The UK Civil Aviation Authority’s introduction of the Recognised Assessment Entity for Flightworthiness, or RAE(F), and the associated SAIL Marking system was presented as a way to support the rollout of UK SORA and help operators demonstrate that their unmanned aircraft systems are safe for more complex Specific Category operations.
In principle, few people in the drone industry would object to proportionate safety assurance. The problem is not the intent. The problem is the way the system risks becoming another costly layer of
assessment on top of standards, certificates, declarations and component-level compliance work that manufacturers have already completed.
The CAA says RAE(F)s are approved to assess whether the technical features of a UAS meet UK SORA requirements, including design, construction and flying characteristics. It also states that designers seeking a SAIL Mark must ask an RAE(F) to assess the UAS, after which the RAE(F) advises the CAA whether the requirements have been met. (Civil Aviation Authority)
That sounds reasonable until you look at what many drone manufacturers are actually building. A modern drone is typically assembled from radios, flight controllers, GPS receivers, batteries, transmitters, electronic speed controllers and other components that already sit within an established conformity framework. Radio equipment is already subject to applicable radio and EMC requirements. CE-marked products and components are already required to demonstrate compliance with applicable Union harmonisation legislation.
EASA’s own guidance for manufacturers confirms that drones are subject to legislation such as the
Radio Equipment Directive and Machinery Directive, and that manufacturers must demonstrate compliance through the defined conformity procedures before affixing CE marking. (EASA)
So the question the industry should be asking is simple: what additional safety value is actually being created by the RAE(F) process, and what is merely a re-check of paperwork that already exists?
The SAIL Mark system is described by the CAA as optional; CAP 722K explicitly states that there is “no obligation” for a UAS designer to SAIL mark their aircraft in the UK. However, the practical reality may become very different. If operators increasingly need SAIL marked aircraft to make UK SORA applications easier, then an “optional” scheme can quickly become a commercial necessity. Once that happens, manufacturers who cannot afford the cost, delay and administrative workload of SAIL Marking may find themselves excluded from parts of the market, even when their aircraft are built from compliant, traceable and already-certified components.
This is where the system becomes problematic. The RAE(F) does not replace proper engineering by the manufacturer. It does not design the aircraft. It does not manufacture the aircraft. In many cases, it will not add meaningful physical test data beyond what the manufacturer has already generated.
CAP 722K requires the designer to submit evidence data to the RAE(F), and the RAE(F) must verify the designer’s compliance against the agreed compliance basis and approach. That is fundamentally an evidence-review model.
Evidence review has value where the aircraft is novel, high-risk, complex, or where the manufacturer is claiming safety functions that are not already proven. But it is much harder to justify when the review becomes a costly confirmation that standard components meet standards they have already been tested against. For example, CAP 722K’s C3 link requirements require data such as C3 link performance, RF spectrum and environmental conditions, plus evidence that the remote pilot can monitor C3 link performance.
Those are important issues, but for many systems the underlying radio modules, output powers,
frequency bands and conformity evidence already exist. The danger is that the RAE(F) becomes an expensive intermediary between the manufacturer’s existing technical file and the CAA’s approval process.
The CAA’s own charging structure shows the wider cost environment that manufacturers and operators now face. For 2026/27, UK SORA-based Operational Authorisation charges range from £2,422 at SAIL 1 to £17,300 at SAIL 5 and SAIL 6, with additional assessment charges possible at £346 per hour. These are CAA charges, not necessarily the full commercial cost of engaging an RAE(F), but they demonstrate the direction of travel: higher SAIL means higher cost, more documentation, more assessment and more delay. (Civil Aviation Authority) EASA’s Design Verification Report system raises similar concerns. EASA states that DVR costs are based on actual time spent assessing documentation, charged at €250 per hour, and that the duration depends heavily on system complexity and the manufacturer’s responsiveness. Again, this is a documentation-heavy model that may be appropriate for higher-risk or more novel designs, but it risks becoming disproportionate when applied too broadly. (EASA)
The strongest argument for SAIL Marking is that it allows a manufacturer to prove the technical aspects once, so operators do not have to repeat the same evidence for every Operational Authorisation. That is a valid objective. The CAA itself says that as more SAIL-marked UAS become available, operators will be able to use them to comply with certain UK SORA technical requirements. (Civil Aviation Authority)
But that benefit only materialises if the process is quick, affordable, consistent and genuinely additive. If the system is slow, expensive and mostly duplicates existing component compliance, then it will not accelerate innovation. It will tax it.
