Commercial UAV Expo Brings FAA and EASA Together on BVLOS Drone Operations

Commercial UAV Expo Brings FAA and EASA Together on BVLOS Drone Operations

Routine beyond visual line of sight drone operations could alter the economics of infrastructure inspection, surveying, emergency response and asset monitoring. Their wider adoption would allow one operator to cover longer corridors, supervise remote missions and collect data repeatedly without maintaining visual contact with every aircraft. The commercial value, however, depends as much on regulation as it does on aircraft endurance, sensors or automation.

That makes the decision to bring the US Federal Aviation Administration and European Union Aviation Safety Agency together at Commercial UAV Expo 2026 more significant than a conventional conference announcement. The two authorities oversee major aviation markets whose regulatory choices influence aircraft manufacturers, software developers, drone service providers and infrastructure owners well beyond their own jurisdictions.

Their joint keynote, titled “Two Skies, One Conversation: Comparing FAA and EASA Approaches to BVLOS Drone Operations”, will examine how the United States and Europe are moving from individually approved missions towards repeatable operations at scale. The practical issue for industry is not whether the two systems become identical, but whether their requirements become sufficiently compatible for technology, safety evidence and operating experience to travel across the Atlantic.

Briefing

• FAA and EASA representatives will discuss their respective approaches to scalable BVLOS drone operations.
• The session takes place on 3 September 2026 at Commercial UAV Expo in Las Vegas.
• Operational waiversivers, exemptions, the Specific Operations Risk Assessment and emerging US approval routes will be examined.
• The keynote is open to every registration category, including Exhibit Hall Only pass holders.
• Infrastructure inspection, energy, construction, logistics and public safety are among the sectors with a direct commercial interest in the regulatory discussion.

Turning Drone Capability into an Infrastructure Service

Many commercial drones can already fly automated routes, return to charging stations and collect georeferenced imagery or sensor data with limited intervention. The harder task is obtaining permission to operate those systems beyond the pilot’s immediate view, particularly when missions extend across public roads, railway corridors, utilities or populated areas.

This distinction matters commercially. A drone used within visual line of sight is often deployed as a tool supporting an individual surveyor or inspection team. A BVLOS system can become part of a continuous asset-management service, covering kilometres of infrastructure, responding to alarms or revisiting the same location according to a predetermined schedule.

Road agencies could use such operations to inspect embankments, bridges, drainage systems and construction progress along extended corridors. Rail operators could monitor trackside vegetation and storm damage, while energy companies could examine pipelines, transmission lines and renewable energy assets across territories that are expensive or hazardous to reach from the ground.

The strongest business cases are therefore likely to emerge where BVLOS reduces travel, lane closures, work at height or exposure to operational hazards. It can also improve the frequency of inspections. That may allow infrastructure owners to identify changes earlier and allocate maintenance resources according to measured asset condition rather than fixed inspection intervals alone.

The FAA’s Proposed Route Towards Routine Operations

In the United States, many advanced drone missions have historically depended on waivers, exemptions or other operation-specific approvals. These mechanisms have enabled important projects, but they are difficult to turn into a predictable national operating model because applicants must devote time and specialist resources to securing permission.

The FAA’s proposed Part 108 framework is intended to create a more standardised route for BVLOS activity. Published in August 2025, the proposal covers operational authorisations, aircraft, personnel, maintenance, detect-and-avoid measures, strategic deconfliction, operations over people, security and record keeping. The FAA describes it as a performance-based framework designed to accommodate technical development while normalising certain low-altitude BVLOS operations.

Under the proposal, operators would obtain either an operating permit or an operating certificate, depending on the scale and risk of the operation. It also anticipates roles for third-party service suppliers and industry consensus standards, reflecting the fact that scaled drone operations will rely on an ecosystem of aircraft, communications, surveillance and airspace-management services.

For infrastructure organisations, the critical outcome would be greater predictability. A contractor considering a fleet of autonomous inspection drones needs to know whether approvals can be reproduced across projects and territories. Without that certainty, technology may perform successfully during a pilot programme but remain difficult to incorporate into multi-year service contracts or capital plans.

