Research Report on the Construction of Low‑Altitude Emergency Rescue System: Integrated Development of Aircraft, Take‑off‑and‑Landing Nodes and Scheduling Platform

Research Report on the Construction of Low‑Altitude Emergency Rescue System: Integrated Development of Aircraft, Take‑off‑and‑Landing Nodes and Scheduling Platform

Author Affiliations: Buckhouse Intelligent Technology (Suzhou) Co., Ltd., Buckhouse Low‑Altitude Economy Research Institute, Buckhouse World Low‑Altitude Economy Industry Network, Buckhouse China Low‑Altitude Economy Industry Network, Buckhouse International Low‑Altitude Economic Cooperation Network, Buckhouse Low‑Altitude Manufacturing Platform, Buckhouse Low‑Altitude Flight Platform, Buckhouse Low‑Altitude Support Platform, Buckhouse Low‑Altitude Infrastructure Platform, Buckhouse Low‑Altitude Industry Supporting Platform, Buckhouse Low‑Altitude Cross‑border Integration Platform
Completion Date: August 2026

Abstract

Against the backdrop of frequent global extreme disaster events and rising compound urban security risks, traditional ground‑based emergency rescue systems are constrained by terrain blockages, damaged roadways and traffic congestion, showing prominent deficiencies in guaranteeing the “golden rescue window”. Relying on the three‑in‑one collaborative architecture of aircraft, distributed take‑off‑and‑landing nodes and a global intelligent scheduling platform, low‑altitude emergency rescue establishes an integrated air‑ground‑cyberspace emergency link. It enables rapid execution of diverse missions including disaster reconnaissance, personnel search‑and‑rescue, material delivery, communication relay, medical evacuation and on‑site response, and has become a core new‑infrastructure direction for building a modern national emergency response system.

Based on the evolution of China’s low‑altitude policies, industrial implementation practices and global industry experience, this report systematically analyzes the internal logic of the integrated low‑altitude emergency rescue system. It conducts in‑depth research on three core modules: the planning of emergency aircraft spectrum, the network layout of multi‑level take‑off‑and‑landing nodes, and the technical architecture of the global intelligent scheduling platform. It sorts out practical constraints confronting system construction, including airspace administration, standard coordination, equipment adaptability, operation & maintenance, and inter‑department collaboration. Implementation pathways, phased roll‑out models and risk prevention‑and‑control schemes for integrated development are proposed. This work provides theoretical references and practical guidelines for government emergency management authorities, general aviation operators and low‑altitude equipment manufacturers engaged in the planning and project delivery of low‑altitude emergency rescue systems.

Keywords: Low‑Altitude Emergency Rescue; Integrated System; Emergency Aircraft; Take‑off‑and‑Landing Nodes; Low‑Altitude Scheduling Platform; Air‑Ground‑Cyberspace Collaboration; New‑Type Infrastructure

Chapter 1 Introduction

1.1 Research Background

Intensified global climate change has increased the frequency of sudden events such as floods, mountain fires and geological disasters. Scenarios including high‑rise building accidents in cities, hazardous chemical leaks, mountain missing‑person incidents and island rescue continue to grow. Many disasters are accompanied by road breakdown, public communication network paralysis and the inability of ground forces to arrive rapidly, creating rescue blind spots.

Conventional emergency rescue is dominated by ground teams and ground vehicles. Large‑scale helicopter rescue sites are sparse and incur high deployment costs, making it difficult to realize regular rapid response at county, township and remote mountain levels.

National top‑level policies keep advancing the incorporation of low‑altitude capabilities into public security systems. The 15th Five‑Year Plan for Modern Emergency System Development explicitly calls for building a one‑hour air rescue network, deploying air rescue bases and take‑off‑and‑landing sites, improving air rescue command systems, and expanding application scenarios for low‑altitude emergency detection, aerial rescue and material delivery. The 15th Five‑Year Plan for the Development of Safety and Emergency Equipment Industry, jointly issued by the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology and the Ministry of Emergency Management, encourages the development of emergency UAVs and eVTOL rescue equipment and promotes large‑scale application of low‑altitude emergency equipment, targeting an industrial scale of RMB 1.4 trillion in key safety‑emergency equipment sectors by 2030.

The Ministry of Emergency Management has established a UAV‑based emergency coordination mechanism for social stakeholders, incorporating hundreds of partner entities and thousands of UAV units. A baseline capacity has been formed to reach disaster sites within 2‑6 hours in central‑eastern regions and 12 hours in western China. Nevertheless, overall development remains at a stage of scattered equipment, fragmented facilities and isolated platforms, without genuine deep integrated operation among aircraft, take‑off‑and‑landing nodes and scheduling platforms.

From an industrial practice perspective, procurement of emergency aircraft, construction of UAV stations and development of information‑based scheduling systems in many regions fall under separate competent authorities, with projects initiated and constructed separately. Aircraft selection fails to match the energy and communication interfaces of take‑off‑and‑landing nodes; take‑off‑and‑landing nodes are built without unified standards and cannot connect to multi‑brand aircraft; data interfaces of scheduling platforms are incompatible, hindering two‑way data interaction between equipment and stations. This results in duplicated hardware investment and low resource utilization, giving rise to the structural paradox of “aircraft available without stations, stations built without platforms, platforms deployed without interconnection”. Therefore, integrated planning, design, construction and operation‑maintenance of aircraft, take‑off‑and‑landing nodes and scheduling platforms constitute an inevitable path for low‑altitude emergency rescue to evolve from demonstration pilots to regular practical operations.

1.2 Research Significance

Theoretically, this report establishes a three‑in‑one analytical framework for low‑altitude emergency rescue covering “equipment carrier‑infrastructure‑digital brain”, clarifies coupling relationships among the three core elements, fills gaps in existing research which mostly focuses on single equipment or individual platforms lacking systematic collaborative studies, and enriches research outcomes at the intersection of low‑altitude economy and public emergency response.