This concern is not just theoretical. In consultation feedback submitted to the CAA, the Royal Aeronautical Society warned that limited numbers of organisations providing RAE(F) services could increase industry costs, extend authorisation timelines and limit growth. The same response noted that many UK drone manufacturers are SMEs, often developing products with limited revenue, and that overly burdensome regulation can make compliance expensive and time-consuming during the critical period before a product is commercialised.
That is the core issue. The UK drone industry is not made up only of large aerospace primes with dedicated certification departments. Much of the innovation comes from small manufacturers, engineering-led start-ups and specialist operators building practical systems for real-world use cases. These companies already face costs for product development, testing, insurance, manufacturing, software, documentation, operational approvals, training, export compliance and market access. Adding another expensive assessment layer may satisfy an administrative need, but it can easily become a barrier to entry.
There is also a risk of regulatory mismatch. Drone technology evolves quickly. Components change, firmware changes, radio modules change and payloads change. A certification-style model that works for traditional aviation can become misaligned with the pace of unmanned aircraft development. The more the approval system struggles to keep up with real product cycles, the more manufacturers will either delay innovation, avoid the UK market, or design around the approval process rather than around the best technical solution.
The answer is not to abandon safety assurance. The answer is proportionality.
For low and medium-risk SAIL levels, the CAA should allow more reliance on manufacturer declarations, existing CE/UKCA/RED evidence, component certificates, conformity documentation and controlled internal test reports. RAE(F) involvement should focus on genuinely operation-specific or system-level risks: containment, failure modes, command-and-control resilience, geofencing, flight termination, software behaviour and manufacturing consistency. It should not become a paid exercise in re-reading radio module certificates and checking that standard parts already comply with standards they were built to meet.
A better model would separate “paperwork already proven elsewhere” from “system-level flightworthiness claims.” If a manufacturer uses a compliant radio module within its rated power, frequency and environmental envelope, that should not need a full reassessment. If a manufacturer claims that its drone can safely terminate flight, contain itself within a defined volume, detect C3 degradation or maintain operational control in a swarm, then that is where independent assessment can add value.
The UK has an opportunity to build a sensible, risk-based drone approval system. But if RAE(F) and SAIL Marking become too expensive, too slow, or too focused on duplicating existing standards, the result will not be a thriving ecosystem. It will be a smaller market, fewer manufacturers, slower product development and less innovation.
The CAA may see the creation of the RAE(F) system as a step forward. For parts of the industry, it may well be. But unless the system is kept proportionate, transparent and affordable, it risks becoming exactly what manufacturers fear: an expensive double-check on compliant products, paid for by the very companies the UK needs if it wants to lead in unmanned aviation.
Related
Discover more from sUAS News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) published a consultation document, CAP3240, to establish a regulatory policy framework for new types of vertical take-off and landing aircraft. The UK government has stated an objective to see piloted electric vertical take-off and landing operations in the UK from 2028. To meet this goal, the CAA aims to implement a clear regulatory framework that permits initial commercial passenger flights. The consultation received 28 responses, with 85% expressing positive views on the proposals. The approach seeks to use existing aviation regulatory frameworks where possible, only introducing bespoke requirements when technological or operational characteristics render existing rules unsuitable.
