Regulatory and policy analysis. This is general information, not legal advice. Written with AI tools; the views are my own.

The Advanced Air Mobility National Strategy tells operators to use existing airports and heliports for early operations, and it says new vertiport infrastructure “will be funded mostly by private sources.” That is cost deference. New plant, maintenance, and risk land on airports and cities — including the underutilized general aviation fields that Innovate28 already points operators toward.

I am not arguing against private capital. What I am arguing is that our national planning metric still asks the wrong question for a transit-node pad. Order 5090.5 screens GA airports and heliports largely on based aircraft. A busy destination pad can fail that test with near-zero based fleet. The National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS) should have a parallel path for public-use vertiports that measures activity at the pad and, for categorization, destinations served from it — without touching the based-aircraft screens conventional GA still needs.

[a3i proposal] vs [current law] / [current order] labels below mark proposals from analysis. Open questions stay open. This is not legal advice.

A note on my earlier position. In BEYOND has no federal money attached. So who pays for vertiports?, I wrote that the money for vertiports is private, state and local, not federal. In light of new information in a continually changing environment, including the AAM National Strategy's Recommendation 2.4 on design standards without investment and FAA's own benefit-cost guidance that values destination-side savings, I now argue the federal door should also be opened for public-use vertiports that act as destinations, through a parallel NPIAS path. What hasn't changed: the Strategy still says new vertiport infrastructure will be funded mostly by private sources, and an Order rewrite alone does not unlock AIP money.

The metric problem — and a parallel fix

[Current order.] FAA Order 5090.5 Table 3-3 is the initial screen. Existing public-use GA airports are screened on 10 or more validated based aircraft (plus distance, state-system-plan, and related factors). Existing public-owned, public-use heliports may be considered if they make a significant contribution to public transportation and, at the time of the request, have an eligible sponsor, are used by 4 or more operational and airworthy rotorcraft based at the heliport for at least 2 years with 400 annual IFR flights, and are part of the state airport system plan. Proposed new public airports need a forecast, a Benefit-Cost Analysis rating of 1.0 or more, and a detailed financial plan.

That structure fits home-base airports. It fits poorly for AAM. Fleets will typically base at a few hubs, OEM, or MRO sites and turn through many pads as destinations. A downtown, hospital, campus, or GA landside pad can be busy and still fail Table 3-3 today. A new city-owned vertiport could not enter the NPIAS today unless the rule is changed.

The method analogy is not a vertiport claim. Earl Malpass’s destination-spoke map for Merrill Field (MRI) in Anchorage shows how a public airport makes its case to non-aviation audiences: who is served, how often, and what community access the field carries. Merrill Field is not a vertiport. The reusable method is destination activity plus frequency as a “who benefits” exhibit.

[a3i proposal.] Add a parallel Table 3-3 entry for an existing public-owned, public-use vertiport based on activity at the pad — itinerant operations and/or passenger boardings (Metric A). For categorization into ASSET-style roles (Table 3-2), add unique destinations served from the pad as a supplement (Metric B), with an anti-gaming definition of “destination” (unique public-use landing facility preferred; exclude repositioning, training, and touch-and-goes). Metric A is the entry key. Metric B is for role, not the sole gate.

Any numeric thresholds floated for Metric A or B are illustrative a3i proposals only. They are not FAA criteria. Destinations-flown is not today’s NPIAS metric.

Firewall language, as an [a3i proposal, not FAA text]:

Nothing in this vertiport / AAM activity screen amends, replaces, or lowers the existing general aviation entry screen requiring 10 or more validated based aircraft, or the existing heliport screen requiring 4 or more operational and airworthy rotorcraft based at the heliport for at least 2 years and 400 annual IFR flights. Those screens remain available. A facility that qualifies under an existing based-aircraft or heliport screen continues under that screen. The activity-at-site screen is a parallel path for public-use vertiports that function primarily as destinations.

