Why this site is viable — or why it is not
This page presents the evidence chain for each candidate: hard gate status, scored dimensions, key risks, literature references and implementation recommendations. Switch between sites and scheme tiers using the tabs below.
Score Breakdown
Scored 0–100 across 11 dimensions grouped into four clusters: Airspace & Physical Safety, Regulatory & Connectivity, Operational Performance, and Commercial Viability. Weights shift by active stakeholder persona. Scores above 85 are highlighted green; below 70 amber or red.
Hard Gate Status
Hard gates are pass/warn/fail conditions — not weighted averages. A site with a single fail gate is classified Not Feasible regardless of its scored dimensions.
Key Risk Signals
Each risk is classified High / Medium / Low. High risks may block advancement without specific mitigation. Evidence for each risk is traceable to the reference literature.
Evidence References
Every scoring decision links to at least one reference document — FAA EB 105A, EASA PTS-VPT-DSN, Uber Elevate, Bluenest UAM, ConOps AAM, UKRI Future Flight or EHang City Air Transport.