Definitions and Classifications A core component of the framework involves defining these new vehicles. The CAA proposes updating the existing UK definition of a powered-lift aircraft to capture most new vertical take-off and landing aircraft, aligning with International Civil Aviation Organisation standards. However, some new aircraft operate similarly to helicopters but lack the capability to perform an autorotation (or an equivalent safe forced landing alternative) in the event of power failure or energy depletion. The CAA will classify these as non-conventional helicopters. By treating them as a subcategory of helicopters, regulators can apply targeted requirements to mitigate specific safety risks without burdening conventional helicopter operations. The propulsion architecture itself—whether using vectored thrust or independent lift and cruise motors—will not affect the classification, as the rules are intended to be technologically agnostic. Where an aircraft does not neatly fit into existing statutory definitions, the CAA will retain the discretion to determine the most appropriate classification.
Complex Motor-Powered Aircraft Under the framework, powered-lift aircraft and non-conventional helicopters will be treated as complex motor-powered aircraft by default. Respondents broadly agreed that the novelty, complexity and safety-critical nature of these vehicles—such as their highly integrated systems and distributed propulsion architectures—justify this stringent classification. This classification ensures that operational risk remains equivalent to legacy commercial aviation. Nevertheless, the CAA proposes a discretionary power to exempt certain aircraft from this category, provided there is a clear and transparent decision-making framework, which will be the subject of further consultation.
Airworthiness Standards The framework establishes robust standards for both initial and continuing airworthiness. For initial airworthiness, the CAA will use the existing framework set out in Part 21 of UK Regulation (EU) No. 748/2012. Respondents strongly supported this, noting that the current system is familiar, internationally consistent and highly capable of integrating novel technologies while maintaining public confidence. No respondents completely disagreed with this approach, although some cautioned against over-regulating smaller aircraft under 600kg, which might possess different risk profiles.
Similarly, continuing airworthiness will fall under the established requirements of UK Regulation (EU) 1321/2014. This approach ensures that new vertical take-off and landing aircraft meet the same rigorous maintenance and safety standards as the wider aviation industry. The CAA will explore allowing pilot-owner maintenance for normal tasks, while restricting pilot maintenance on complex systems such as flight controls.
Pilot Licensing Developing a competent workforce is essential for the future of flight. The framework outlines a personnel licensing pathway that allows existing commercial pilot licence and airline transport pilot licence holders to secure a type rating for new vertical take-off and landing aircraft. The CAA will also create a pathway for private pilot licence holders to fly these aircraft non-commercially. At this stage, the CAA is not proposing an ab-initio training route for novice pilots. Instead, training will rely on operational suitability data established by manufacturers, offering a standardised, data-driven process for type ratings. Several consultation respondents suggested that competency-based training might be more effective than traditional flight-hour metrics given the advanced automation of these aircraft, and the CAA has committed to exploring these alternatives.
Flight Operations and Aerodromes For flight operations, the CAA intends to apply existing aeroplane and helicopter requirements equitably. However, bespoke updates are necessary for flight time limitations and energy management policies. Because vertical take-off and landing aircraft rely heavily on automated systems, the CAA acknowledges that pilot workload may differ from conventional flying, necessitating a review of single-pilot fatigue regulations. Furthermore, energy reserve requirements will be dictated by the specific landing mode used by the aircraft.
Finally, aerodrome regulations will align with the forthcoming heliport certification and safety management systems framework. The CAA plans to modernise the guidance to reflect the physical characteristics of powered-lift aircraft, such as downwash and outwash. The framework will also support the shared use of aerodromes and vertiports to reduce infrastructure costs and foster commercial viability, while maintaining pathways for commercial operations at unlicensed operating sites.
Further consultations will be conducted to refine the specific legislative text and detail, ensuring continuous alignment with international colleagues and mitigating the risk of market fragmentation. Once concluded, the CAA will deliver its final instructions to the Department for Transport to consider progressing these proposals into statutory instruments.
Related
Discover more from sUAS News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Dear FOI Officer,
I am seeking information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and, where relevant, the Environmental Information Regulations 2004, regarding State-aircraft (police) drone operations and the accident notification system.
- Please confirm whether the Isle of Sheppey incident of 2 August 2025, involving a Kent Police drone striking an overhead cable and injuring a child, was formally notified to the AAIB or CAA.
