UAM faces regulatory and customer perception problems.

FARNBOROUGH, England — Drones are here and flying cars are moving from sci-fi to reality — now regulators and potential customers are scrambling to catch up.

Aerospace giants like Airbus and Boeing, tech companies like Uber and even McDonald’s are betting big on drone deliveries and air taxis. They promise to shorten delivery times, ease congestion and decarbonize transport. But that technological vision is running into two problems — public skepticism and a missing regulatory framework.

“Lots of people come and say they want to launch in central London, that’s great but planning issues, privacy, power and public acceptance are more intensely felt there,” Tim Johnson, policy director at the U.K. Civil Aviation Authority, said at the Global Urban Air Summit at Farnborough on Tuesday.

Companies like Hoversurf, creator of the S3 Hoverbike, are utilizing ultralight certification categories to circumvent the formal type certification process of the FAA. Image // Hoversurf

The challenge is that the nascent technologies span the range from what exists now — drones, for example — to those that are still on drawing boards, like various versions of flying cars. Regulators have to work out rules on everything from what is covered — the EU had a big debate on how heavy a drone has to be before tougher rules apply — to how such decisions affect shared airspace, noise levels, pollution and safety.

While Brussels is trying to establish EU-wide rules, national regulators are also drawing up regulations, and often choosing divergent approaches.

“If we think if we go in anything less than incremental steps, then we’re probably mistaken” — Jon Round, Civil Aviation Authority official

“Picking our markets have been almost exclusively driven by politics, not economics,” said Duncan Walker, co-founder and managing director of Skyports, a company that builds platforms and buildings from which aircraft can take off and land.

He said that working with regulators “frankly, is a mess.”

Walker’s words were echoed by other industry officials at the conference. Asked if U.K. authorities have implemented steps to allow the integration of unmanned aircraft into airspace, Harini Kulatunga, head of solutions for unmanned aerial systems at Airbus, said: “I don’t believe so.”

Playing catch-up

The speed of technological change throws up another issue for regulators.

An image of the new Amazon delivery drone is displayed during the Amazon Re:MARS conference in Las Vegas on June 5, 2019 | Mark Ralston/AFP via Getty Images

“It’s equally as bad to get ahead of the industry as it is to get behind them,” said Jay Merckle, executive director of the Unmanned Aircraft Systems Integration Office at the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration, citing the risk that legislating too early means doing guesswork on which way the industry will go, and often getting it wrong.

Jon Round, head of airspace, air traffic management and aerodromes at the Civil Aviation Authority, asked for patience. “If we think if we go in anything less than incremental steps, then we’re probably mistaken.”

Getting technology and regulations aligned leaves another hurdle — persuading people that these services are needed.

Convincing them to agree to more noisy objects flying above their heads is a challenge. People “don’t want noise above them unless they’re the ones going on holiday in a plane or there’s a drone delivery that’s for them,” said Round. “The noise is enormous as an issue.”

High cost also makes it difficult for companies to make the argument that ordinary people will benefit. Current helicopter services in São Paulo, Mexico City and New York — running as pilot projects for Airbus and Uber — only cater to affluent customers.

Industry emphasized the need to outline the potential value of urban air mobility — moving organs and blood across a city rather than pizza, for example.

“The real challenge of making this successful is that people don’t feel it’s only for a select few,” said James Cranswick, director of aviation at Deloitte, the consultancy.

It’s all still pretty niche.

Companies argue that urban air mobility is a possible solution to congestion, but Uber, which is also investing in air transport, said it does not envision “mass transport,” and predicts eventually moving around 10,000 people in a city per day — a far cry from the 3.5 million who use London’s public transport system every day.

Industry emphasized the need to outline the potential value of urban air mobility — moving organs and blood across a city rather than pizza, for example. The biggest challenge is “social,” said Mildred Troegeler, the director of global airspace integration at Boeing NeXt, the company’s division that deals with urban air transport. “We need to show the actual value of the operations.”

This article originally appeared on Politico.eu. Used with permission from Saim Saeed.

EASA’s Proposed Special Condition for VTOL Certification notice is the result of the realization that VTOL certification standards are not, and never were, specifically constructed for the purposes of certifying the VTOL aircraft that are being designed, manufactured, and tested today. While the mechanics of flight have not changed for these aircraft, the traditional certification guidelines that supported either fixed-wing or rotorcraft certification do not wholly apply to current VTOL configurations. VTOL designs from 2010 onward will have two key differences from traditional aircraft designed before 2010. They may not be able to auto rotate as a rotorcraft would in emergency power failure situations, and their distributed propulsion systems have new failure modes that have not been completely explored to the point where certification guidelines can encompass the vast majority of VTOL propulsion configurations.

EASA’s special condition was established in a similar spirit as recent amendments to EASA’s code of regulations have been established, such as CS-23, Amendment 5, which describes performance or objective based technical specifications.

EASA specifies VTOL certification for small (5 passengers or less, with MTOW < 2,000 kg) aircraft in this special condition issuance, meaning that other aircraft that exceed either the maximum takeoff weight and/or the passenger count criteria are excluded from certification under this special condition.

Here are some of the criteria of note from the special condition document:

• Certification of Small-Category VTOL Aircraft VTOL.2005: Two categories exist for certification of light aircraft:
  • Category Enhanced: aircraft that intend to be operated as commercial air transports (CAT)  over congested areas and are capable of flight and safe landing after critical malfunction/failure of thrust/lift system
  • Category Basic: aircraft capable of an emergency landing after critical malfunction of thrust/lift.
  • Note: all air taxi operations will thus be certified under the Enhanced Category per this proposed regulation. In general, the enhanced category has requirements for safety of flight during all phases of a typical mission while a “thrust/lift unit” has critically malfunctioned.

• Flotation VTOL.2310: If certification for intended operations on water is requested, then the VTOL must provide buoyancy 80% in excess of the maximum required to support the vehicle in freshwater.
• Thrust/Lift System Operational Characteristics, VTOL.2425: If the safety benefit outweighs the hazard, the design must allow the shutdown and restart of a thrust/lift unit in flight within an established envelope.
• Thrust/Lift System Installation, Energy Storage and Distribution Systems, VTOL.2430: No fire of one system shall affect another system, energy storage system must not suffer critical failure during a survivable emergency landing.
• Thrust/Lift Installation Support Systems VTOL.2435: Any likely failures of the thrust/lift system that result in a critical malfunction of thrust/lift must be mitigated.
• Installation of Recorders VTOL.2555: specifies that a recorder must be installed that provides “accurate and intelligible recording and safe gaurding of the data supportive for accident investigation, considering the conditions encountered during the crash…” Nowhere included are the specific requirements other than this data.
• High Intensity Radio Frequency (HIRF) Protection Provisions, VTOL.2520: General requirements for lack of critical systems malfunction while exposed to HIRF, and suitable restart time delay should HIRF be encountered in higher-than expected volumes.

This special condition notice has not been confirmed or finalized, and EASA is still collecting feedback on their proposed regulations. The feedback form, along with the native version of the Special Condition notice are available on EASA’s website here.

Why it’s important: The approach that EASA is adopting for UAM certification is fundamentally different than some other regulatory bodies, including the FAA. While CFR Part 23 should not require significant restructuring to allow for the certification of eVTOL’s, EASA is indicating with the issuance of their special conditions that a more tailed approach to certification may be more advantageous, despite the additional effort required to stand up this regulatory framework.