Who acts: FAA APP, by Order revision. That rewrite does not, by itself, create AIP eligibility.

An Order change is not enough

[Current law.] 49 U.S.C. 47105(b)(2) says a project grant application may propose a project only for a public-use airport included in the current NPIAS. 49 U.S.C. 47102 defines “airport” to include a heliport. It does not say “vertiport.” The statutory vertiport definition sits in Pub. L. 118-63 §951 (49 U.S.C. 40101 note). Sections 958 and 960 cover design guidance and an AAM infrastructure pilot that sunsets September 30, 2027 — design and planning tools, not a NPIAS or chapter 471 funding gate. Planning grants under §960 are not an AIP construction substitute.

[a3i proposal.] Congress should add “vertiport” to 47102, cross-referencing §951. How far FAA can go under 47103 alone, without amending 47102 or 47105, is an open question for the Office of Chief Counsel. A real funding path still requires clarifying AIP eligibility rules and grant obligations — not only swapping metrics inside Order 5090.5. Do not read an Order rewrite as unlocking AIP money.

Sponsorship: on-airport, remote, and city-built

On-airport pads at existing NPIAS airports are the cleanest path today. [Current order.] The AIP Handbook (Order 5100.38D Change 1) already carries heliport/helipad work codes, with ADO coordination with AAS-100 — ordinary on-airport development subject to justification, ALP depiction, design standards, and eligibility review. Electric-aircraft charging assessments and related power development run through 49 U.S.C. 47140 as amended and FAA R-PGL 25-06 (May 12, 2025). That charging path is distinct from the destinations-flown NPIAS-entry proposal, which matters most for new or off-airport pads that cannot use a parent airport’s existing NPIAS slot.

Remote pads are harder. [Current order.] Handbook ¶3-16 limits off-airport projects to Table 3-10 (a–l): obstruction work, drainage, road/utility relocation, NAVAIDs, utilities, wastewater, noise items, environmental mitigation, and regional ARFF training. It lists no passenger landing facility. Under today’s Handbook, an off-airport pad is not AIP-eligible as parent-airport “off-airport development.”

Airport revenue is separate from AIP. [Current law.] 49 U.S.C. 47107(b)(1) and 47133 require airport revenues to be spent on (A) the airport, (B) the local airport system, or (C) other local facilities owned or operated by the airport owner or operator and directly and substantially related to the air transportation of passengers or property. Prong (C) may fit a sponsor-owned or sponsor-operated passenger-related facility. FAA has not ruled that a remote pad automatically qualifies. Lawful revenue use ≠ AIP eligibility.

[a3i proposal / open question.] Ask FAA whether a sponsor-owned remote pad is (1) part of the parent NPIAS airport, (2) a separate NPIAS entry under a parallel activity screen, or (3) only a 47107(b) facility. Do not publish parent-airport status as settled.

Participate without ownership. Below-market airport-revenue support for a facility the sponsor does not own or operate is a diversion risk under 47107(b)(1)(A)–(C) and 47133; prong (C) requires owned or operated by the airport. [a3i proposal.] Prefer fair-market lease; sponsor operation under (C); or non-airport funding.

City-built pads. Path A: become a real public-use sponsor (NPIAS → AIP → 47107(a) assurances). Path B: Part 157 notice only. [Current law.] Part 157 includes “vertiport”; FAA’s determination is advisory. Part 157 is notice and airspace effects, not design approval and not an AIP door.

Guidance without investment

[Verified National Strategy.] Recommendation 2.4 of the AAM National Strategy (Dec. 17, 2025): unless a landing facility receives federal money or is co-located with a federally funded airport, owners and developers are not required by federal regulations to build to FAA design standards. Many SLTT governments still use the nonbinding standards. Part 157 still applies for notice.

[Current law.] 49 U.S.C. 40103(b)(1) and 14 CFR Part 77.9, with Part 157, are notice and airspace review — not a design mandate.