- Provide the date and reference number of any such notification and whether a safety investigation was opened.
- Supply the guidance or memorandum of understanding that governs incident notification and investigation responsibilities for State-aircraft (police) drones.
- Provide any statistical summaries or anonymised MOR data (Mandatory Occurrence Reports) concerning police-UAS accidents between 2023 and 2025.
Electronic response preferred.
Yours faithfully,
Richard Ryan
Barrister, Mediator & International Arbitrator
+447867807008
Related
Discover more from sUAS News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The National Policy Framework for Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS), commonly known as drones, was launched on 20 August 2025.
The Policy Framework aims to guide high-level strategic development of Ireland’s UAS sector by fostering growth and innovation, while ensuring that operations remain safe and secure and environmental and social concerns are managed.
The Policy Framework recognises the importance of collaboration and engagement of a wide range of stakeholders. It was developed through cross-government engagement structures, and it is informed by public and industry consultation. It aims to facilitate consideration of how matters such as planning and environmental issues will be addressed by the appropriate authorities.
The Policy Framework focuses on three main areas:
- The Use of the Airspace and Planning
- Compliance and Enforcement
- Enterprise and Innovation
The policy positions set out on the Policy Framework are as follows:
- Ireland is committed to ensuring that safe low-level airspace management for UAS operations is delivered with due consideration for cost and efficiency, and the impact on society, manned aviation, and the transport industry as a whole.
- Safety and security remain Ireland’s first priority in the aviation sector. Compliance in UAS operations will be managed and efficient enforcement will be enabled.
- Ireland is committed to ensuring that sustainable and industry-led UAS sector development is supported with due consideration for societal concerns, efficiency and industry needs.
Implementation of the Policy Framework relies on strong cross-government structures and ongoing engagement and support from various government departments, agencies, the UAS sector and the public.
The Policy Framework is a living document that will continue to evolve to keep pace with the evolution of the UAS sector internationally and be responsive to emerging challenges and opportunities.
Related
Discover more from sUAS News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The examples of templates of Operations Manuals for RPAS operators with and without approval to carry dangerous goods as cargo have been updated in line with changes to the 2025-2026 Edition of the ICAO Technical Instructions for the Safe Transport of Dangerous Goods by Air.
Operators should use the template that is appropriate to their operation and complete it according to their company’s procedures, instructions and policies in line with Guidance on the Carriage of Dangerous Goods as Cargo for UAS/RPAS Operators in the Specific Category provided by CAP 2555.
SW2025/026
Related
Discover more from sUAS News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Dear Operator,
We are writing to you because you currently hold a PDRA-01 based Operational Authorisation (OA) to fly UAS in the Specific Category.
PDRA-01 based OAs will not be impacted by the introduction of the UK SORA Policy. PDRA-01 is under review, but it is very unlikely that there will be any changes to PDRA-01 before 31 March 2026. We plan on consulting before making any changes.
However, as an operator in the Specific Category you may wish to find out more about upcoming changes to UK policy, including the introduction of UK SORA.
Regards
Head of RPAS (Applications and Oversight)
Manager FS&I Policy
Introducing UK Specific Operation Risk Assessment (UK SORA)
UK Specific Operation Risk Assessment (UK SORA) will replace the current OSC methodology detailed in CAP 722A, which will be withdrawn in Q2 2025.
UK SORA will make risk assessments for UAS operators more transparent and consistent, while the new digital UK SORA Application Service is designed to deliver a more streamlined application process.
UK SORA is a more structured approach to conducting a risk assessment for UAS operations and is based on the Joint Authorities for Rulemaking on Unmanned Systems (JARUS) SORA v2.5.
You can find out more about UK SORA on the CAA website.
How will a SORA based application differ from an OSC based application?
A UK SORA based application has several benefits over the existing OSC based method.
- It uses an online digital application service that makes the application process easier to complete by guiding applicants through each of the SORA steps.
- CAP 722A is primarily a qualitative methodology and SORA is a more quantitative methodology. This means that there will be less subjectivity and more transparency in the evaluation of your application.
