The takeaway: On October 22, 2026, the FAA released Draft Advisory Circular 150/5390-4, proposing standards that would put heliports, vertiports and other vertical-flight facilities under one infrastructure document. The proposal addresses landing areas, approach surfaces, lighting, electric charging, airport integration and elevated sites. It is not yet binding, does not approve a facility or aircraft operation, and does not change Part 107 or BVLOS operating authority.
What the FAA released
On October 22, the Federal Aviation Administration published Draft Advisory Circular 150/5390-4, Vertical Flight Aircraft Infrastructure Design. The agency says the document is intended to guide planning, design and construction of takeoff-and-landing facilities serving helicopters, powered-lift aircraft and other vertical-flight vehicles.
The accompanying FAA announcement groups the proposal into five broad areas: core layout and operating space; lighting, markings and visual aids; fueling and electric charging; integration at existing airports; and elevated or rooftop facilities. Those categories move vertiport planning beyond a painted landing circle by treating approach paths, safety areas and supporting infrastructure as parts of one facility.
Comments are due January 11, 2027, according to the FAA’s draft advisory circulars page. The agency will hold a virtual Industry Day on November 10 from 10 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. Eastern and says it expects to publish final standards in summer 2027.
One document would replace two existing references
If finalized, AC 150/5390-4 would cancel the FAA’s January 2023 heliport design circular and Engineering Brief 105A, the vertiport guidance issued in December 2024. That would give airport owners, heliport operators and developers a single reference instead of maintaining separate tracks for established helicopter facilities and newer powered-lift infrastructure.
The consolidation is consequential because many proposed advanced-air-mobility sites will interact with existing aviation facilities. A vertiport added to an airport must fit around current runways, taxiways, obstacle evaluations and emergency planning. A rooftop site adds structural, access, fire-safety and evacuation questions that cannot be answered by aircraft performance alone.
However, replacing two guidance documents does not mean every facility will use one identical geometry. Final design still depends on the “critical aircraft”—the aircraft characteristics selected to establish the facility’s controlling dimensions and requirements. Developers should therefore avoid treating a generic concept drawing as proof that a site can support any proposed aircraft.
What this draft does not authorize
The draft is infrastructure guidance, not an operating certificate. It does not certify an eVTOL aircraft, approve a commercial route, grant airspace access or authorize passenger service. It also does not create new authority for small-drone operators under Part 107 or for routine beyond-visual-line-of-sight flights.
Existing FAA requirements for establishing or altering takeoff-and-landing facilities remain relevant. The agency’s Advanced Air Mobility infrastructure page points developers to Part 157 notice requirements and Part 77 airspace review, alongside airport planning and regional coordination. State, local and tribal land-use, building, fire and environmental processes may also apply.
This separation between infrastructure and operating authority mirrors a broader issue in drone policy. Our recent report on the TSA’s BVLOS security roundtables likewise distinguished participation in a policy process from permission to fly. A facility standard can reduce design uncertainty, but it cannot substitute for aircraft certification, operator approval or an airspace authorization.
Why UAV and infrastructure teams should pay attention
For airport and engineering teams, the draft is an opportunity to test whether proposed clearances, lighting, charging systems and approach surfaces are practical before the language becomes final. Comments supported by aircraft data, site layouts, electrical-load studies, emergency-response analysis or operating experience are more useful than broad statements for or against advanced air mobility.
For UAV professionals, the document shows how the FAA is moving from aircraft-only discussions toward the systems that make repeatable operations possible. Charging capacity, turnaround flow, weather monitoring, communications, passenger or cargo handling and separation from existing traffic can become operational constraints even when the aircraft itself is capable.
The proposal is also relevant to larger uncrewed VTOL concepts, but readers should check the final scope and vehicle assumptions before applying it to a particular cargo drone. Small multirotors launching from temporary field sites are not suddenly required to use a vertiport merely because the draft discusses vertical flight.
What happens next
The near-term milestones are the November 10 Industry Day and January 11 comment deadline. After reviewing feedback and operational data, the FAA plans final guidance for summer 2027. That schedule is a target, not a guarantee.
The most meaningful changes to watch will be revisions to aircraft assumptions, approach and safety areas, charging and fire-safety provisions, rooftop requirements and airport-integration language. Until a final circular is issued, developers should treat AC 150/5390-4 as a proposal and continue using the applicable current guidance while coordinating directly with the FAA.
Sources and disclosures
- FAA announcement — October 22, 2026
- FAA Draft AC 150/5390-4 document page
- FAA draft circulars and comment deadline
- FAA Advanced Air Mobility infrastructure guidance
General information, not legal or engineering advice. All About UAVs has no disclosed material relationship with the organizations named. The featured image is an AI-generated conceptual illustration, not an FAA rendering, approved facility or photograph of an operational site. Corrections: help@allaboutuavs.com.
Leave a Reply