Slower, more complex and expensive: the unmeant reality of SORA 2.5

Under SORA 2.5, the same operations that today fall under SAIL II will in most cases be reclassified as SAIL III, simply because a higher ground risk is assumed. That is remarkable, because since European drone regulation came into force more than five years ago, there have been no serious incidents.

And yet the risk is now rated even higher

The study that compares both versions (https://www.mdpi.com/2673-4591/90/1/47) shows it in black and white: almost every scenario is now treated as riskier.

SORA 2.5 opens a few doors, especially for the smallest drones, yes … but it closes many more at the same time. That has consequences:
1. More operators will need an LUC authorisation, with the cost, documentation and waiting time that come with it.

2. Others will move outside the legal framework: filing for a lower population density than reality, or flying without an authorisation at all.

3. Legal operators lose ground to players who work without a permit and can therefore charge less.

Belgium illustrates this clearly: waiting times for an authorisation now run to more than half a year. That shows the growth the sector has seen in the past two years, and also the slowness the regulation creates.

The SORA 2.5 workflow is more complex than ever

The process involves more iterative steps, especially around containment. The methodology demands expertise that most operators simply do not have in house.

The result? They have to hire external experts to carry out operations whose risk no longer justifies the disproportionate cost.

The perception is that SORA 2.5 will solve a great deal, and some problems are addressed. In reality it is disruptive, its effect will be limited because it creates new questions and problems, and once again it has estimated the real risk too conservatively.

SORA 2.5 risks becoming a paradox: a regulation meant to raise safety that in practice slows growth and discourages innovation.

Could this be less disruptive?

SORA 2.0 has been an accepted methodology (Acceptable Means of Compliance) for years. It is not perfect, but it still works. The current drone industry is built on it, is growing, and has shown for years how professional and safe its flying is. We can also take large steps forward without being disruptive: by injecting a few good new elements from SORA 2.5 into the current SORA 2.0, adding clarifications, and building on the existing process. In our view, phasing out SORA 2.0 is not necessary. Let each operator and manufacturer choose the menu that best fits their own needs.

Operators, manufacturers and their industry associations already share real safety and reliability data with EASA. That data should form the basis of intrinsic ground risk, not only mathematical models built on assumptions from ten years ago, when drone technology was less reliable.

How can Drone Architect help?

Drone Architect supports operators and manufacturers in obtaining the authorisations they need (STS, SORA, LUC, DVR). We also train DGLV staff. We see the challenges on both sides and look for solutions together.

We are adapting our way of working to the new SORA 2.5 methodology, and we have already prepared individual dry runs for clients so their roadmap is more future-proof.