As autonomous vehicles continue to advance, electric Vertical Take-Off and Landing aircrafts (eVTOL, or “air taxi”) and other advanced air mobility (AAM) systems are emerging as potential new modes of transportation as well.[1] The history of the eVTOL dates to 2009, when NASA released the concept of the “Puffin”, an early electric VTOL design.[2] Since then, companies and government agencies have pushed for the development of air taxis as a means of reducing urban traffic congestion, decreasing emissions, and providing faster transportation within densely populated cities.[3] However, the rapid development of these aircraft has also raised legal and policy questions regarding federal regulations and policies, as researchers have identified significant gaps in legal frameworks and a lack of standardized rules governing advanced air mobility systems.[4]
The legal concerns that currently surround autonomous air taxis can be explained through an understanding of the shift from human-operated aircraft to fully autonomous systems. There are two primary ways in which this shift occurs. One way that many air taxi companies such as Joby and Vertical use, is a framework called the “piloted path.”[5] Under this framework, eVTOL certification moves gradually, beginning with a typically piloted aircraft and slowly removing supports until the flight is fully autonomous.[6] The second approach, used by companies like Wisk, is a “pilotless path.”[7] This method begins with an already fully autonomous aircraft in a controlled environment and slowly adds variables until the aircraft is able to navigate in the outside world.[8]
The movement toward autonomy leads to questions regarding which aircrafts the FAA can certify without onboard pilots, and how. Traditional aircraft rely heavily on human pilots to operate the craft while making decisions, communicating with air traffic control, and responding to emergencies in real time.[9] However, proponents of eVTOL technology say that removing the human element may improve operational safety as human error remains one of the leading causes of aviation accidents.[10] Autonomous aircraft may also introduce elevated safety aspects, as potential operating errors are reduced, as is the risk of human fatigue and error.[11] As a result, companies argue that autonomous air taxis may ultimately provide more efficient and cost-effective transportation systems.[12]
The transition to autonomous operations also creates difficult liability questions. As the shift from piloted aircraft to autonomous aircraft occurs, the burden on manufacturers may increase.[13] In a traditional aviation accident, responsibility may fall on a pilot, aircraft operator, manufacturer, or maintenance provider.[14] For autonomous aircraft, however, responsibility may fall on software developers, remote operators, or manufacturers.[15] Determining who bears the responsibility when an autonomous aircraft makes an error remains a largely unresolved legal issue, since existing aviation liability frameworks were not designed to address automated decision-making.[16]
Beyond liability concerns lies the issue of public acceptance. In a survey of 384 residents from several European cities, participants recognized the potential benefits of eVTOL technology but 65% of respondents expressed concerns about safety, and 64% of respondents expressed concerns about noise disturbances.[17] As a result, regulators should demonstrate that air taxis are safe and encourage the public acceptance of these vehicles safety.[18] This may be accomplished through continued rigorous certification standards and testing.[19]
Another challenge involves the management of low-altitude airspace. Air taxis typically fly below an altitude of 3,000 meters, which is considered part of the “low-altitude economy.”[20] Many countries have deepened their focus on this class of aircraft, including China, where the concept of the low-altitude economy was first proposed, and the United States.[21] The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) divides airspace into 6 categories, each subject focuses on different levels of control and oversight.[22] Integrating autonomous aircraft into already congested airspace creates challenges related to traffic management and coordination between civilian and military aviation.[23] To address these concerns, scholars have proposed new systems of flight dispatching, artificial intelligence oversight, and unmanned traffic management systems.[24]
The FAA, which is the United States’ regulatory authority, and the EASA, which is the European Union’s regulatory authority, are taking different approaches to these regulation needs.[25] The FAA has focused on modifying existing regulations, using already-established certification processes and upgrading the conditions to address new technology.[26] The EASA, on the other hand, has developed newer regulations specific to eVTOL technology, including Special Condition for Small-Category VTOL Aircraft (SC-VTOL) standards and vertiport specifications.[27] These regulations directly address issues such as system redundancy, hidden failures, software reliability, and pilot or operator situational awareness.[28]
The rise of air taxis has also ignited debates regarding federal preemption and local control. The federal government maintains authority over navigable airspace, but local governments maintain authority over zoning, land use, and noise ordinances.[29] As a result, conflicts may arise regarding which level of government has the authority to regulate each aspect of air taxi flight.[30]
Currently, most countries have four main factors for drone regulation, which include aircraft mass, population density of the area, flight altitude, and intended use.[31] However, these rules were developed primarily for unmanned aircraft carrying cargo or performing surveillance functions, not with the consideration of carrying passengers.[32] Passenger-carrying eVTOL introduce greater safety concerns because of their human occupancy and proximity to urban areas.[33] As a result, existing drone regulations alone are unlikely to provide an adequate framework for the safe integration of autonomous air taxi operations.[34]
As eVTOL technology continues to advance, regulators will continue to face the challenge of balancing innovation, public safety, and government control.[35] For autonomous air taxi systems to find success, they must consider the legal frameworks that address certification, liability, airspace management, and the allocation of regulatory authority among federal, state, and local governments.
[1] Mikhail V. Shubov, THE UPCOMING EVTOL REVOLUTION 2 (2024).
[20] Alex Morgan, Synergistic Development of eVTOL Technology and Low-Altitude Airspace Management: A Pathway to Sustainable Urban Air Mobility, 1 J. LOW-ALTITUTDE ECON. & AIR MOBILITY 1 (2025), https://journals.cypedia.net/jlaeam/article/view/80/.
[30]See U.S. Gov’t Accountability Off., Advanced Air Mobility: Legal Authorities and Issues to Consider for Operations, GAO-24-106451 (2024), https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-24-106451.
[31] Attila Takács & Tamás Haidegger, Infrastructural Requirements and Regulatory Challenges of Urban Air Mobility, 12 BUILDINGS 747, 3 (2022).https://www.mdpi.com/2075-5309/12/6/747.
Comments