The rulemaking process still matters, and proposed requirements should not be treated as settled law. Nevertheless, the FAA’s direction indicates a move away from managing BVLOS mainly as a series of exceptions and towards an operating category intended to support infrastructure inspection, agriculture, logistics and emergency response at greater scale.

Europe’s Risk-Based Operating Model

EASA’s framework provides a different point of comparison. European drone operations are divided into Open, Specific and Certified categories according to their level of risk. BVLOS missions commonly fall within the Specific category unless they can be conducted under a predefined standard scenario or another applicable authorisation route.

The Specific Operations Risk Assessment, widely known as SORA, gives operators a structured method for evaluating ground and air risks, identifying mitigations and demonstrating that an operation can be conducted safely. This allows an application to be assessed according to its particular environment, aircraft and operating concept rather than relying only on a prescriptive list of flight rules.

That flexibility is valuable for complex infrastructure missions, but it also places substantial demands on operators. Preparing a robust operational concept, gathering evidence and demonstrating compliance can require aviation, engineering and regulatory expertise. Smaller survey businesses may find this burden proportionally greater than established operators with dedicated compliance teams.

European work on predefined risk assessments, standard scenarios and recognised operating structures is consequently important. The more that common operating patterns can be addressed through reusable frameworks, the easier it becomes to move from individual demonstrations to recurring commercial services.

The FAA and EASA discussion will be particularly relevant where American approval pathways begin to address risks already considered through SORA. Common terminology is less important than whether regulators accept comparable safety outcomes, evidence and technical capabilities. If they do, suppliers could avoid repeating much of the same validation work for separate markets.

Regulatory Alignment as an Industrial Issue

A fragmented regulatory environment affects more than pilots. Drone manufacturers must determine what levels of reliability, containment and detect-and-avoid performance their aircraft must achieve. Software companies need to understand how flight records, remote identification, operational boundaries and airspace information should be managed. Communications providers must demonstrate that command-and-control links remain adequate for the intended mission.

Each major difference between jurisdictions can generate additional engineering, documentation and certification costs. Those costs are eventually reflected in equipment prices and service rates. They can also discourage smaller technology companies from entering multiple markets, even when their products address genuine infrastructure needs.

Complete harmonisation is unlikely because the United States and Europe have different legal structures, airspace systems and approaches to operational approval. Practical convergence remains possible, particularly around safety evidence, risk assessment, remote identification, operational data and the performance expected from critical systems.

Shared approaches would also help multinational infrastructure owners. A company operating utilities, roads or industrial assets in several countries would be better placed to establish common procurement requirements if aircraft and operational systems could satisfy broadly compatible regulatory expectations.

This is why a public comparison between the authorities has commercial weight. It gives manufacturers and operators an opportunity to distinguish between enduring regulatory differences and requirements that may gradually align as experience accumulates.

From Demonstrations to Bankable Programmes

Infrastructure organisations have conducted numerous drone trials, but a technically successful demonstration does not automatically justify fleet investment. Decision-makers need to know how many missions can be completed, how often human intervention will be required and whether an operating authorisation will remain usable as the programme expands.

Regulatory predictability influences contract length, insurance, workforce planning and equipment financing. If permission is limited to a narrow route or operating condition, the customer may be unwilling to commit to a long-term managed service. A scalable approval framework can give both parties greater confidence that technology and training expenditure will produce recurring revenue or operational savings.

BVLOS also changes the composition of the service being procured. Infrastructure owners are no longer buying only flight time or aerial photographs. They may be purchasing a managed system incorporating airworthiness assurance, mission control, connectivity, automated data processing, cyber security and integration with asset-management platforms.

Procurement teams will therefore need to look beyond headline range and payload specifications. They must examine the complete safety case, the availability of communications networks, contingency procedures, data ownership, system redundancy and the supplier’s ability to maintain regulatory compliance throughout the contract.

Investors face a similar distinction. Companies that can complete impressive demonstrations are not necessarily equipped to operate regulated fleets across several territories. Businesses with reproducible approvals, documented safety performance and interoperable technology may hold a more durable advantage than those relying principally on aircraft capability.

Detect and Avoid, Connectivity and Airspace Services

Routine BVLOS operations depend on maintaining awareness of other aircraft without relying on the pilot’s eyesight. Detect-and-avoid systems may use combinations of onboard sensors, ground-based surveillance and external data. The appropriate arrangement depends on airspace, altitude, traffic levels and the consequences of a system failure.