Practically, integrated system construction shortens emergency response latency and closes the full loop from alarm reception, task dispatching, aircraft deployment, station transit, on‑site operation, to data feedback. It enhances capabilities for reconnaissance, search‑and‑rescue, delivery and communication guarantee amid disasters and accidents. Meanwhile, it helps local governments avoid non‑unified standards and asset waste stemming from fragmented construction, and delivers referable development paradigms for multi‑level provincial‑municipal‑county‑township low‑altitude emergency network layout, facilitating the transition of low‑altitude emergency response from sporadic pilots to full‑domain regular capacity.

Industrially, technical interfaces and collaborative specifications for emergency aircraft, take‑off‑and‑landing nodes and scheduling platforms are defined, driving upstream and downstream industrial chains to formulate unified adaptation standards and advancing coordinated development of low‑altitude manufacturing, low‑altitude infrastructure and low‑altitude software services.

1.3 Research Scope and Methodology

The research object is the integrated low‑altitude emergency rescue system, confined to low‑altitude airspace below 1000 meters. It covers multi‑rotor UAVs, compound‑wing UAVs, manned eVTOLs, light rescue helicopters and other emergency aircraft; multi‑level distributed take‑off‑and‑landing node networks including hub‑type, regional‑type and mobile end‑node‑type sites; and the air‑ground‑cyberspace integrated intelligent scheduling platform. Application scenarios include natural‑disaster rescue, urban safety incidents, mountain search‑and‑rescue, island emergency response, medical‑material transit and emergency communication support. Military aviation operations are excluded.

Research methodologies include literature‑policy review, industrial case analysis, comparative research and logical modeling. National and provincial‑municipal policy documents on low‑altitude economy and emergency rescue are reviewed. Pilot implementation cases in Hefei, Zhejiang, Sichuan‑Chongqing and other regions are collected. Technical routes of different aircraft types are compared. A logical model of the three‑in‑one system is constructed to summarize existing pain points and propose development pathways. Data sources include official national‑ministry statistics, Civil Aviation Administration of China public materials, third‑party industrial reports, and field research materials compiled by the Buckhouse Low‑Altitude Economy Research Institute.

1.4 Definition of Core Concepts

Integrated Low‑Altitude Emergency Rescue System: Oriented by emergency mission requirements, it treats emergency aircraft spectrum, multi‑level distributed take‑off‑and‑landing node infrastructure and global intelligent scheduling platform as an organic whole for unified planning and design. It enables real‑time data interconnection covering aircraft status, take‑off‑and‑landing node resources, airspace situation and emergency task data, and completes a full business loop: alarm reception, intelligent task assignment, aircraft scheduling, station support, on‑site operation, information feedback and post‑incident review & evaluation. It forms a modern emergency rescue system with deep air‑ground‑digital coupling.

Emergency Aircraft: Diversified unmanned aerial vehicles, electric vertical take‑off‑and‑landing aircraft and light general‑aviation aircraft customized for emergency‑rescue scenarios, capable of disaster reconnaissance, life search‑and‑rescue, material delivery, fire‑fighting operation, communication relay and personnel transit.

Take‑off‑and‑Landing Nodes: A collection of dedicated low‑altitude emergency‑rescue infrastructure, including fixed vertical take‑off‑and‑landing stations, rooftop emergency landing points, vehicle‑mounted mobile landing platforms and simple field emergency landing sites. Equipped with charging‑swapping, energy supply, communication‑navigation and meteorological monitoring as well as basic operation‑maintenance facilities, they serve as physical carriers for aircraft on‑duty standby, resupply and transit operations.

Scheduling Platform: The digital nerve center for low‑altitude emergency rescue. It integrates airspace management, equipment management, task scheduling, situation awareness, inter‑departmental collaboration and data storage‑analysis capabilities. Docking with emergency command systems, it realizes unified management and control over global aircraft and take‑off‑and‑landing‑node resources, accomplishing intelligent emergency task decomposition, resource matching, route planning, conflict resolution and full‑process monitoring.

Chapter 2 Current Development and Inherent Contradictions of China’s Low‑Altitude Emergency Rescue

2.1 Industry Status

Policy systems keep improving. The revised Civil Aviation Law of the People’s Republic of China adds a special chapter for low‑altitude development promotion. The Interim Regulations on Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Flight Administration and supporting national standards have been put into force, with mandatory Remote Identification (RID) implemented, laying a legal foundation for low‑altitude emergency flights. Low‑altitude emergency pilots have been launched across multiple regions. Hefei has built a fire‑fighting low‑altitude rescue system realizing one‑click dispatching of multiple UAV airports and linkage mechanisms connecting the 119 alarm‑processing system with low‑altitude forces, exploring new modes of urban fire‑fighting low‑altitude rescue. Prefecture‑level cities in Zhejiang carry out UAV‑delivered medical‑material projects, while heavy‑lift UAVs are tested for material delivery in geological‑disaster drills.

On the equipment supply side, more than one hundred certified emergency‑service UAV models covering multi‑rotor, compound‑wing and tilt‑rotor configurations were available in China by 2025, with varied take‑off weights adapted to reconnaissance and delivery missions. Manned eVTOL rescue prototypes have completed progressive verification tests, and light helicopters continue to be deployed for air rescue. Nevertheless, equipment is procured in a fragmented manner, with assets scattered among public security, fire‑control, emergency management and forestry departments lacking unified coordination.

In terms of infrastructure, a number of general‑purpose airports and helicopter landing points have been constructed nationwide. Yet standardized take‑off‑and‑landing nodes specifically for UAV and eVTOL emergency scenarios remain insufficient. Most rooftop landing points merely support basic landing without automatic charging‑swapping, meteorological sensing, private‑network communication and automatic operation‑maintenance capabilities. Mobile emergency take‑off‑and‑landing nodes are even less available, making rapid deployment of temporary operational pivots difficult amid disasters.