NPIAS entry plus AIP is how Assurances 29 (ALP) and 34 (current ACs for AIP projects) attach. Keep Assurance 34 neutral: a final vertiport AC would apply to AIP-funded projects; it does not create eligibility. Assurances attach from federal assistance, not from NPIAS listing alone.

A single-operator pad on a federally obligated airport raises open-access and exclusive-rights questions. Assurances 22 (Economic Nondiscrimination), 23 (Exclusive Rights), and 24 (Fee and Rental Structure) are the titles that matter. Full-text application to vertiports is unverified here; I flag the issue by title only.

[a3i analysis.] Rec 2.4 names the investment gap. Parallel NPIAS entry plus statutory and Handbook clarity turns guidance into funded, audited public-use infrastructure.

BCA as substance — not the general entry screen

When FAA values a capacity investment in dollars, it values destination-side savings. That point comes from the 2026 FAA Airport Benefit-Cost Analysis Guidance, not from inventing a new entry test.

[Current guidance.] The Guidance is scaffolding for AIP-funded capacity projects seeking discretionary funding. Capacity projects meeting a threshold of $10 million or more in AIP discretionary grants over the life of the project, and capacity projects requesting Letters of Intent, usually must show discounted benefits exceed discounted costs. The trigger is discretionary AIP, not entitlement. The preferred decision rule is net present value greater than zero. Benefit-cost ratio is an alternative that “cannot properly compare” projects of different scale. Prefer NPV language over publishing a BCR.

Table 10-1’s first airside capacity benefit is “Reduced access time for passengers now closer to an airport with more capabilities.” Other listed benefits include throughput, delay reduction, schedule predictability, and reduced aircraft operating costs. Hangared fleet is not a Table 10-1 benefit unit. Order 5090.5’s capacity definition still includes passengers, cargo, operations, or based aircraft — I am not claiming based aircraft was dropped. When FAA values capacity investments, the dollar benefits are destination-side.

Order 5090.5 already asks a proposed new public airport for a Benefit-Cost Analysis rating of 1.0 or more and a detailed financial plan for construction and ongoing maintenance. That is a new-airport screen — not a test for every pad at an existing NPIAS field.

Hypothetical illustration — method only, not a scored project

Label: the following is a hypothetical illustration of FAA’s BCA method (destination-side valuation). It is not a case study of a named airport, not a completed BCA, and not an FAA finding. I am not publishing a made-up BCR or NPV as if FAA had scored a project.

In the Guidance’s framework, a sponsor evaluating a public-use pad would:

  1. Define a Base Case (what the sponsor would do without the pad — not “do nothing”).
  2. Count benefits Table 10-1 recognizes: reduced passenger (or patient/cargo-handler) access time; increased throughput; delay or diversion savings where the Base Case supports them; aircraft operating-cost savings where the pad enables more efficient use of equipment.
  3. Count life-cycle costs: planning and design; investment (pad surface, power, sponsor-owned charging if any, lighting, ALP/environmental); and operations and maintenance as a required recurring cost.
  4. Discount at the real 7 percent rate prescribed via OMB Circular A-94, over an analysis period the Guidance generally frames as about 20 years beyond construction for major infrastructure.
  5. Prefer NPV > 0 as the decision rule.

If a sponsor uses official value-of-time figures, cite them from Guidance Appendix F (2023 U.S. dollars per person-hour) — intercity air personal travel at $46.16, business at $80.80, all-purpose at $60.22 — and keep every application hypothetical until a sponsor-owned analysis, coordinated with FAA-APO for any novel method, produces real numbers.

[a3i proposal.] Set a sponsor-owned vertiport up as its own cost center so capital, O&M, and user charges are visible and auditable. Treat life-cycle O&M as a required cost. A public-private partnership can supply capital and specialized operations. PPP is not the maintenance plan, and private construction capital does not erase public-use duties after AIP acceptance.

