Day 2 Panel Discussions

Session 1

What Problems is On-Demand Aviation Trying to Solve?

Panelists

Adam Cohen, University of California, Berkeley, Moderator

Justin Towles, Crown Consulting/Coalition for Advanced Health Mobility

Lt. Col. John Tekell, AFWERX Agility Prime

Patrick Rizzi, Hogan Lovells

Carl Dietrich, Jump Aero

Ryan Steinbach, Office of Aviation Analysis, U.S. Department of Transportation

The first panel of Day 2 focused on public good use cases such as emergency response and aeromedical. Ryan Steinbach shared insights into the latest developments from the AAM Interagency Working Group, emphasizing the importance of supporting public good use cases that can demonstrate broad public benefit. Patrick Rizzi described efforts of Commercial Drone Alliance members to deliver medical supplies and medication to rural areas using small drones. Carl Dietrich, in turn, discussed AAM’s potential to significantly reduce emergency medical response times in rural communities. Dietrich added that the lack of emergent care and disparities in response times contribute to higher mortality rates and poorer health outcomes in rural communities. Justin Towles highlighted CAHM’s mission to raise awareness among hospital systems about the opportunities presented by AAM for healthcare delivery.

The panel collectively stressed the importance of the public sector’s creating a regulatory environment conducive to developing a business case and return on investment for public good use cases. Financial support mechanisms—including seed funding, grants, and subsidies—were underscored as crucial components.

Lt. Col. John Tekell explained that a key tenet of the AFWERX Agility Prime program is to expand and accelerate transition paths for dual-use (military and commercial) air mobility systems, with minimal adaptation required. Tekell added that success in the commercial marketplace is imperative for achieving this goal. The panel debated which markets and use cases are most likely to succeed from both business and public perception standpoints. Rizzi shared challenges in gaining traction for aeromedical and other public good use cases.

The panel concluded with general agreement on the importance of public good use cases for building public confidence, trust, and interest in AAM. The discussions underscored the need for a collaborative approach between the public and private sectors to unlock the full potential of AAM for societal benefit.

Session 2

Stakeholder and Community Engagement

Panelists

Yolanka Wulff, Community Air Mobility Initiative, Moderator

Colleen D’Alessandro, Federal Aviation Administration

Gaël Le Bris, WSP USA Inc.

Sjohnna Knack, San Diego International Airport

Darlene Yaplee, Aviation-Impacted Communities Alliance

Yolanka Wulff set the stage by emphasizing the importance of stakeholder and community engagement within the context of AAM and underscored the need to move away from a narrative of merely seeking public acceptance. Wulff also made a distinction between stakeholder engagement, which involves interacting with airports and local and state agencies, and community engagement, which involves interacting with the general public.

The panel began with a broad discussion about the concerns communities may have regarding AAM. Colleen D’Alessandro shared insights gained from the FAA’s UAS Integration Pilot Program (IPP), highlighting three key lessons learned:

1. Understand the population. For example, the public sector organizations and OEMs that participate in the community engagement process should understand the constituents they serve, how they could be impacted by AAM, and how to effectively reach them.
2. Through storytelling, create a narrative that communicates the positive impacts of AAM to the public.
3. Solicit feedback to gauge public sentiment, allowing operators to address public concerns and garner support in the community.

D’Alessandro also described some of the FAA’s engagement efforts using roundtables, bringing together airport, community, and airline industry representatives to collaboratively identify issues and discuss possible solutions. Darlene Yaplee explained that roundtables can sometimes have limitations when they primarily consist of elected officials rather than community-based organizations. Yaplee emphasized the importance of understanding the actual impacts and experiences from the public’s

perspective, such as when and where flights will operate and associated noise levels. The panel also touched upon concerns related to potential visual pollution.

Yaplee also highlighted the difference in community engagement between capturing a community’s actual experience and an outsider’s perception of that experience. Sjohnna Knack commented that airports and public agencies are cautious in their public engagement efforts due to the many uncertainties surrounding AAM operations and impacts. Gaël Le Bris added that more foundational materials are needed to help explain to the public what AAM is and how it may impact them. The panel discussed how perceptions and public opinions of AAM may vary depending on the specific use case, with greater tolerance for noise, visual pollution, or other associated impacts when AAM is deployed for aeromedical and emergency response scenarios.