Regarding information‑based platforms, provincial‑level UAV dispatching centers and municipal low‑altitude emergency platforms have been successively rolled out. Most platforms, however, operate within individual departments. Cross‑department data interconnection faces obstacles. Protocols vary widely across aircraft and take‑off‑and‑landing‑node hardware, leading to high access costs for heterogeneous equipment and hindering unified global network‑based dispatching. The revenue of China’s emergency UAV service industry reached RMB 14.26 billion in 2025, rising by 38.7% year‑on‑year, outpacing average growth in general‑aviation services. Still, large‑scale commercial operation models for emergency scenarios remain immature, and the phenomenon of “emphasizing construction while neglecting operation‑maintenance” prevails.

2.2 Prominent Contradictions in Current System Construction

First, fragmented development of the three core components without top‑level integrated design. Many regions procure aircraft first, then build take‑off‑and‑landing sites as an afterthought, and develop dispatching software separately. Equipment, stations and platforms are delivered by different contractors with inconsistent interface standards. Aircraft cannot automatically report battery status and fault information to scheduling platforms; take‑off‑and‑landing node occupancy and energy reserves cannot be perceived by platforms in real time; platform instructions cannot directly trigger automatic aircraft execution, requiring extensive manual re‑transmission and resulting in incomplete closed‑loop integration.

Second, mismatch between aircraft spectrum and real‑world emergency missions. Some regions blindly purchase high‑end heavy‑lift models without supporting landing‑support conditions, incurring high daily maintenance costs. Some deploy only small reconnaissance UAVs without heavy‑lift delivery or personnel‑transport equipment, failing to meet diversified requirements during large‑scale disasters. Communication protocols and data formats differ among manufacturers, making it hard to incorporate heterogeneous models under one unified dispatching system.

Third, unbalanced layout of take‑off‑and‑landing‑node networks and absence of hierarchical systems. The ratio of hub‑type, regional‑type and simple end‑point sites is distorted. Urban core areas are densely equipped while counties, mountainous zones and high‑disaster‑risk regions are underserved. Many landing points only satisfy landing functions while ignoring energy resupply, disaster‑resistance protection and communication backup. Take‑off‑and‑landing nodes may fail completely once public power and communication networks collapse during disasters. Stockpiles of mobile take‑off‑and‑landing nodes are inadequate for rapid establishment of temporary operational pivots at disaster fronts.

Fourth, isolated scheduling platforms with insufficient practical capabilities. Certain platforms prioritize visual display dashboards while lacking robust intelligent dispatching algorithms for situation‑driven resource matching, dynamic route planning and airspace conflict resolution. Interconnection with government emergency command systems, meteorological systems and police alarm systems is limited. Some platforms only support equipment monitoring rather than full‑process automatic workflow from alarm reception to mission execution. Security mechanisms require further validation under concurrent multi‑aircraft task loads.

Fifth, incomplete supporting institutions and operation‑maintenance mechanisms. Detailed rules for emergency‑exempt airspace operation, cross‑department collaborative workflows, station operation‑maintenance regulations and equipment on‑duty rotation systems are not fully established. Hardware investment is prioritized while regular operation‑maintenance funding is overlooked, making 24‑hour emergency standby hard to sustain. There is a notable shortage of interdisciplinary talents proficient in both emergency services and low‑altitude aircraft & dispatching‑system technologies.

Sixth, fragmented standard systems. Specialized standards for emergency aircraft, construction specifications for emergency take‑off‑and‑landing nodes and data‑interface specifications for scheduling platforms are not fully unified. Interoperability among hardware from different manufacturers is impeded, restricting large‑scale replication and popularization of integrated systems.

Chapter 3 Overall Architecture of the Integrated Low‑Altitude Emergency Rescue System

Aircraft, take‑off‑and‑landing nodes and scheduling platforms are not simple superposition but a deeply‑coupled organic whole of “equipment‑infrastructure‑digital brain”. Serving as the nerve center, the scheduling platform perceives real‑time status of all aircraft and take‑off‑and‑landing‑node resources. As physical foundations, take‑off‑and‑landing nodes provide berthing, energy resupply and communication guarantee for aircraft. As execution terminals, aircraft receive platform instructions and complete global emergency missions relying on take‑off‑and‑landing‑node networks. Two‑way real‑time information interaction is maintained among the three components for emergency‑rescue business objectives.

3.1 Hierarchical Architecture of the Integrated System

3.1.1 Physical Execution Layer

It consists of the full fleet of emergency aircraft and multi‑tier take‑off‑and‑landing‑node networks. Aircraft perform diverse on‑site operations; take‑off‑and‑landing nodes offer physical conditions for aircraft berthing, energy refueling‑recharging and on‑duty standby. Raw data including aircraft position, battery, payload, fault status as well as take‑off‑and‑landing‑node occupancy, energy reserves and meteorological conditions are generated at this layer and transmitted upward to the scheduling platform, while mission and landing‑scheduling instructions from the platform are received.

3.1.2 Network Transmission Layer

A space‑ground converged communication foundation is constructed, integrating government‑affiliated 5G‑A private networks, BeiDou short‑message services and low‑orbit satellite communications. Under normal circumstances, 5G‑A private networks deliver high‑bandwidth low‑latency data exchange. When terrestrial public networks collapse amid disasters, satellite communication switches in to guarantee uninterrupted links for instructions, video and sensor data among aircraft, take‑off‑and‑landing nodes and scheduling platforms, eliminating communication black holes. BeiDou high‑precision differential positioning is deployed to provide decimeter‑level positioning for aircraft and take‑off‑and‑landing nodes, supporting precision landing in complex environments.