- The UK SORA application service enables applicants to ascertain the mitigation methods they will have to demonstrate using an online calculator, before choosing to proceed with the full assessment journey.
- The SORA is split into two phases. This removes the current necessity for applicants to provide all assurance evidence at the start of the application.
- The SORA framework and online platform will give you confidence that you are providing the evidence required to support the application.
Your current Operational Authorisation (OA) is not affected until it expires
If you have a current OSC based OA, it will remain valid until its expiry date. If you intend to renew your Authorisation, it is essential that you start to consider how you will renew now.
Renewing your current Operational Authorisation (OA)
You can renew your OSC based OA using the OSC methodology, three months prior to it expiring, using the OSC methodology but only before the UK SORA Application Service is live. Once the UK SORA Application Service is live, you will not be able to renew your OSC based OA, and you must apply for a UK SORA based OA.
Applying for a new Operational Authorisation (OA)
If you want to apply for anew OA between now and UK SORA coming into force, you should continue to use the current OSC method.
If you want to apply for anew OA after UK SORA comes into force, you should use the new digital UK SORA Application Service.
Changes to Remote Pilot Competence (RPC)
New RPC policy supports UKSORA by introducing more advanced levels of Remote Pilot competencies for a wide range of increasingly complex operational scenarios.
Remote Pilots will be able to train through an approved Recognised Assessment Entity (RAE) to one of the new competency standards required depending on the complexity of any intended operation.
The GVC is also being retained, the complexity of the operation will dictate the level of competence required.
What are Recognised Assessment Entities – Flightworthiness (RAE(F))?
RAE(F)s are external organisations that may be used by operators and manufacturers to validate evidence of compliance for technical requirements as part of UK SORA applications where this is required – for example, higher complexity operations where higher levels of assurance are required.
RAE(F)s, much like current RAEs, are likely to charge a fee for their services, however we expect use of an RAE(F), and/or a SAIL Marked UAS, to significantly reduce application processing time.
We anticipate most Operators will opt to use an RAE(F) to assess technical evidence, where this is required, rather than the CAA, although the use of an RAE(F) is optional. We are already working to establish the first RAE(F) in time for the launch of UK SORA.
As the industry scales up, capacity for technical assessment of UAS will also scale up, through growth of RAE(F)s, much like the current RAE model for Pilot Competence.
What are SAIL Marked UAS?
The SORA is based on a series of SAIL levels, which determine how much, and what, evidence is required for an application to be authorised. SAIL means Specific Assurance and Integrity Level.
The ‘SAIL Mark’ concept is where an RAE(F) works directly with UAS manufacturers during development. By validating Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) evidence, it will be possible to deliver a ‘SAIL Mark’ against a particular make & model of UAS, aligned to the SAIL levels within SORA in which it is safe to operate. An applicant could then utilise a ‘SAIL Marked UAS’ in an application to reduce the technical evidence required. The use of the SAIL mark concept is optional, although we expect its use to significantly reduce application processing time.
Key dates
- Q1 2025:UK SORA policy published but not in force.We will make the policy available in the CAA regulatory library. We will email you to let you know when this is published
- Q1 2025: The Remote Pilot Competency Policy will be published.
- Q2 2025: The policy concepts for the Recognised Assessment Entity(Flightworthiness) (RAE(F)) and SAIL Mark scheme will be published.
- Q2 2025: The UK SORA Application Service will go live, and the UK SORA Policy will come into force.
What does this mean for current PDRA-01 based Operational Authorisation(OA) holders?
PDRA-01 OAs are excluded from this update. PDRA01 is not impacted by the introduction of the UK SORA Policy.
What support can I get completing a SORA based application?
We are planning a programme of support over the next year to help operators move to the SORA methodology.
This will start with two webinars which will be published on the CAA YouTube channel to support the launch of UK SORA:
- Introduction to UK SORA – an overview of UKSORA and how to apply for an OA following the UK SORA methodology, including when you may need to interact with the future Remote Pilot Competency scheme and RAE(F)s.
