BVLOS Drone Rules Compared: UK and Beyond

What BVLOS Means for Drone Pilots

Beyond Visual Line of Sight (BVLOS) operations allow a drone to fly where the remote pilot can no longer see the aircraft directly. This capability is essential for infrastructure inspection, agricultural surveying, delivery services, and search and rescue missions. However, because the pilot cannot visually detect other aircraft or obstacles, every aviation authority imposes additional safeguards before permitting BVLOS flights.

As of May 2026, no country allows unrestricted BVLOS operations. Each jurisdiction requires some form of authorisation, risk assessment, or technological mitigation. The details, however, vary considerably.

United Kingdom

The UK Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) manages BVLOS permissions through the Specific category of the UK UAS regulatory framework. Operators must submit an Operational Safety Case (OSC) or complete a SORA (Specific Operations Risk Assessment) to demonstrate that risks have been mitigated to an acceptable level.

Key requirements typically include detect-and-avoid capability, a robust command-and-control link, and appropriate airspace coordination. The CAA has also been developing pathways for routine BVLOS in lower-risk environments, such as rural and semi-rural areas, through its Innovation Sandbox and various trial programmes.

Operators need a valid GVC (General VLOS Certificate) or equivalent as a baseline, plus additional BVLOS-specific training and competency demonstration.

European Union (EASA)

Under EU Regulation 2019/947, BVLOS operations fall within the Specific category. The primary pathway is the SORA methodology, which classifies operations into SAIL levels (I through VI) based on ground and air risk. Higher SAIL levels demand more stringent mitigations, including enhanced detect-and-avoid systems and third-party insurance.

EASA has published pre-defined risk assessments (PDRAs) to streamline approvals for common BVLOS scenarios. Member states retain the authority to issue operational authorisations, meaning the practical process can differ between, for example, France (DGAC) and Germany (LBA).

United States

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) historically required Part 107 waivers for any BVLOS flight. The FAA published its BVLOS rule (14 CFR Part 108) to create a more structured pathway, requiring operators to demonstrate aircraft equipage, pilot training, and operational procedures that ensure an equivalent level of safety to visual operations.

The FAA places particular emphasis on detect-and-avoid technology and has been collaborating with industry through programmes like BEYOND and various UAS Integration Pilot Programs. Remote identification (Remote ID) is a prerequisite for BVLOS operations under the current framework.

Australia

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) in Australia permits BVLOS operations under a Part 101 approval. Operators must hold a Remote Operator Certificate (ReOC) and submit an application demonstrating safety mitigations. CASA considers factors including the operational environment, aircraft systems, pilot competency, and emergency procedures.

Australia's vast rural landscape has made it a testing ground for BVLOS delivery and agricultural applications, and CASA has issued several approvals for ongoing commercial BVLOS operations in remote areas.

Canada

Transport Canada manages BVLOS through Special Flight Operations Certificates (SFOCs). Operators must demonstrate equivalent safety to VLOS operations, including detect-and-avoid capability and lost-link procedures. Canada has been active in BVLOS trials, particularly in the northern territories where distances make traditional VLOS operations impractical.

New Zealand

The Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand allows BVLOS under Part 101 and Part 102 frameworks. Part 102 operators can apply for BVLOS-specific permissions as part of their exposition. New Zealand's relatively uncongested airspace has facilitated several long-range BVLOS trials, though commercial operations still require detailed safety cases.

Key Differences at a Glance

• Risk assessment framework: The UK and EU both use SORA, though the UK applies its own national variant. The FAA, CASA, and Transport Canada use jurisdiction-specific safety case approaches.
• Detect-and-avoid: All jurisdictions require some form of DAA capability, but the technical standards and approval processes differ.
• Airspace integration: The UK, EU, and USA are all developing U-space or UTM (UAS Traffic Management) systems to enable routine BVLOS, but implementation timelines vary.
• Rural vs urban: Most countries have approved BVLOS in rural environments first, with urban BVLOS remaining a longer-term objective everywhere.

What This Means for UK Operators

If you hold a UK-issued BVLOS authorisation, it is valid only within UK airspace. Operating BVLOS in an EU member state requires a separate authorisation from the relevant national aviation authority under EASA rules. Similarly, operations in the United States, Australia, Canada, or New Zealand each require country-specific approvals.

The SORA framework provides a common language between the UK and EU, which can simplify the process of preparing documentation for both jurisdictions, but the approvals themselves remain separate.