3.1.3 Digital Platform Layer

Namely the global low‑altitude emergency intelligent scheduling platform. It comprises heterogeneous‑equipment access module, airspace‑situation module, intelligent‑scheduling engine, emergency‑business module, collaborative‑sharing module and security‑operation‑maintenance module. It connects downward to all physical‑execution‑layer equipment and interfaces upward with external government systems including emergency command, meteorology, public security and natural‑resources authorities. Functions cover unified equipment access, airspace‑situation assessment, intelligent emergency‑task decomposition, resource matching, route planning, conflict resolution, full‑process mission monitoring and data archiving‑review.

3.1.4 Business Application Layer

Targeting emergency headquarters, fire‑control, public security, forestry, medical and other departments, it delivers business capabilities such as disaster reconnaissance, personnel search‑and‑rescue, material delivery, aerial fire‑fighting, emergency communication relay, casualty evacuation and risk monitoring. It supports emergency‑incident response, routine risk inspection and emergency‑drill scenarios.

3.2 Operational Closed‑Loop Workflow of the Integrated System

The complete closed‑loop workflow reflects collaborative logic among the three components:

1. Emergency Incident Trigger: Alarm‑receiving systems push hazard information including accident location, disaster type and mission requirements, synchronizing data to the scheduling platform.

2. Platform Situation Assessment: Combined with hazard locations, the scheduling platform retrieves airspace conditions and real‑time meteorology, and searches status of global aircraft as well as occupancy and energy‑support conditions of surrounding take‑off‑and‑landing nodes.

3. Intelligent Resource Matching: The scheduling engine automatically selects properly‑capable aircraft at the shortest distance, determines departure and transit resupply take‑off‑and‑landing nodes, and generates flight routes and landing schemes.

4. Mission Issuance & Execution: The scheduling platform dispatches mission instructions to designated aircraft and readiness instructions to corresponding take‑off‑and‑landing nodes. Aircraft take off from standby nodes and proceed to disaster sites, making transit stops for energy replenishment when necessary.

5. On‑Site Operation & Data Feedback: Aircraft conduct reconnaissance, search‑and‑rescue, delivery and other operations, streaming video and sensor data back to the scheduling platform for command‑team decision‑making. When battery capacity drops below thresholds, the platform automatically routes aircraft to nearby available take‑off‑and‑landing nodes for resupply.

6. Post‑Mission Recovery: Upon mission completion, aircraft are guided back to assigned take‑off‑and‑landing nodes. Nodes conduct charging, inspection and maintenance, feeding status data back to the platform. The platform archives mission records and completes post‑event review and analysis.

Throughout the loop, aircraft and take‑off‑and‑landing nodes continuously report status while the scheduling platform outputs control instructions, sustaining inter‑component linkage and avoiding repetitive manual cross‑system operations.

Chapter 4 Construction of Emergency Aircraft Spectrum: Execution Terminals of the Integrated System

Aircraft serve as direct mission‑execution carriers. Integrated development requires configuration of hierarchical and categorized emergency‑aircraft spectrums based on regional disaster‑risk characteristics, rather than isolated procurement of single models. Aircraft shall support standardized protocol‑driven data exchange with scheduling platforms and physical adaptation to charging‑swapping and landing‑guidance interfaces of take‑off‑and‑landing nodes.

4.1 Classification of Emergency Aircraft and Mission Adaptation

Four categories are defined by mission positioning: reconnaissance‑perception, material‑delivery, operation‑response and personnel‑transport.

Reconnaissance‑Perception Category: Medium‑small multi‑rotor and long‑endurance compound‑wing UAVs, equipped with visible‑light, infrared thermal‑imaging and life‑detection payloads. Mainly applied for full‑coverage disaster scanning, missing‑person search and disaster‑site modeling, suited for mountain search‑and‑rescue and flood disaster investigation. Compound‑wing variants support large‑area long‑duration cruise reconnaissance. Such aircraft shall enable automatic take‑off‑and‑landing, docking with automatic‑charging take‑off‑and‑landing nodes and standardized status‑data upload to scheduling platforms.

Material‑Delivery Category: Medium‑large heavy‑lift UAVs for delivering first‑aid medicine, life‑saving gear, food and drinking water when roads are destroyed. Payload grades are selected according to regional requirements, with hundred‑kilogram‑level delivery achievable in certain scenarios. Compatibility with heavy‑duty landing structures and high‑power energy‑replenishment facilities at take‑off‑and‑landing nodes is required.

Operation‑Response Category: Fire‑fighting UAVs and communication‑relay UAVs. Fire‑fighting aircraft carry fire‑extinguishing payloads to suppress high‑rise and mountain fires; communication‑relay UAVs deploy temporary aerial base stations to restore on‑site communication when terrestrial public networks fail, overcoming disaster‑induced communication blackouts.

Personnel‑Transport Category: Rescue‑oriented eVTOLs and light rescue helicopters. Responsible for urgent evacuation of severely‑injured casualties and deployment of rescuers, applicable to major‑disaster, island and high‑mountain scenarios inaccessible to ground forces. Manned aircraft impose the strictest requirements on take‑off‑and‑landing‑node site dimensions, safety redundancy and operation‑maintenance standards.

Regional aircraft‑spectrum configuration shall be preceded by local‑risk assessment. Flood‑prone regions prioritize long‑endurance reconnaissance UAVs and heavy‑lift delivery models; mountain‑fire‑high‑risk areas strengthen fire‑fighting aircraft deployment; mountainous regions emphasize life‑detection payloads; urban settings focus on high‑rise‑building emergency‑response equipment. Disconnect between model allocation and local hazards shall be avoided.

4.2 Key Technical Requirements for Aircraft Adapted to Integrated Systems

First, data interoperability. Aircraft shall output standardized data including position, altitude, speed, remaining battery, payload status and equipment‑fault alarms, and accept scheduling‑platform instructions for missions, routes and return‑to‑base. Standard protocols shall be adopted as far as possible to reduce modification costs for scheduling‑platform access, avoiding proprietary closed protocols.