Strategic deconfliction adds another layer by helping operators plan missions that do not create avoidable conflicts. As activity grows, unmanned traffic management and associated service providers may become part of the operational architecture, sharing airspace information between operators and relevant authorities.

Reliable connectivity is equally important. Command-and-control links, telemetry and contingency communications must remain available across the operating area. Infrastructure corridors frequently pass through remote landscapes, tunnels, cuttings, industrial zones and other environments where network coverage may be inconsistent.

These requirements create opportunities for communications providers, surveillance companies, mapping platforms and airspace-data specialists. They also reinforce the need for regulators to define performance outcomes clearly. Technology providers can innovate more effectively when they understand the reliability and assurance they must demonstrate, even if authorities do not prescribe a single technical solution.

A Timely Transatlantic Conversation

Commercial UAV Expo’s decision to place the FAA and EASA on the same stage reflects the international nature of the supply chain. Aircraft, sensors and mission software are frequently developed in one jurisdiction, integrated in another and deployed by operators serving customers in several markets.

“The commercial drone industry is no longer a collection of regional markets. It is one global industry with shared ambitions and shared growing pains,” said Adrianne Madden, Event Director of Commercial UAV Expo. “Our job is to provide the place where regulators, end-users, service providers, and manufacturers from around the globe can connect face to face. Featuring the FAA and EASA in our final keynote of the 2026 event is a fitting reflection of the international community Commercial UAV Expo has become.”

The value of the keynote will depend on how specifically the authorities address operational experience and the remaining barriers to scale. Operators need clarity on where approval requirements may become more standardised, how safety evidence will be evaluated and whether successful operating models can be adapted across jurisdictions.

“It’s rare to get the FAA and EASA on the same stage at the same time, and rarer still to hear them compare notes candidly in front of an audience,” said Matt Collins, Content Manager, Commercial UAV News. “This is a chance to hear two of the world’s most influential aviation authorities work through the industry’s most pressing challenges in real time, from how BVLOS is being scaled to how waivers, exemptions, and risk-based frameworks like the SORA are being applied.”

No conference discussion can settle a rulemaking process or remove every national difference. It can, however, reveal how regulators understand the same operational risks and where industry should concentrate its engineering, evidence gathering and investment. For companies making decisions several years ahead, that direction can be as valuable as an immediate regulatory change.

Building a Scalable Market Around Safety

The commercial drone sector has sometimes treated regulation as an obstacle that follows technology. In practice, credible regulation is part of the market infrastructure. Asset owners and public authorities are more likely to approve recurring operations when responsibilities, equipment standards and safety expectations are clearly established.

This is especially important when drones fly over transport networks, construction sites or communities. A serious incident could affect public acceptance far beyond the operator involved. Scaled deployment therefore requires reliable aircraft, disciplined operational management and transparent reporting alongside regulatory permission.

The FAA and EASA are attempting to address the same central problem: how to permit more valuable drone operations without transferring unacceptable risk to other airspace users or people on the ground. Their methods may differ, but both must create systems that remain credible as flight numbers increase.

For construction and infrastructure, the eventual benefit could be a shift from occasional aerial surveys to persistent digital observation. Roads, bridges, railways, energy networks and major projects could be monitored more frequently, with data flowing directly into maintenance, engineering and operational systems. Regulation will determine how quickly that possibility becomes an ordinary and commercially dependable service.

