Regulatory and policy analysis. This is general information, not legal advice. Written with AI tools; the views are my own.
Cities and airports are racing to pick downtown, hospital, and campus sites for early eVTOL service. The design sketches look finished. The ownership sketch often is not. Who owns the remote pad decides who can spend airport money on it, who can seek Airport Improvement Program (AIP) grants, and who carries the assurance package if federal dollars ever attach.
This piece is the ownership companion to my Insights article Destinations, Not Hangars on a parallel NPIAS path for public-use vertiports. Here the question is narrower: sponsor, city, or private operator - and what each path actually buys.
Three ownership models, three different doors
1. On-airport pad at an existing NPIAS airport.
This is still the cleanest near-term path. FAA's AIP Handbook (Order 5100.38D Change 1) already carries heliport/helipad work codes for on-airport development, with ADO coordination with AAS-100. Electric-aircraft charging assessments and related power work run through 49 U.S.C. 47140 as amended and FAA R-PGL 25-06 (May 12, 2025). You still need justification, ALP depiction, and design-standard fit. You do not need a new NPIAS entry for the parent airport.
2. Airport-sponsored remote (off-airport) pad.
Harder. 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, a downtown pad is not AIP-eligible as parent-airport "off-airport development."
Airport revenue is a separate question from AIP. 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) can fit a sponsor-owned or sponsor-operated passenger-related facility. FAA has not ruled that a remote pad automatically qualifies. Lawful revenue use is not AIP eligibility.
Open question for FAA: is a sponsor-owned remote pad (1) part of the parent NPIAS airport, (2) a separate NPIAS entry under an activity-based screen, or (3) only a 47107(b) facility for revenue-use purposes? Prefer fair-market lease; sponsor operation under (C); or non-airport funding. A below-market contribution to a facility the sponsor does not own or operate is a diversion risk.
3. City-built pad (not the airport sponsor).
Two real paths, not one blurred one.
- Path A - real public-use sponsor. Seek NPIAS entry, then AIP, then 47107(a) assurances when a project grant is accepted. Assurances attach from federal assistance, not from NPIAS listing alone. Today's Order 5090.5 Table 3-3 heliport screen leans on based rotorcraft. A new city-owned vertiport generally fails that screen without a criteria change (the parallel activity path I argue in the Insights piece).
- Path B - Part 157 notice only. 14 CFR Part 157 already includes "vertiport." FAA's determination is advisory. You get notice and airspace effects, not design approval and not an AIP door. National Strategy Recommendation 2.4 is blunt: unless the facility receives federal money or is co-located with a federally funded airport, owners are not required by federal regulation to build to FAA design standards. Many states and cities still use the nonbinding standards. Part 157 still applies for notice.
What bankable airport participation looks like
If airport revenue will touch a remote pad, make the structure bankable before the groundbreaking photo:
| Condition | Why it matters |
|---|---|
| Own or actually operate the pad | Matches "owned or operated" in 47107(b) / 47133 |
| ALP / NPIAS clarity | Parent ALP for sponsor-controlled offsite areas where Assurance 29 applies, or a separate NPIAS entry if the pad is its own airport |
| Cost recovery from vertiport users | Landing, parking, charging, and lease fees in a separate cost center |
| Segregated accounts | Shows the spend is for the owned/operated facility, not general municipal purposes |
| Step-in / M&O reserve | Keeps safety-critical ops with the sponsor if a private operator exits |
Private capital can fund the build and specialized operations. It is not the maintenance plan. Grant assurances and revenue-use duties stay with the public party that accepted them.
A city concession is not an AIP template
Downtown Manhattan Heliport / Downtown Skyport is a useful city model: city land and concession, private operator capital for eVTOL charging and related upgrades, and a MARAD freight grant cited for the maritime piece. The NYCEDC releases (second release) I reviewed do not cite FAA AIP. That is a workable local structure. It is not proof that airport revenue can fund a non-owned pad, and it is not a substitute for NPIAS/AIP when a city wants federal airport grants and the assurance package that comes with them.
Bottom line for airport sponsors
- On-airport at an existing NPIAS field is still the cleanest AIP path.
- Remote pads need an ownership answer before a funding answer. Revenue use and AIP eligibility are different doors.
- Cities choose real sponsorship (NPIAS → AIP → assurances) or Part 157 notice-only. Do not blur them.
- If airport money is in the deal, own or operate, recover costs from users, and keep M&O with the sponsor.
Design guidance without investment still leaves FAA owning the airspace effects of pads it did not fund. Ownership is how that gap becomes someone's budget line.
Sources
- FAA AIP Handbook, Order 5100.38D Change 1, ch. 3 (¶3-16, Table 3-10): https://www.faa.gov/airports/aip/aip_handbook/chapter3
- FAA R-PGL 25-06 (May 12, 2025): https://www.faa.gov/airports/aip/guidance_letters/R-PGL-25-06-Planning-Project-Eligibility
- 49 U.S.C. 47107, 47133, 47140: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/47107
- FAA Order 5090.5, NPIAS and ACIP (Table 3-3): https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/Order-5090-5-NPIAS-ACIP.pdf
- 14 CFR Part 157: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-I/part-157
- Advanced Air Mobility National Strategy (Dec. 17, 2025), Rec. 2.4: https://www.transportation.gov/briefing-room/advanced-air-mobility-national-strategy-2025
- FAA grant assurances: https://www.faa.gov/airports/aip/grant_assurances
- NYCEDC, Downtown Skyport operator announcement: https://edc.nyc/press-release/nycedc-announces-new-operator-downtown-manhattan-heliport
- NYCEDC, Downtown Skyport unveiled: https://edc.nyc/press-release/nycedc-unveils-downtown-skyport-new-operator-takes-over-city-owned-heliport
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: Destinations, Not Hangars, the parallel NPIAS path for public-use vertiports.