GA hosts and two-track funding

Innovate28 says operators and manufacturers desire existing infrastructure, including commercial-service airports, underutilized GA airports, and heliports. That invitation is real. The balance-sheet problem is also real.

[Current law / a3i analysis.] Typical GA fields generally cannot levy passenger facility charges under 49 U.S.C. 40117, which is limited to eligible agencies that control commercial-service airports. They also lack an airline use-and-lease rate base. New pads, charging, and related fire-capability work therefore compete directly with pavement and safety projects for scarce AIP and local-match dollars.

National Strategy Recommendation 7.6 calls for leveraging public-private partnerships and existing infrastructure to facilitate investment “while minimizing costs.” That is a fair diagnosis of cost deference. It is not a long-term M&O answer. Private partners exit; grant assurances and revenue-use obligations stay with the sponsor.

[a3i proposal.] Make on-airport AAM pads, charging, and related safety work a named eligible CIP line at existing NPIAS airports so AAM hosting does not silently displace core pavement and safety projects. Use private partners for capital and specialized operations, not as a substitute for durable public M&O. Pair Strategy Recommendation 2.2 — engage on future financing models while funding existing programs for early operations — with Recommendation 7.3: “Congress should examine existing aviation funding methods and, if necessary, update them.” Use existing programs now. Ask Congress to look at whether those methods leave thin-revenue GA hosts carrying private capital risk and perpetual M&O alone.

A parallel path for a mixed industry

I frame this as a parallel path with a firewall, not a replacement of the based-aircraft test for conventional GA airports. That framing fits an industry that includes traditional OEMs and AAM associates. I am not claiming any trade association has a public position on destinations-flown as a NPIAS metric. I am not proposing to weaken the GA 10-based-aircraft screen. The point is to stop under-ranking public-use pads that function as destinations.

Bottom line

  1. [a3i proposal.] Add a parallel Order 5090.5 Table 3-3 screen based on activity at the pad (Metric A), with destinations served from the pad (Metric B) for categorization only, and an express firewall around today’s GA and heliport based-aircraft tests.
  2. [Current law.] An Order rewrite does not unlock AIP. 47105(b)(2) still requires a public-use airport in the NPIAS; 47102 still lacks “vertiport.”
  3. [a3i proposal.] Congress add “vertiport” to 47102. Leave the reach of 47103 alone to OGC.
  4. [a3i proposal / open question.] On-airport pads at existing NPIAS fields are the cleanest near-term path. For sponsor-owned remote pads, ask FAA whether the pad is parent-airport, separate NPIAS entry, or only a 47107(b) facility, and treat parent status as unsettled until FAA says otherwise. Prefer fair-market participation without ownership. Cities choose real sponsorship or Part 157 notice-only.
  5. [Current law + Strategy Rec 2.4.] Design standards are voluntary unless federal money or co-location attaches. NPIAS + AIP is how Assurances 29 and 34 become investment-backed.
  6. [Current guidance.] FAA’s own BCA method already values destination-side savings. Use that as scaffolding for discretionary capacity decisions — labeled hypothetical when illustrating, never as a fake scored BCR.
  7. [a3i proposal.] Name AAM as an eligible CIP line for GA hosts; private capital for build and specialized ops; Rec 2.2 now and Rec 7.3 next.

Destinations flown are not today’s NPIAS metric. They should be available as a parallel path for public-use vertiports that function as destinations — without rewriting the based-aircraft tests that conventional GA still relies on.

Sources

Richard S. Walsh is Founder of a3i global aeronautics advisors, LLC, and a former NASA contractor with more than 30 years in aviation. He previously served as Airport Director (CEO) of Palm Springs International Airport (PSP) and held leadership positions with SFO, ACAA, and NYSDOT.

This article is regulatory and policy analysis for discussion. It is not legal advice, not a grant application, and not an FAA filing. Written with AI tools; the views are my own.

Companion Insights piece (same day): Who Owns the Remote Pad?, on-airport, airport-sponsored and city-built pads.