Second, adaptability to automatic operations at take‑off‑and‑landing nodes. Support for automatic precision landing compatible with BeiDou‑differential plus visual SLAM composite guidance signals from take‑off‑and‑landing nodes; compatibility with automatic charging‑swapping interaction for unattended energy replenishment after docking.

Third, reliability under harsh environments. Emergency scenarios frequently feature strong winds, rainfall and low temperatures. Aircraft shall enhance environmental adaptability with automatic fault‑return‑to‑base and forced‑landing protection logic; BeiDou short‑message backup communication shall be available to transmit critical status even when public networks fail.

Fourth, airworthiness and safety qualifications. Airworthiness‑certified models are preferred, equipped with Remote Identification (RID) modules to satisfy low‑altitude regulatory compliance.

4.3 Aircraft‑Fleet Allocation Strategy

Adopt the deployment philosophy of “on‑duty backbone units plus mobile reinforcement forces”. Regional‑type take‑off‑and‑landing nodes are equipped with on‑duty aircraft for routine local emergency response. Hub‑type nodes deploy heavy‑lift and manned high‑end equipment as backbone resources. Cross‑regional mobile‑reinforcement mechanisms are established. During major disasters, the scheduling platform coordinates aircraft resources from surrounding regions for joint reinforcement. Complement unmanned aerial vehicles with a small number of manned general‑aviation rescue aircraft to form a well‑balanced equipment matrix mixing light‑duty and heavy‑duty assets.

Chapter 5 Network Layout of Multi‑Level Take‑off‑and‑Landing Nodes: Physical Infrastructure of the Integrated System

Take‑off‑and‑landing nodes are more than simple landing lots. They represent low‑altitude emergency‑rescue infrastructure integrating berthing‑standby, energy resupply, communication‑navigation, meteorological monitoring and basic operation‑maintenance functions. Integrated construction advocates building a four‑tier network: hub‑type, regional‑type, end‑node‑type and mobile‑type. Hardware and interface standards of nodes shall be compatible with all local emergency aircraft. Operational data of every node shall be connected to scheduling platforms for real‑time perception of occupancy, energy and meteorological conditions.

5.1 Functional Positioning of Four‑Tier Take‑off‑and‑Landing Nodes

5.1.1 Hub‑Type Take‑off‑and‑Landing Nodes

Serving as regional low‑altitude emergency‑rescue headquarters for prefecture‑level cities or high‑disaster‑risk zones. Large‑footprint sites accommodating multiple large‑medium UAVs, rescue eVTOLs and light helicopters. Deploy high‑power fast‑charging and battery‑swap systems with reserved hydrogen‑energy refueling interfaces in selected cases; maintenance‑repair workshops and spare‑parts warehouses are provided. Equipped with 5G‑A private networks, satellite‑communication terminals, high‑precision meteorological stations and BeiDou differential reference stations. Capable of aircraft overhaul, fault handling and 24‑hour on‑duty deployment of large‑scale equipment as well as reinforcement dispatching amid major disasters. Full‑status data are transmitted to scheduling platforms for real‑time monitoring of berth occupancy, energy reserves, meteorology and equipment operation.

5.1.2 Regional‑Type Take‑off‑and‑Landing Nodes

Covering county‑level jurisdictions and key disaster‑risk zones. Acting as core county‑level emergency pivots with multiple berths, charging‑swapping facilities and basic communication‑meteorology equipment for regular standby of small‑to‑large‑size UAVs. Large‑scale maintenance workshops are absent, with only basic inspection carried out. Aircraft stand by for rapid response to county‑level emergencies and serve as transit‑resupply points for long‑range flight missions. Node status is fed back to scheduling platforms in real time.

5.1.3 End‑Node‑Type Take‑off‑and‑Landing Nodes

Deployed at townships, key communities, high‑rise rooftops, fire‑station roofs, reservoirs and mountain disaster‑monitoring points. Lightweight landing pads mainly for small‑medium reconnaissance UAVs, fitted with intelligent charging cabinets and basic communication modules. Designed for rapid response to minor local incidents to shorten arrival time via nearby aircraft launch. Large quantities of scattered end‑nodes are all connected to scheduling platforms to maintain real‑time awareness of site availability.

5.1.4 Mobile‑Type Take‑off‑and‑Landing Nodes

Vehicle‑borne mobile landing platforms integrating charging, communication and meteorological units. Normally stored in emergency‑material depots. When fixed take‑off‑and‑landing nodes are damaged or no suitable sites exist at disaster fronts, vehicles rush to incident locations to establish temporary forward operational pivots for aircraft berthing and resupply. Mobile nodes are also connected to scheduling platforms and incorporated into unified resource pools upon activation.

The four‑tier network operates synergistically: hub nodes deploy core assets during major disasters; regional nodes deliver county‑level response; end‑nodes enable minute‑level nearby deployment; mobile nodes compensate for capacity gaps caused by fixed‑facility damage.

5.2 Key Technical Standard Considerations for Take‑off‑and‑Landing‑Node Construction

Site Requirements: Landing zones are dimensioned according to aircraft sizes, with clearance control to mitigate interferences from high‑rises and high‑voltage lines; locations vulnerable to geological hazards are avoided. Within cities, rooftops of fire stations and emergency‑material depots are preferentially reused to conserve land resources.

Energy Resupply: Hub‑type nodes support high‑power fast‑charging and battery‑swap with forward‑looking hydrogen‑energy interfaces; regional‑type nodes deploy medium‑power charging‑swapping; end‑nodes adopt lightweight intelligent charging cabinets. Energy‑storage backup power supplies are mandatory to sustain basic charging and communication operations even when public power grids fail, preventing total station breakdown during disasters.

Communication & Navigation: Each take‑off‑and‑landing node deploys communication systems dominated by 5G‑A private networks backed up by satellite communications. BeiDou differential positioning equipment outputs landing‑guidance signals for precision automatic aircraft landing. Miniature meteorological stations collect wind‑speed and rainfall data uploaded to scheduling platforms, which judge landing‑operation feasibility based on meteorological readings.

