The US powered-lift and European VTOL-capable-aircraft frameworks address many of the same operational functions through different regulatory structures. The practical question is which approvals and evidence can transfer across both systems.
10 years — duration of FAA SFAR 120 2025 — EASA operational AMC/GM for manned VTOL-capable aircraft 2026 — EASA continuing-airworthiness AMC/GM expanded for electric, hybrid and non-conventional aircraft
Similar safety functions sit inside different regulatory structures. Cross-market manufacturers and operators need to identify where evidence can be reused and where pilot, operational, maintenance or infrastructure requirements require separate work.
Authority guidance as certified aircraft approach service, validation of aircraft across jurisdictions, type-specific training programs and how continuing-airworthiness requirements are implemented by early operators.
The FAA and EASA increasingly regulate comparable advanced-air-mobility functions, but they do not organize them under one shared rulebook. The US framework uses the powered-lift category and a mixture of permanent rule changes, existing operating structures and a temporary Special Federal Aviation Regulation. Europe uses a VTOL-capable-aircraft framework integrated into its air operations, aircrew, rules-of-the-air and continuing-airworthiness systems.
For a manufacturer or operator pursuing both markets, the distinction is practical. Similar safety objectives do not mean that manuals, pilot qualifications, operating assumptions or maintenance approvals transfer automatically.
In the United States, powered-lift is an aircraft category used by the FAA for aircraft with characteristics of both airplanes and rotorcraft. The FAA's October 2024 final rule amended permanent regulations and established SFAR 120 for ten years to facilitate initial powered-lift pilot certification, training and operations.
European rules use VTOL-capable aircraft, or VCA, within the new-air-mobility framework. EASA's operational material distinguishes manned VCA where additional requirements apply. These terms sit inside different legal structures, so using “powered-lift” and “VCA” as exact regulatory synonyms can hide important differences.
PropulsionWatch's FAA and EASA certification explainer covers the design-approval side in detail. The operational comparison begins after recognizing that each authority establishes an aircraft certification basis through its own system.
Harmonization and validation can reduce duplicated work, but neither process makes the underlying regulatory systems identical. A cross-border program still has to map its approved design, operational assumptions and compliance evidence into the receiving authority's framework.
The FAA's 2024 final rule established SFAR 120 for ten years. Its purpose includes standing up initial groups of powered-lift pilots and flight instructors while clarifying operating rules for powered-lift integration into the National Airspace System.
FAA AC 194-2 then provides guidance for applicants, pilots, evaluators and instructors seeking an initial powered-lift category rating and a specific type rating. The type-specific element is important: early crew qualification depends on the characteristics of individual powered-lift designs rather than a generic eVTOL endorsement.
EASA's current Easy Access Rules for Air Operations include Annex IX, Part-IAM. Its scope covers IAM operations with manned VCA under VFR by day, including commercial air transport, non-commercial operations and emergency medical services.
Part-IAM addresses operator responsibilities, operating procedures, ground movement and use of air traffic services. The framework therefore places VCA operations inside a recognizable operator-regulation structure rather than treating the aircraft certificate as the main operational approval.
Both systems need pilots who can operate aircraft that may combine vertical flight, transition and wing-borne cruise in ways not captured cleanly by conventional airplane or helicopter training alone.
The FAA addresses the initial transition through SFAR 120 and supporting guidance. Europe's new-air-mobility rule package amended aircrew material alongside operations and rules-of-the-air provisions. The resulting training and checking requirements should be compared function by function, not by assuming that similarly named ratings or courses are equivalent.
EASA expanded the framework again in February 2026. ED Decision 2026/002/R amended AMC and GM associated with Part-M, Part-145, Part-66, Part-147 and related continuing-airworthiness structures for electric- and hybrid-propulsion aircraft and other non-conventional aircraft.
A companion decision updated Certification Specifications for Maintenance Certifying Staff Data so type-certificate applicants can identify maintenance-training requirements in operational suitability data where conventional Part-66 training definitions do not cover the new aircraft.
This is a useful reminder that propulsion novelty affects more than type certification. High-voltage systems, electric propulsion and new aircraft architectures also have to fit maintenance licensing, organization approval, training and continued-airworthiness processes.
In the US, FAA Engineering Brief 105A provides supplemental vertiport design guidance for a defined class of piloted electric VTOL operations. Operational approval of the aircraft does not by itself approve the site or its charging installation.
Europe similarly separates aircraft and operator requirements from the wider vertiport and airspace environment. Part-IAM, for example, requires operator procedures for movement at vertiports and use of appropriate air traffic services. The interface has to be demonstrated operationally even where the aircraft itself is approved.
The useful comparison is not which authority is more permissive or more stringent in the abstract. The relevant engineering question is where evidence can be reused and where differences in terminology, certification basis, operating rules, training, maintenance or infrastructure create additional work.
For manufacturers, that map affects test planning, manuals, operational-suitability data and configuration control. For operators, it affects crew qualification, procedures, maintenance arrangements and authority approvals. For both, assumptions made early in aircraft design can create downstream work if they do not translate cleanly across jurisdictions.
The US SFAR is explicitly transitional, while EASA has continued to add AMC, GM and continuing-airworthiness material as the European framework matures. Any comparison therefore needs a date attached to it.
As of September 2026, the direction is clearer than the final operating landscape: both authorities are building paths for powered-lift or VCA operations using established aviation regulatory systems, while adapting the parts that do not fit novel aircraft cleanly. The evidence to watch is how those frameworks perform when type-certified aircraft enter routine service and cross-jurisdiction validation moves from planning into operational use.
FAA — Powered-Lift Pilot Certification and Operations Final Rule
FAA AC 194-2 — Pilot Training and Certification