The panel concluded by discussing emerging best practices in stakeholder and community engagement, including community roundtables, workshops, and mixed-method approaches that combine in-person and virtual formats. They emphasized the importance of authentic engagement and conducting direct outreach to representative community members. Additionally, the panel emphasized the importance of finding effective ways to reach members of underserved communities, who may face challenges participating in community meetings.

Session 3

Scaling Infrastructure for AAM

Panelists

Christopher J. Oswald, Airports Council International–North America (ACI-NA), Moderator

Alex Gertsen, National Business Aviation Association (NBAA)

Naashom Marx, Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport

Scott McMahon, DM Airports Ltd./Morristown Airport

The panel started with a discussion of the concerns and uncertainties surrounding AAM use cases. Scott McMahon expressed the concern around infrastructure business models, particularly the challenge of integrating slow-moving limited-range electric aircraft with commercial aviation within the national airspace system. Naashom Marx expressed concerns about general aviation airports adopting the philosophy of “if we build it, AAM will come” without first demonstrating customer demand for on-demand aviation. Marx also underscored the importance of energy infrastructure flexibility that can accommodate electrification, hydrogen, sustainable aviation fuels, and other energy sources. The panel emphasized the need for airports to prepare for electrification, including charging electric aircraft, battery swapping, and parking facilities for electric

aircraft, along with addressing broader challenges related to electric grid capacity. The panel also discussed the order in which airport functions could be electrified and how airports should prioritize them.

Alex Gertsen voiced concerns about how the FAA’s initial guidance separates helicopter operations and eVTOL operations. Gersten explained the NBAA view that vertical lift constitutes a single ecosystem with various aircraft types. Gersten added that, as new infrastructure is designed, it is important that new types of aircraft (e.g., eVTOLs), as well as legacy aircraft (e.g., helicopters), are able to access and use that infrastructure. The panel also discussed how new entrants will help pay for new and existing infrastructure and the need to transition from aviation fuel taxes to revenue sources suitable for electric aviation.

The session concluded with a discussion about research to understand takeoff and landing and charging infrastructure needs for airports and fixed-based operators.

Session 4

Security Considerations for AAM

Panelists

Michael Rucinski, Transportation Security Administration, Moderator

Greg Bowles, Joby Aviation

Jens Hennig, General Aviation Manufacturers Association

John Murphy, Supernal

Robert DeFrancesco, Archer Aviation

Michael Rucinski set the stage by providing an overview of aviation security regulations after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Rucinski explained that under the current regulatory system, aviation security is often tied to weight capacity or load and that many AAM aircraft in development will fall under TSA’s purview, which includes aircraft with a takeoff weight of at least 12,500 pounds. Rucinski highlighted a common misconception that TSA screens all passengers on any aircraft. In fact, TSA screening practices depend on aircraft size, type of operation, and location.

John Murphy addressed the misconception of lax security in Part 135 operations, noting that Part 135 operations provide air carriers with flexibility to implement technologies uncommon in commercial aviation, such as biometrics (https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-G/part-135?toc=1).

Jens Hennig discussed the importance of determining which aircraft components and systems should be connected during the design and certification process, emphasizing

that any system on an aircraft that has connectivity must meet rigorous security standards. The panel also briefly touched upon the importance of security in the supply chain.

Greg Bowles highlighted two key components to aviation security: passenger security and cybersecurity. Bowles explained that cybersecurity is integrated into the aircraft design and certification process and kept up to date throughout the aircraft’s lifespan. Bowles also discussed the potential to shift passenger screening to off-airport locations as AAM begins to serve first- and last-flight connections to larger commercial flights.

Robert DeFrancesco discussed three potential operational concepts: sterile-to-sterile process (e.g., flying from a vertiport where passengers have completed security screening to the airside of a commercial aviation airport where other passengers have also completed security screening); nonsterile-to-nonsterile process (e.g., flying from a non-TSA secure environment to another non-TSA secure environment); and sterile-tononsterile process (e.g., flying from an environment where passengers have been screened to a nonsecure environment). DeFrancesco also discussed the need to secure aircraft when not in flight, screen pilots and employees, and securely transfer passengers between aircraft connections. Murphy highlighted the necessity to scale security infrastructure and policies as AAM grows.

Bowles stressed the importance of developing processes and procedures to share data about security vulnerabilities and incidents among AAM service providers. The panel concluded by discussing the role of public perception in shaping expectations for AAM security operations.