Key Industry Questions

1. What is beyond visual line of sight drone operation? BVLOS operation occurs when a remote pilot cannot maintain direct unaided visual contact with the drone throughout its flight. It allows an aircraft to travel farther, follow long infrastructure corridors or operate from a remote base. Because the pilot cannot rely on eyesight to avoid other aircraft or hazards, BVLOS normally requires additional measures involving communications, surveillance, detect-and-avoid technology, operational procedures and airspace coordination. The regulatory requirements depend on the jurisdiction, airspace and risk of the proposed mission.
2. Why is BVLOS important for infrastructure inspection? Visual line of sight limits the distance that one crew can cover and often requires personnel to move along the asset with the aircraft. BVLOS can make longer missions and remotely supervised operations possible, improving the economics of inspecting roads, railways, pipelines, power lines and distributed industrial facilities. It may also reduce exposure to traffic, work at height and difficult terrain. Its greatest value comes from enabling repeatable data collection, which helps owners identify deterioration and compare asset condition over time.
3. What is the FAA’s proposed Part 108? Proposed Part 108 is the FAA’s planned regulatory framework for routine BVLOS drone operations in US airspace. It would establish requirements covering operators, aircraft, personnel, maintenance, operational authorisations, detect-and-avoid capabilities, deconfliction, security and records. The proposal includes operating permits and certificates suited to different scales and risk levels. It is intended to replace dependence on operation-specific exceptions for many missions, although the final requirements remain subject to the federal rulemaking process and may differ from the proposal.
4. How does EASA regulate BVLOS flights? Many European BVLOS missions are conducted within EASA’s Specific category, where an operator requires authorisation based on the risk of the proposed activity. The operator may use SORA to describe the concept of operations, assess air and ground risks and identify suitable mitigations. Other routes may be available where standard scenarios, predefined risk assessments or recognised operator arrangements apply. National aviation authorities remain involved in authorisations, so operators must also consider implementation within the country where flights will take place.
5. What is SORA and why does it matter? The Specific Operations Risk Assessment is a structured methodology used to evaluate drone operations and determine the safeguards needed for an acceptable level of safety. It considers the risk to people on the ground, the likelihood of encountering crewed aircraft, the reliability of technical and operational mitigations and the integrity expected from the applicant. SORA matters commercially because it creates a common language for complex operations, although preparing the assessment can require considerable evidence and specialist expertise.
6. Will FAA and EASA rules become identical? Identical rules are unlikely because the authorities operate within different legal, administrative and airspace systems. More practical forms of alignment are possible. These could include comparable treatment of operational risk, recognised technical standards, similar evidence requirements and shared expectations for remote identification, detect-and-avoid systems or flight records. Such convergence would reduce duplicated engineering and compliance work without requiring either authority to surrender responsibility for its own airspace.
7. What should infrastructure owners examine before procuring BVLOS services? Owners should assess the operator’s authorisation, safety record, insurance and ability to maintain compliance over the contract period. Technical evaluation should cover aircraft reliability, command-and-control connectivity, detect-and-avoid arrangements, emergency procedures, data security and environmental operating limits. Buyers should also establish who owns the collected data, how it integrates with asset-management systems and what happens when communications or navigation services fail. A credible supplier should explain the complete operating system rather than concentrating solely on the drone.
8. Which technologies are most important for scalable BVLOS operations? No single technology makes BVLOS possible. Scaled operations normally combine reliable aircraft, command-and-control links, navigation, remote identification, detect-and-avoid capabilities, mission-management software and access to relevant airspace information. Automated docking and charging may support persistent deployments, while artificial intelligence can assist with data analysis. The required combination varies by operating environment. Regulators are increasingly interested in demonstrable system performance and operational resilience rather than technological novelty alone.
9. When and where will the FAA and EASA keynote take place? “Two Skies, One Conversation” is scheduled for 3 September 2026, from 9:00 to 10:00 PDT at Caesars Forum in Las Vegas. It forms part of Commercial UAV Expo 2026, which runs from 1 to 3 September. The keynote is included with all event registration categories, including the Exhibit Hall Only Pass, Full Conference Pass and relevant DRONERESPONDERS passes. It follows the opening keynote on 1 September and concludes the event’s keynote programme.

Strategic Takeaways

• Standardised BVLOS approval routes could turn infrastructure drones from project-specific tools into recurring inspection and asset-monitoring services.
• Greater FAA and EASA alignment would reduce duplicated compliance costs for manufacturers, software providers and operators entering transatlantic markets.
• Infrastructure procurement will increasingly assess the complete operating ecosystem, including connectivity, airspace services, cyber security and data integration.
• Proposed US Part 108 requirements signal a shift from individual exceptions towards a framework intended to support routine and scalable commercial operations.
• Companies with repeatable approvals, documented safety performance and interoperable systems are likely to be better positioned than suppliers relying on aircraft capability alone.