Linking to the previous article
In the previous article, we explored that drone compliance is not a one-off administrative step but a working practice: risk management, planning, a clear responsibility framework, and feedback. In this article, we build on that and go one level deeper: what drone competency means today, and why completing a basic exam or formal compliance steps is not sufficient on its own.
The drone market is developing rapidly: more and more organisations use unmanned systems for surveying, inspection, documentation, or supporting precision workflows. At the same time, a misconception stubbornly persists: if someone “passed the exam”, then drone operations are automatically lawful and safe. In practice, the difference is not the existence of a document, but real competence.
The framework: EU risk-based regulation
EU drone regulation follows a risk-based approach. The requirements assigned to operations do not depend solely on the aircraft, but also on the environment, the level of risk exposure, and the controls applied during execution. This logic is laid down in Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/947, which is shown as in force in EUR-Lex; the current consolidated (codified) text is available with the date 05.01.2025.
What do we mean by drone competency?
Drone competency is the ability to apply rules and safety principles consistently in real-life situations. In an organisational setting, it typically appears on three layers:
- a legal and regulatory minimum (what is allowed and what is not),
- operational competence (mission planning, risk assessment, human factors),
- organisational competence (roles, processes, documentation, quality assurance).
Limits of basic exams – what online training does not provide
Basic exams (e.g., the theoretical requirements linked to the open category) are fundamentally important, but in practice, they are limited in several respects. On their own, they do not cover the full spectrum of safe and lawful operations.
Key points worth paying attention to:
- Decision-making: in real flight situations, interpreting the rules and the pressure to decide can be complex (weather, environment, risks).
- Mission planning: considering the relevant factors is more important than “fast planning” (site, constraints, controls, alternatives).
- Risk management: recognising risk and treating it proportionately is a learned skill; routine can lead to underestimation (“just a quick flight”).
- Organisational accountability: in a corporate setting, without roles, approvals, documentation and feedback, the system is not auditable.
- Human factors: workload, divided attention and decision-making biases are typically not exam topics—yet they cause most errors.
Open category: minimum preparation and competence requirements
Even in the open category, there are clear competence requirements summarised by EASA. Based on EASA’s “training requirements in the open category”, in the A1/A3 subcategory, the remote pilot must read the information material and then obtain a “Proof of completion for online training” by completing the online training and passing the online theoretical exam. In Hungary, the preparatory course is available in the E‑Titán system under the supervision of KTI. At the same time, the exam can be completed at KAV during an in-person examination session.
In the A2 subcategory the requirement is higher: in addition to the A1/A3 proof, practical self-training must be completed and declared, and an additional theoretical exam must be passed at an authorised organisation—in Hungary, at KAV.
Human factors – why are they the most common source of error?
In drone operations, a significant share of errors does not originate from technical failures but from human factors, including time pressure, divided attention, overconfidence, the so-called “normalisation of deviance” (when minor rule violations become routine), or simply misunderstanding the situation. Managing human factors, therefore, requires operational tools: checklists, standard decision points, stop criteria, documented post-operation review, and feeding lessons learned back into the process (e.g., recurrent training and scenario-based exercises).
Specific category and STS: when competence is part of the operational framework
When the planned operation no longer fits within the framework of the open category, the specific category becomes relevant. Here, competence is no longer merely “knowledge of legislation”: a structured risk assessment, an operational concept, and—where applicable—authority approval/authorisation may be required (e.g., an operational authorisation or an LUC authorisation).
For Standard Scenario (STS) operations, Appendix 1 of the Annexe to Regulation (EU) 2019/947 contains the conditions of the standard scenarios: CHAPTER I sets out STS‑01, and CHAPTER II sets out STS‑02. The message is clear: in STS, competence requirements are “built into” the standardised operational framework; compliance depends on planning and execution.
Summary
Basic exams and formal compliance steps represent the entry level, but they do not replace real operational and organisational competence.
The difference is made by a working practice: planning, risk management, deliberate handling of human factors, and a documented and improvable organisational system.
In the next article, we will build on this: how risk-based thinking becomes a daily operational tool in drone operations, and why the SORA approach can be considered the “common language” in the specific category.