Information‑Enablement constitutes the core of integration: Berth occupancy, charging‑device status, energy‑storage residual capacity, meteorological monitoring data and equipment‑fault alarms from take‑off‑and‑landing nodes must be pushed to scheduling platforms in real time. Meanwhile, nodes shall accept remote instructions such as charging activation and equipment remote inspection from platforms. Isolated standalone hardware for take‑off‑and‑landing nodes shall be precluded.

5.3 Layout Planning Philosophy for Take‑off‑and‑Landing‑Node Networks

Regional disaster‑risk mapping shall be performed. Node density is increased in zones prone to floods, mountain fires and geological disasters; end‑nodes are densely deployed in densely‑populated urban areas; regional nodes plus mobile units are prioritized for remote mountainous regions. Existing resources including helicopter pads and fire‑station rooftops are retrofitted into standardized emergency take‑off‑and‑landing nodes to reduce redundant new construction. Emphasis is placed on dual peacetime‑emergency utilization: sites support routine forest‑fire prevention and water‑conservancy inspection in peacetime and switch to emergency modes upon sudden incidents.

Chapter 6 Global Intelligent Scheduling Platform: Digital Nerve Center of the Integrated System

The scheduling platform serves as the interconnection hub linking aircraft and take‑off‑and‑landing nodes. The operability of integrated systems hinges on the platform’s capacity for unified access, perception and dispatching of both categories of hardware, closing full emergency business workflows. A cloud‑edge collaborative architecture is adopted: cloud layers undertake global master dispatching, while edge nodes are deployed at hub take‑off‑and‑landing nodes to support independent local emergency dispatching when public networks are disrupted, avoiding total paralysis triggered by cloud‑side failures.

6.1 Core Functional Modules of the Scheduling Platform

6.1.1 Heterogeneous‑Equipment Unified‑Access Module

Supports access to multi‑brand multi‑model emergency aircraft and all four tiers of take‑off‑and‑landing nodes. Performs equipment registration, identity authentication and status collection. Parses multi‑vendor protocols and converts aircraft position, battery, payload as well as take‑off‑and‑landing‑node berth, energy and meteorological data into standardized data models. Real‑time equipment‑fault alarms are generated for aircraft malfunctions and charging‑device anomalies at stations, with instant notifications dispatched to command personnel. The equipment‑access layer forms the foundational bedrock for integration. Heterogeneous aircraft and stations cannot be orchestrated without reliable unified access.

6.1.2 Airspace & Situation‑Awareness Module

Integrates geofence, no‑fly‑zone and restricted‑fly‑zone data for low‑altitude airspace; ingests real‑time meteorological data. Visualizes real‑time positions and flight trajectories of all aircraft; geospatial distribution and availability status of all take‑off‑and‑landing nodes are displayed; disaster‑site hazard information is superimposed. A single digital map delivers full visibility over global low‑altitude emergency resources.

6.1.3 AI‑Powered Intelligent‑Scheduling Engine Module

The core computing kernel of the platform handling intelligent emergency‑task processing. Upon receiving hazard missions, algorithms comprehensively assess incident location, task type, aircraft performance & remaining battery, aircraft‑hosting take‑off‑and‑landing nodes, transit‑node resources en route, meteorological conditions and airspace constraints. It automatically completes resource matching and outputs optimal aircraft selection, departure‑station, transit‑station and flight‑route schemes. Airspace‑conflict detection and resolution capabilities prevent mid‑air collisions during multi‑aircraft operations. Routes for nearby resupply are dynamically recalculated when aircraft battery levels reach thresholds. Multi‑aircraft collaborative task allocation is supported. Instructions generated by the engine are issued to aircraft and corresponding take‑off‑and‑landing nodes for intelligent workflow execution with minimized manual intervention.

6.1.4 Emergency‑Business Workflow Module

Interfaces with external emergency‑alarm systems for one‑click mission generation from hazard reports. Covers business workflows for reconnaissance, search‑and‑rescue, material delivery, fire‑fighting and communication relay. Supports aggregation and playback of on‑site video streams. Full‑process mission records are automatically archived upon completion to generate disposal reports for post‑incident review and analysis.

6.1.5 Cross‑Department Collaborative‑Sharing Module

Implements permission‑grading mechanisms granting differentiated access rights to emergency‑management, fire‑control, public‑security and medical departments. Multi‑agency collaborative response to major emergencies is supported, allowing authorized departments to view situations and submit task requests. Reserved API interfaces enable two‑way data interconnection with local government emergency‑command and meteorological platforms.

6.1.6 Security & Operation‑Maintenance Module

Includes account‑permission management and complete retention of operation logs; encrypted data transmission and storage; cyber‑attack defense mechanisms. Offline degradation capabilities ensure edge‑side local dispatching at hub take‑off‑and‑landing nodes can continue operating even when cloud‑side links are severed, guaranteeing basic emergency capabilities amid network damage.

6.2 Collaborative‑Operation Mechanism among Platform, Aircraft and Take‑off‑and‑Landing Nodes

The scheduling platform is not limited to data visualization but implements two‑way interactive control. It aggregates massive status data from aircraft and take‑off‑and‑landing nodes upward; it issues mission instructions to drive aircraft execution and readiness orders to activate charging and berth preparation at take‑off‑and‑landing nodes downward. Data among the three components update synchronously. For instance, once a berth at a take‑off‑and‑landing node is occupied, the platform immediately refreshes resource status so subsequent missions will not assign that berth. When aircraft battery falls below thresholds, the platform automatically searches for idle nearby take‑off‑and‑landing nodes and plans return‑for‑resupply routes.

