After a lengthy preparation, the so-called AMC amendment containing SORA 2.5 was published on the European Aviation Safety Agency’s (EASA) website on September 29. The renewed AMC (Acceptable Means of Compliance) describes the new methodology for mandatory risk analysis in the special operation category, which must be applied uniformly throughout the European Union. Applications for new operational authorisations should now be submitted in accordance with SORA 2.5, while incumbent operational authorisations (including the documentation of LUC holders) must be brought into line with SORA 2.5 within two years, as per the EASA decision. In our series of articles, we will review the most significant changes affecting the methodology.
SORA 2.5 reduces the number of operational safety objectives (OSOs). SORA 2.0 had 24 objectives, while SORA 2.5 defines 17, mostly by merging previous ones.
As before, the renewed methodology aligns each OSO’s substantiation level with the SAIL level. This specifies the safety increment and the supporting evidence that must be presented. SORA 2.5 shows where a declaration is enough and to whom supporting evidence is required.
The table below shows that technical OSOs (#01-#09) require the UAS designer (e.g., DJI) to provide evidence. This is needed in part (one criterion each) or in full (marked with an “x”) in six of nine cases.
“NR” stands for “not required,” meaning that at least the low-integrity level should be considered in the methodology, but no evidence needs to be attached to it. In the case of OSO #02, for example, up to SAIL II, only a description of the materials used in the UAS and their durability must be provided, but no manufacturer’s declaration is required. The introduction of the table is therefore clearly intended to fasten the assessment of the scope of documentation obligations and thus the compilation of documentation.