A political savant and leader in policy and legislation, Donald Gainsborough is at the helm of Government Curated, where he navigates the complex intersection of emerging technology and public administration. With advanced air mobility poised to transform our skies, Gainsborough offers a sharp analysis of the looming challenges. Today’s discussion will delve into the critical need for a new kind of federal-state partnership to manage this technology, exploring how to build the necessary infrastructure, earn public trust in an era of misinformation, and clear the regulatory hurdles for ambitious projects like those planned for the 2028 Olympics.
Gregory Pecoraro’s testimony proposed a formal FAA-state working group. To ensure national policies align with “local realities,” what would this group’s first three priorities be, and what specific steps can it take to avoid getting bogged down in bureaucracy as this industry rapidly evolves?
That’s the central question, isn’t it? The biggest fear is creating a committee that just spins its wheels while the technology leaves it behind. The first priority must be to establish a common language for infrastructure. Right now, what one state considers a viable landing area might not match another’s, let alone the FAA’s. The group needs to collaboratively define clear, harmonized standards for everything from charging stations to takeoff zones. Second, they must delineate roles for planning and implementation. The FAA rightfully owns the airspace, but states are on the ground; they know their communities and infrastructure limits. This group needs to map out who is responsible for what, specifically. Third, they need to create a shared public outreach playbook. We saw with the drone sightings in New Jersey how a low-information environment breeds public anxiety and misunderstanding. To avoid getting bogged down, this can’t be a traditional, slow-moving federal committee. It should operate in agile sprints, tackling one issue at a time—say, infrastructure standards in Q1—and leveraging the existing AAM Multistate Collaborative, which already has nearly 40 states participating, as its action arm rather than starting from scratch.
The article notes states’ “crucial role” in defining infrastructure service levels. What specific metrics should determine if an area is ready for AAM operations, and what is a practical, step-by-step process for integrating new landing and charging infrastructure into existing general aviation airports?
Readiness can’t be a gut feeling; it has to be data-driven. The first metric is energy infrastructure resilience—can the local grid support a network of high-draw charging stations without causing brownouts? We need to quantify that. The second metric is ground-level integration—what is the accessibility of proposed landing sites via public transit and roads? If you can fly across a city in ten minutes but it takes you thirty to get to the vertiport, the system fails. A third critical metric is emergency service capability—are local first responders trained and equipped to handle an incident involving this new type of aircraft? As for integrating at general aviation airports, which are indeed well-positioned for this, the process should be phased. First, a feasibility study to assess physical space, power access, and potential airspace conflicts with traditional aircraft. Second, a pilot program at a handful of airports, starting with non-passenger operations like cargo to work out the kinks in ground handling and charging logistics. Finally, a phased rollout for passenger services, scaling up as the airport staff and local community grow comfortable with the new rhythm and soundscape of these operations.
Citing the New Jersey drone sightings, the article highlights how a “low information environment” can cause public anxiety. Beyond a standard awareness campaign, what tangible, hands-on strategies can cities and AAM companies use to build public trust and effectively demystify this new technology for residents?
Public trust isn’t built with press releases or slick websites; it’s built through tangible, local experiences. The New Jersey incident is a perfect example of what happens when people see something new in the sky and their imagination fills in the blanks with fear. So, the first strategy is to make the technology physically present and non-threatening. Companies should host “static display” days at local airports or even city parks, where residents can walk right up to an eVTOL, sit inside, and talk to the engineers. It’s about turning a mysterious object into a piece of familiar machinery. Second, they need to address the sensory impact head-on. Instead of just saying the aircraft are quiet, hold demonstration flights where people can actually hear—or not hear—them fly overhead from a designated, safe viewing area. This direct sensory experience is far more powerful than any decibel chart. Finally, cities could partner with local universities or museums to create interactive exhibits that explain how the technology works, its safety features, and how it fits into the broader vision of urban transportation. It’s about proactively filling that information vacuum with facts and familiarity before fear and misinformation can take root.
With Archer targeting the 2028 Olympics and Joby aiming for Uber integration next year, timelines are aggressive. Besides FAA airspace approval, what are the most critical logistical and permitting hurdles these companies must clear with state and local governments to successfully launch on schedule?
The FAA piece is huge, but it’s just the tip of the iceberg. The real gauntlet is at the local level. The single biggest hurdle will be land-use and zoning permits for the network of takeoff and landing sites. A city like Los Angeles isn’t a single entity; it’s a patchwork of jurisdictions, and Archer will need to navigate each one to get approval for its vertiports. This process involves environmental impact reports, public comment periods, and satisfying a host of local building and safety codes that were never written with aircraft in mind. Another major hurdle is establishing ground support infrastructure. This isn’t just about pouring a concrete pad; it’s about securing high-capacity power lines for charging, building passenger waiting areas, and ensuring road access doesn’t create new traffic bottlenecks. Every single location will be its own battle. These companies have to become experts in local politics and community relations, proving to each city council and neighborhood board that their service will be a benefit, not a noisy nuisance. Without that local buy-in, the federal approval means very little.
What is your forecast for Advanced Air Mobility over the next five years, specifically regarding how the balance of power and responsibility between the FAA and state-level agencies will settle?
Over the next five years, we’re going to see a necessary and profound shift from a top-down federal model to a truly collaborative federal-state partnership. The FAA will, and should, retain its ultimate authority over safety, aircraft certification, and managing the national airspace—that’s non-negotiable. However, the idea that the FAA can dictate the granular, on-the-ground details of AAM operations in hundreds of different cities is simply not feasible. Instead, I forecast that states will become the primary arbiters of where and how AAM integrates into communities. They will set the minimum service levels for infrastructure, they will control the zoning and land-use planning that determines where vertiports can be built, and they will be the main interface with the public. The balance will settle into a model where the FAA provides the national safety framework—the “rules of the sky”—while the states, because they “understand their communities” and “infrastructure constraints,” will establish the “rules of the ground.” This division of labor is the only way to ensure national policies align with local realities and that this industry grows successfully and sustainably.