6.3 Common Pitfalls to Avoid in Platform Construction

First, over‑emphasis on visual large‑screen dashboards while weakening underlying scheduling‑engine capabilities. Many projects deliver polished interfaces yet lack robust intelligent resource‑matching, conflict‑resolution and automatic route‑planning algorithms, supporting mere monitoring rather than autonomous practical dispatching.

Second, aircraft‑only interconnection without take‑off‑and‑landing‑node access. Platforms track aircraft status without awareness of station berth and energy conditions, making complete end‑to‑end mission‑link planning impossible.

Third, cloud‑only architecture without edge‑side degradation capabilities. Platforms become completely inoperable during large‑scale public‑network outages, failing to adapt to real‑world disaster scenarios.

Fourth, closed proprietary interfaces. Compatibility is restricted to aircraft and stations from a single manufacturer, precluding integration of legacy heterogeneous equipment and incurring high expansion costs in later phases.

Chapter 7 Implementation Pathways for Integrated Low‑Altitude Emergency Rescue System Construction

7.1 General Implementation Principles

Integrated holistic planning: Aircraft selection, take‑off‑and‑landing‑node layout and scheduling‑platform development shall be subject to unified top‑level scheme design with consistent interface standards, avoiding compatibility risks stemming from separate project initiation and fragmented construction.

Dual peacetime‑emergency utilization: Balance emergency‑incident response and routine risk‑inspection missions to improve asset utilization efficiency.

Phased progressive roll‑out: Prioritize core‑hub construction, scheduling‑platform foundational development and backbone‑aircraft deployment. Regional‑level and end‑node facilities are expanded iteratively.

Safety‑first risk‑controlled approach: Strictly abide by airspace‑administration regulations, strengthen equipment and cybersecurity, and perfect emergency‑operation management systems.

Legacy‑resource reuse priority: Retrofit existing rooftops, helicopter pads and information‑based systems to avoid blind large‑scale new construction.

7.2 Phased Implementation Procedures

Phase One: Preliminary Research and Integrated‑Scheme Compilation. Sort out local disaster‑risk types and distribution; inventory existing aircraft, landing sites and information‑system assets; compile special integrated construction schemes for the three‑in‑one framework. Clarify aircraft‑spectrum inventories, four‑tier take‑off‑and‑landing‑node layout plans and scheduling‑platform functional requirement documents. Unify full‑set equipment‑data interface standards as general procurement and construction guidelines. This phase focuses on holistic framing covering aircraft, stations and platforms instead of drafting three independent documents.

Phase Two: Core‑Foundation Construction. Develop and deploy scheduling‑platform foundations and edge nodes; construct or renovate key hub‑type take‑off‑and‑landing nodes; deploy core backbone aircraft; complete joint‑commissioning tests for aircraft‑take‑off‑and‑landing‑node‑scheduling‑platform tripartite integration to validate basic closed‑loop workflows and realize small‑scope pilot operation. Verify end‑to‑end link performance from alarm reception through aircraft deployment, station resupply to mission‑data feedback under simulated hazard conditions.

Phase Three: Network Expansion. Deploy regional‑type take‑off‑and‑landing nodes and expand aircraft fleets; mass‑deploy end‑node‑type take‑off‑and‑landing nodes and configure mobile‑type units; iteratively optimize scheduling‑platform algorithms and connect additional external government business systems. Conduct multi‑scenario practical drills validating multi‑aircraft collaboration, cross‑node transit and offline‑degradation operational capabilities.

Phase Four: Full‑Domain Operation‑Maintenance‑System Refinement. Establish regular operation‑maintenance mechanisms and 24‑hour on‑duty regimes; perfect cross‑department collaborative‑operation regulations; organize personnel training; sustain emergency drills until the system achieves full‑time practical standby status.

7.3 Supporting Recommendations for Standard‑System Development

Promote formulation of unified local technical specifications covering data‑output interface standards for emergency aircraft, information‑interface and energy‑interface standards for take‑off‑and‑landing nodes, and equipment‑access‑protocol standards for scheduling platforms. Mandate compliance with unified interface specifications for newly‑procured equipment and reject fully‑closed proprietary‑protocol hardware. Conduct prototype interoperability verification tests during early‑stage procurement. Draw upon national and industrial association standards to refine low‑altitude emergency‑operation workflow specifications and clarify airspace‑application and emergency‑exemption procedures amid sudden incidents.

7.4 Operation‑Maintenance Guarantee‑System Construction

Hardware completion constitutes merely the starting point. Without sound operation‑maintenance mechanisms, systems will gradually lose practical effectiveness. Implement tiered operation‑maintenance regimes: assign dedicated staff to hub‑type nodes; enforce periodic inspection systems for regional‑type and end‑node‑type sites. Secure stable fiscal budgets covering station maintenance, aircraft servicing and platform iterative upgrades. Build interdisciplinary teams proficient in both emergency‑response workflows and low‑altitude aircraft & dispatching‑system technologies. Organize regular practical emergency drills simulating extreme scenarios such as road damage and public‑network outages to test tripartite collaborative combat capabilities and identify systemic deficiencies for continuous optimization. Establish cross‑department collaborative mechanisms clarifying responsibilities among emergency‑management, public‑security and fire‑control authorities and defining resource‑activation workflows during hazard events.

Chapter 8 Major System‑Construction Risks and Countermeasures

8.1 Airspace‑Operation Risks

Risk: Conventional airspace‑approval procedures cannot satisfy rapid‑response timeliness for emergency disaster flights; mid‑air collision risks emerge during large‑scale multi‑aircraft concurrent operations.
Countermeasures: Establish rapid‑response mechanisms for low‑altitude emergency airspace amid sudden incidents and clarify collaborative workflows under emergency conditions. Leverage built‑in scheduling‑platform airspace‑conflict‑resolution algorithms; strengthen aircraft Remote Identification capabilities; adopt differentiated operational rules for peacetime and emergency‑response scenarios.