- Transitioning OSC-based applications to UK SORA – an overview of the key differences between OSC / UKSORA risk assessment methodology and how to transition applications to maintain continuity of operations
These webinars will be launched in line with the UK SORA Policy in February 2025.
Following this, we are planning further updates to the industry and support to help operators through the process of using SORA for the first time.
We are committed to providing further help and support as we approach the implementation of UK SORA and the UK SORA Application Service. If there are any questions you have about the rollout or application of UK SORA on your operation, please email them to [email protected].
Related
Discover more from sUAS News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Prospect members working at the Civil Aviation authority (CAA) will take strike action in a dispute over pay.
This will be the first time Prospect members have taken strike action there in 40 years,
Strike action at CAA HQ in Crawley will be for 24 hours on 6 February.
Industrial action short of a strike, which has been ongoing since 20 January consisting of working to rule and an overtime ban, will pause for the duration of the strike, resuming on 7 February. Ongoing action short of a strike could cause delays across the industry to things like fleet refits, the introduction of new models, licensing of new hanger facilities.
The CAA imposed a 3-4% pay offer on staff after going through the motions of negotiating – an offer which neither kept pace with the industry nor civil service (The CAA is a Non-Departmental Public Body).
Rachel Curley, Deputy General Secretary of Prospect, said:
“Despite our ongoing industrial action the CAA has still not come to the table with an offer our members can accept so we have no choice but to escalate to a day’s strike.
“There is still time to avoid further industrial action which will be damaging for the industry but the employer needs to restart good faith negotiations.
“This is not an issue that is going to just go away and if it continues it will start to impact airlines causing delays to planned upgrades with a knock-on effect felt by passengers.”
Related
Discover more from sUAS News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Raleigh, N.C. – The North Carolina General Assembly has enacted House Bill 198, effectively removing the state uncrewed aircraft systems (UAS) operator knowledge test and permit. This significant legislative change is largely due to the dedicated efforts of AeroX and its members, who have been instrumental in educating lawmakers about the benefits of drones and fostering a favorable business environment for advanced drone operations in North Carolina.
The North Carolina UAS knowledge test and operator permit was first introduced into law in 2014 in Session Law 2014-100, along with other laws focused on the criminal use of drones. The law requires both state/local government and commercial drone operators to pass the North Carolina Department of Transportation’s (NCDOT) UAS Operator Knowledge Test. Commercial drone operators are also required to obtain the NCDOT UAS permit. This process could be completed online, and the permit would need to be renewed every two years.
Basil Yap, President of AeroX, recalls the early discussions surrounding the law. In 2014, as a state employee with the NCDOT Division of Aviation, Yap attended legislative Transportation Committee meetings. “There were significant concerns about the security and privacy of drone usage and a belief that the FAA was not moving quickly enough to capitalize on business opportunities,” Yap said. “One legislator even suggested that if the FAA wasn’t going to create a drone pilot license, the state would help push them along by passing our own.” In 2014, the FAA did not have a drone operator license in place. It wasn’t until 2016, with the introduction of the Small UAS Rule (Part 107), that the FAA began issuing the Remote Pilot Certificate.
From 2016 to 2020, Yap served as UAS Program Manager at NCDOT, where he helped establish the online knowledge test and permitting process. In addition, he led North Carolina’s participation in the FAA UAS Integration Pilot Program. During this time, drone operators frequently questioned why North Carolina was the only state with a UAS permit, viewing it as a redundant requirement to FAA’s Remote Pilot Certificate.
Since its formation in 2021, AeroX has prioritized regular engagement with the General Assembly to advocate for the drone industry. Last year, AeroX hosted a UAS Legislative Day on the Halifax Mall next to the General Assembly building, allowing legislators to observe drone operations and interact with manufacturers and operators. This spring, AeroX hosted the state legislature’s UAS Caucus at its Winston-Salem office, providing a platform for drone operators to discuss their expanding operations.
