Viewpoint: The Future Of Urban Air Mobility Depends On Discipline, Not Detours

In my experience, which spans five decades in the aviation industry, one lesson has remained constant: aviation earns trust only through the uncompromising pursuit of safety. Every major advance in our sector, from widebody aircraft to modern composite structures, succeeded because the global aviation community upheld a simple truth. There is no progress without standards, and no safety without rigor.

Urban air mobility (UAM) now stands on the edge of its own historic leap. Electric vertical-takeoff-and-landing (eVTOL) aircraft promise cleaner, faster and more accessible transportation for cities worldwide. The ambition is real, the technology is advancing, and governments are eager to lead. But in the race to be first, a troubling trend has emerged that threatens the credibility of the entire sector. I call it “certification tourism.”

Certification tourism is the pursuit of early regulatory approvals in jurisdictions that are not internationally recognized as authorities responsible for certifying aircraft under the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) framework. This framework, established under the Chicago Convention, sets the global system for aviation safety—defining which regulators (“States of Design”) issue type certificates that other countries can recognize and validate.

Regional approvals may generate publicity and permit limited local operations, but they do not deliver the globally validated type certification required for unrestricted commercial service. They offer speed, not substance. Visibility, not validation.

This is not about criticizing any region. The Middle East, for example, will be central to the future of eVTOL adoption. Its ambition and infrastructure are exceptional. But early pilot projects must complement, not replace, the rigorous certification pathways that define global aviation safety.

A Missing Voice: Analysts Must Apply Aviation Grade Scrutiny

An important dimension of this debate has been largely absent in recent market commentary. Equity analysts covering emerging aviation have a responsibility to interrogate claims with technical discipline. Yet several research notes have echoed promotional statements from companies pursuing alternative approval routes without examining what those approvals do, and do not, represent.

Investors deserve clarity, not untested optimism. Analysts should ask fundamental questions: What authority issued the approval? What scope of engineering and testing was reviewed? Does this move the aircraft toward international validation, or is it a narrow, nonportable authorization? UAM will continue to attract enduring capital only if financial analysis keeps pace with technical reality.

A Critical Commercial Reality: Insurability And Financeability

There is also a practical commercial constraint. Aircraft approved only under narrow local standards may not meet the requirements of the international aviation insurance market. Insurers rely on globally recognized certification frameworks, including oversight by the State of Design authority and the application of bilateral working arrangements between national regulators, as well as robust flight test and safety evidence. Without this foundation, coverage may be unavailable or prohibitively priced.

And without insurability, there is no financeability. Lessors, banks and export credit agencies assess value and risk based on internationally recognized certification. Local approvals cannot support cross-border operation, residual value or asset liquidity. Aircraft that cannot be insured on international terms become commercially unviable, regardless of local permissions. This is not theoretical; it is a structural economic reality.

The Only Authorities Empowered To Certify An Aircraft For Global Service

Under ICAO Annex 8, only the designated State of Design authorities including the FAA, the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) and UK Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) can issue type certificates that other regulators can subsequently validate worldwide. Local authorizations may allow demonstration activity, but they are not type certificates, they are not globally portable and they cannot substitute for the depth of engineering, evidence and expert scrutiny required for passenger operations.

This distinction matters. Aircraft certified only to narrow local standards almost always face major redesigns when subjected to full international scrutiny. Aviation history demonstrates repeatedly that shortcuts in certification create commercial and technical dead ends–aircraft become confined to limited markets, face insurance and financing challenges, and often require extensive additional work to achieve broader validation.

Why eVTOLs Demand Even Higher Discipline

EVTOLs introduce complexity beyond anything previously certified. To achieve CAA and EASA certification, high-energy batteries, integrated distributed propulsion systems, and new flight control architectures must meet the same catastrophic failure probability target as commercial airliners: one in a billion flight hours, or 10-9. That standard is not optional. It is the foundation upon which public trust will rest.

At Vertical Aerospace, which I chair, we have deliberately chosen the responsible path to certify to the highest global standards, transparently and in full partnership with internationally recognized authorities. It demands more time, more data, and more discipline, but it is the only path that leads to global scale, safe operations, and durable credibility. In aviation, the race is not to fly first. The race is to fly right.

The Cost of Shortcuts

Recent announcements suggest that some manufacturers are pursuing early operations through jurisdictions that cannot provide the full technical oversight required for type certification. These pathways may assess only a slice of the flight envelope or operational conditions. They do not evaluate long-term durability, software integrity, or systemic safety. And they risk bypassing the ongoing legal oversight of the ICAO State of Design authority.

All it takes is one incident linked to incomplete certification to set the entire industry back years. Public trust in new aviation technologies is fragile. A failure attributed to an avoidable shortcut would not merely harm one company. It would undermine investment, delay regulatory progress, and damage the credibility of UAM worldwide. The public deserves full transparency about the difference between local permissions and true global certification.

Standards Are What Will Carry This Industry Forward

My extensive experience in the aviation industry underpins my conviction that aviation’s greatest achievements have always been built on discipline, not detours. Certification tourism may offer the appearance of progress, but it cannot deliver the trust, scalability, or safety required for commercial success.

If we want UAM to fulfill its potential, the path forward is clear. We must certify these aircraft through internationally recognized authorities, subject to the highest global standards, validated across markets, and grounded in transparent engineering.

No shortcuts. No ambiguity. And no compromising on the principles that built the safest mode of transport in human history. The third great transformation in flight is within reach. It will belong to those who earn the world’s confidence, not those who attempt to sidestep it.