Linking to the previous article
In recent weeks, we have argued that drone compliance is not “paperwork” but a working practice: planning, a clear responsibility framework, risk management and feedback. In Article 3, we also explained why a basic exam alone is not enough: in real operations, managing decisions, risks and human factors is critical.
Now we move forward: how risk-based thinking becomes a day-to-day tool in the specific category, and why the SORA methodology can be considered the “common language” between operators and authorities.
Why is risk assessment required in the specific category—and what does it mean?
Under the logic of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/947, in the specific category, the operator must submit a risk analysis appropriate to the planned operation to the competent authority if the operation does not fit within the framework of Pre-Defined Risk Assessments (PDRA) and is not performed under a Standard Scenario (STS). If the operator holds a Light UAS Operator Certificate (LUC) with the relevant privileges, the submission/authorisation burden may be reduced in certain cases.
The key point is this: the central element of authorisation-related compliance in the specific category is not a single exam, but the systematic identification of the operation’s risks, the definition of risk-reduction measures, and demonstrating that these measures actually work in the intended operational environment.
What is SORA, and why has it become so influential?
SORA (Specific Operations Risk Assessment) is a risk-assessment methodology for drone operations in the specific category. It helps identify operational risks, define the necessary risk-reduction measures and safety objectives, and determine operational limitations, personnel training objectives, technical requirements and the relevant procedures.
SORA originally emerged within the JARUS framework and then became widely adopted in European practice. In its decision issued on 29 September 2025 (ED Decision 2025/018/R), EASA introduced the SORA 2.5 package into the AMC/GM material associated with Regulation (EU) 2019/947, while keeping version 2.0 in force as well.
How does SORA look in everyday practice?
One major advantage of SORA is that it breaks risk assessment down into clear steps.
Typical logic:
- Preparing the ConOps (Concept of Operations – detailed description of the operation) and defining the portion of airspace available for the operation together with the necessary operational constraints: what we fly, where, when, and under what limitations.
- Identifying ground risks: estimating ground exposure (population density) and managing the ground risk buffer.
- Identifying air risks: planning the airspace, traffic and the overall air environment.
- Determining the resulting risk and the operational safety objectives based on the final ground and air risks.
- Designing risk-reduction measures and mapping them to the required levels of assurance: which procedural/technical/human measures reduce the identified risks, and how reliable and effective they are.
The result is a framework that connects directly to the Operations Manual (OM): procedures, checklists, training requirements, maintenance and configuration rules/procedures, and documented post-operation review.
Why is SORA a “common language”?
In the specific category, the operator and the authority are trying to answer the same question: “Is the risk of the planned operation manageable—and if so, under what conditions?”. SORA provides a consistent framework for this: the risks and the measures reducing them appear in the same logic and in a traceable way. It is important to note that SORA is not the only possible methodology: if another risk-assessment method is used, it can also be submitted, but it must be demonstrated that it meets the regulatory expectations. In practice, however, SORA’s widespread adoption speeds up professional coordination and reduces the risk of misunderstandings.
Quick example – how does it help decision-making?
Let’s assume we perform an infrastructure inspection within an industrial site in VLOS, near the site boundary, where there is a public road and occasional pedestrian traffic. Here, the compliance question is not whether we have passed an exam, but whether we can answer the following:
- How do we define the operational area and the buffer zone?
- What procedure do we use to close/manage the ground risk (e.g., a controlled ground area, signage, etc.)?
- How do we reduce the likelihood of encountering other aircraft and the risk of collision?
- Under what mission-interruption conditions (criteria) do we stop or abort the operation?
The advantage of SORA is that it turns these questions into a coherent system: the controls are not ad hoc ideas but follow from a consistent risk logic.
Summary
In the specific category, risk-based thinking is not extra administration but a practical tool for safety and lawful operations. SORA has become a “common language” because, through the same structure, it makes an operation understandable for both operators and the authority.