House Bill 198, titled DOT Legislative Changes, was first introduced in February of 2023 but was not sent to the Governor’s desk until May of 2024. Due to an issue regarding billboards, right-of-ways, and the cutting of certain trees, Gov. Cooper vetoed the bill. The House and Senate both overrode Gov. Cooper’s veto, thus codifying the bill into law on June 27th, 2024. The new law repeals Article 10 of Chapter 63 of the state’s General Statutes, which includes the requirements for a UAS knowledge test and a NC UAS Permit for commercial drone operators. The repeal will become effective on December 1, 2024.
About AeroX
AeroX is a nonprofit organization of business, government and community partners focused on facilitating the safe and efficient commercialization of unmanned aircraft systems technologies in North Carolina. It aims to capitalize on North Carolina’s prominence as a UAS innovation leader by creating a national model ecosystem for advanced air mobility and a testbed for pioneering companies seeking to leverage emerging UAS technologies to grow their companies. Learn more at www.ncaerox.com.
Discover more from sUAS News – The Business of Drones
Subscribe to get the latest posts to your email.
Helping support the development of integrating Uncrewed Aerial Systems (UAS) into UK Airspace
As part of our work to enable the safe integration of Remotely Piloted Aircraft (RPAS) flying Beyond the Visual Line of Sight (BVLOS) we have developed an airspace policy concept using Temporary Reserved Areas (TRA) of airspace.
To help support the development of the integration of Uncrewed Aerial Systems (UAS) into UK Airspace we have launched a regulatory sandbox.
We intend that the integrated Concepts of Operation (ConOps) be trialled by appropriate industry stakeholders to support the ongoing development of CAA policy and understanding of UAS flights integrated with other airspace users. The call is open to individual organisations or consortia working on the development of UA systems operating beyond visual line of sight (BVLOS).
Online briefing event
There will be a short briefing event on 10 January 2024 at 14:00 via MS Teams where you will be able to ask questions of the CAA with regards to the application process.
Please register below and you will be emailed joining instructions on the morning of 10 January 2024.
Register for the CAA RPAS Integration Sandbox Online Briefing
Application period
The application period for this sandbox has a staggered approach with three tranches:
Tranche 1
- Closing date 23:59 on Thursday 1 February 2024
Tranche 2
- Closing date 23:59 on Thursday 29 February 2024
Tranche 3
- Closing Date 23:59 on Thursday 4 April 2024
Only those who are accepted into the sandbox trial will be able to establish a trial TRA. This is to ensure that the CAA can manage the trials as a controlled exercise, working closely with all successful applicants to ensure the airspace policy concept and the technical enables required to move the policy forward are proved.
Full details and how to apply are available in this supporting publication:
]]>
Draft ED-325 Vol. I “Guidance Document for Special Condition Light – UAS – Medium Risk – Volume 1”
The objective is to develop a guidance document that may be used support the development of Means of Compliance (MoC) for EASA Special Condition Light-UAS – Medium Risk when used as Type Certification basis as part of a voluntary TC application for UAS for SAIL III and IV operations in the Specific Category. This guidance document would allow referring to existing standards (e.g. ED-279 “GENERIC FUNCTIONAL HAZARD ASSESSMENT (FHA) FOR UAS/RPAS” and ED-280 “GUIDELINES FOR UAS SAFETY ANALYSIS FOR THE SPECIFIC CATEGORY (LOW AND MEDIUM LEVELS OF ROBUSTNESS)”), whenever possible and deemed acceptable. Originally, it was planned to include MoC proposals for all subparts of the EASA Special Condition Light UAS – Medium Risk in the document. However, MoC proposals for some subparts are ready for OC while others are still being drafted. To provide guidance to applicants as soon as possible, it is proposed to publish the document in two volumes. This Volume 1 will contain MoC proposals for EASA Special Condition Light UAS – Medium Risk subparts C, D, and H.
posted on the EUROCAE workspace.
You are invited to review the proposed draft and complete the comment form. Early replies are encouraged.
All comments must be submitted by 1/30/2024 12:00:00 AM.
22 Nov 2023
]]>