonstrated operating envelope—with useful payload and sufficient reserves.

Key Technical Questions

How do IFR and FIKI objectives influence aircraft architecture, system redundancy and substantiation?
Where are the critical icing threats, and what mass, power and thermal penalties does protection introduce?
How do cold batteries, ice protection and cabin conditioning interact when demanded simultaneously?
How should headwinds, weather avoidance, holding and diversion shape reserves—and what contingency flexibility can hybrid-electric propulsion provide?
What analysis and testing demonstrate safe operation under combined adverse-weather conditions?

Should capability be measured by maximum range—or missions reliably completed with payload and reserves in real-world weather?

18:40

CERTIFYING THE AIRCRAFT IS ONLY THE BEGINNING

What Does It Take to Move an eVTOL From Type Certification Into Commercial Operations?

Aaron Shelton,

Supply Chain & Procurement Director – Volocopter

Type certification establishes compliance of the aircraft design. It does not, by itself, deliver an operationally ready fleet. Production conformity, operational approvals, training, maintenance and continued airworthiness must come together before entry into service.

Drawing on Volocopter’s development experience, David Bausek will close the conference by examining the dependencies between these activities—and where unresolved engineering assumptions can become operational constraints.

INITIAL AIRWORTHINESS → PRODUCTION → OPERATIONS → TRAINING → MAINTENANCE → CONTINUED AIRWORTHINESS

Key Technical Questions

What evidence and capability must exist to move from design compliance to operational readiness?
How must design and production organisations maintain conformity and control hardware, software and supplier changes?
How are maintenance procedures, component lives and inspection intervals established with limited fleet data, particularly for batteries and electric propulsion?
How should early reliability, fault and health-monitoring data inform maintenance and continued airworthiness?
How must aircraft readiness, training, operational approvals and infrastructure integration converge for entry into service?

The closing challenge: what must be ready alongside the aircraft—and who is responsible for ensuring it is?

Final Release >>> Register Today to Secure Your Conference Pass >>>