8.2 Technical‑Compatibility Risks

Risk: Inconsistent protocols across aircraft and take‑off‑and‑landing‑node vendors obstruct data‑closed‑loop realization and undermine integrated‑system objectives.
Countermeasures: Lock unified interface standards during construction phases. Treat standardized‑interface and platform‑access capabilities as mandatory technical indicators in bidding and procurement documents; reject hardware with fully‑closed proprietary protocols. Conduct prototype interoperability verification tests in advance.

8.3 Extreme‑Environment Reliability Risks

Risk: Disasters are frequently accompanied by power and public‑network outages. Failure of any single component among aircraft, take‑off‑and‑landing nodes and scheduling platforms can break rescue chains.
Countermeasures: Equip take‑off‑and‑landing nodes with energy‑storage backup power supplies; adopt dual‑backup communication combining 5G‑A and satellite systems. Deploy cloud‑edge scheduling‑platform architectures enabling independent edge‑side operation during network interruptions; equip aircraft with BeiDou short‑message backup‑communication channels.

8.4 Input‑Output and Sustainable‑Operation Risks

Risk: Full‑scale integrated‑system construction entails substantial investment. Limited pure‑emergency‑usage frequency may lead to “heavy‑construction light‑operation” predicaments.
Countermeasures: Implement dual peacetime‑emergency utilization concepts. Undertake routine missions such as forest‑fire‑prevention and water‑conservancy inspection during non‑emergency periods to enhance comprehensive asset value. Rationally scale construction scope, avoid over‑advanced over‑specification and enforce phased‑roll‑out implementation.

8.5 Safety‑Incident Risks

Risk: Aircraft crashes may inflict secondary harm to ground personnel and buildings.
Countermeasures: Strictly enforce airworthiness qualification requirements for equipment; embed fault‑safety protection logic; implement site‑safety protection for take‑off‑and‑landing nodes; perfect operational‑management regulations; procure relevant safety insurance and establish accident‑response contingency plans.

Chapter 9 Conclusions and Outlook

Low‑altitude emergency‑rescue‑system construction shall not be reduced to simple UAV procurement, landing‑pad erection or software development. Only by treating emergency aircraft, multi‑tier take‑off‑and‑landing‑node networks and global intelligent scheduling platforms as indivisible entities subject to integrated planning, design, construction, joint‑commissioning and operation‑maintenance, and closing two‑way data‑flow loops, can genuine practical value of low‑altitude rescue be unlocked. This addresses long‑standing pain points where ground‑based forces cannot rapidly reach disaster sites, and fills low‑altitude capacity gaps in China’s modern emergency‑response system.

China’s low‑altitude emergency sector stands at a pivotal transition stage from demonstration pilots to large‑scale practical deployment. Aircraft spectrums keep iterating with rescue‑oriented eVTOLs approaching maturity; standards for take‑off‑and‑landing‑node infrastructure are continuously improved; AI‑driven scheduling algorithms and space‑ground integrated‑communication technologies advance steadily. Driven by further policy‑standard refinement, the aircraft‑take‑off‑and‑landing‑node‑scheduling‑platform integrated model will be rolled out across provincial, municipal and county levels. In practical delivery, trade‑offs shall be balanced among technical advancement, fiscal realities and safety‑risk constraints. Phased implementation and practical‑effect orientation shall be upheld to avoid performative demonstration projects. With complete chains of hardware infrastructure, digital platforms, institutional norms and talent development continuously enhanced, integrated low‑altitude emergency‑rescue systems will evolve into vital new‑type public‑safety infrastructure, playing increasingly important roles in natural‑disaster management and urban‑security guarantee.

Data‑Source Statement

1. Primary research materials: Field‑investigation records compiled by the Buckhouse Low‑Altitude Economy Research Institute covering multiple Chinese low‑altitude pilot cities from 2025 to 2026; simulation‑deduction data for low‑altitude emergency equipment, stations and platforms.

2. Official domestic public documents: 15th Five‑Year Plan for Modern Emergency System Development issued by the State Council; 15th Five‑Year Plan for the Development of Safety and Emergency Equipment Industry jointly released by MIIT and Ministry of Emergency Management; Civil Aviation Administration of China statistical bulletins; Interim Regulations on Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Flight Administration and supporting national standards; public industry data from the Ministry of Emergency Management; low‑altitude‑economy policy documents from provincial‑municipal authorities.

3. Third‑party industrial research outputs: Public low‑altitude‑economy and emergency‑equipment research reports from Analysys, LeadLeo and 3PiJu; domestic low‑altitude‑industry white papers and association‑standard texts.

4. Public case materials: Open pilot‑project documentation for Hefei low‑altitude fire‑rescue and Zhejiang UAV‑delivered medical‑material initiatives; publicly‑available academic journal literature.

5. Industrial‑public data: Public product specifications and industry‑statistical data from domestic low‑altitude‑equipment manufacturers.

Disclaimer

This Research Report on the Construction of Low‑Altitude Emergency Rescue System: Integrated Development of Aircraft, Take‑off‑and‑Landing Nodes and Scheduling Platform is compiled and published by Buckhouse Intelligent Technology (Suzhou) Co., Ltd., in conjunction with the Buckhouse Low‑Altitude Economy Research Institute and partner platforms. Analysis and judgments within this report are derived from public information, field investigations and open‑source industry materials for industry‑research reference only, and shall not serve as direct grounds for government investment decisions, project development or commercial investment.

Partial industry statistics are sourced from third‑party public channels. Data deviations may exist due to sample‑caliber and statistical‑timeline discrepancies. The compiling entity does not guarantee absolute accuracy of original third‑party data. Construction concepts and implementation pathways proposed herein represent general theoretical recommendations. Actual local projects shall undergo special argumentation based on regional disaster risks, fiscal conditions, airspace situations and industrial foundations, complying with prevailing national laws‑regulations as well as civil‑aviation and emergency‑management codes.