The European drone industry was built on an ambitious promise: a single market, harmonised rules, and a risk-based regulatory framework that would allow innovation and safety to advance together. At the centre of that promise sits the Specific Operations Risk Assessment (SORA), the mechanism intended to unlock complex drone operations across the EU.

Today, that promise is fraying.

A recent survey of professional drone operators and academic researchers found unanimous agreement that SORA, as it is currently implemented, is preventing the drone industry from progressing. While conducted in one Member State, the conclusions resonate across Europe. These are not local frustrations, they are symptoms of a structural problem embedded in the EU regulatory model.

From Safety Framework to Market Gatekeeper

SORA was never intended to be a permanent commercial barrier. Developed through JARUS and adopted by EASA, it was designed as a risk assessment methodology, a tool to help authorities evaluate non-standard or higher-risk operations during early integration.

In practice, however, SORA has evolved into something else entirely: a de facto operating licence for almost all meaningful commercial drone activity in the Specific category.

This shift has consequences. A methodology designed to assess risk is now being used to determine who can operate, when, and at what scale, often repeatedly, and often inconsistently.

Approval Timelines That Break the Business Case

Across the EU, SORA approval timelines commonly range from four to eight months. For a commercial sector built on agility and responsiveness, this is commercially devastating.

Infrastructure inspection, energy, agriculture, mapping, emergency response, environmental monitoring, these are not experimental activities. They are mature, repeatable services. Yet operators are routinely forced to wait months before being allowed to fly.

No single market can function when regulatory approval times exceed commercial planning horizons. The result is predictable:

• Contracts are lost,
• Investment is deferred,
• Cross-border scalability becomes impossible.

This is not an innovation gap. It is a regulatory one.

Harmonisation in Theory, Fragmentation in Practice

One of the EU’s stated goals was harmonisation. SORA was meant to support that by providing a common safety language.

Instead, operators encounter:

• Divergent interpretations of identical SORAs,
• Inconsistent mitigation requirements,
• Wildly different approval timelines between Member States.

An operation approved in weeks in one country may take months, or be rejected outright, in another. This undermines the credibility of a single European drone market and penalises those attempting to operate compliantly across borders.

A System That Does Not Learn

Perhaps the most damaging weakness of the current SORA implementation is that it does not improve with evidence.

Operational data, safety records, telemetry, and compliance history rarely translate into:

• Faster approvals,
• Reduced requirements,
• Lower risk classifications.

Each SORA effectively starts from zero. Experience is not banked. Trust is not accumulated. Risk is reset rather than refined.

This runs counter to how safety systems mature in every other segment of aviation.

A Useful Comparison: How the U.S. Enables Growth While Managing Risk

Looking beyond Europe, the contrast with the United States FAA approach is instructive.

Under FAA Part 107, operators can apply for waivers to conduct higher-risk operations such as BVLOS or flights over people. These waivers are commonly authorised in as little as 30 days, and more typically within 60 days.

Crucially, the Part 107 waiver process:

• Time-bound,
• Predictable,
• Aligned with commercial realities.

It allows businesses to plan, invest, and grow, while still requiring operators to demonstrate safety mitigations.

The FAA is not abandoning oversight. It is sequencing it.

Further reinforcing this approach, FAA Part 108 is scheduled to come into effect in mid-2026, establishing a structured pathway for more advanced and scalable operations. The U.S. model recognises that regulation must evolve alongside industry maturity, not lag behind it.

The lesson for Europe is not to copy the FAA wholesale, but to recognise this principle:

Risk-based regulation must enable iteration and growth, not freeze operations in perpetual assessment.

This is something the current SORA model fails to do.

When Regulation Undermines Safety Outcomes

A regulatory framework that is slow, unpredictable, and resource-intensive does not improve safety. It reshapes behaviour.

Operators begin to:

• Avoid ambitious projects,
• Delay transparency,
• Exit the market altogether.

The first to leave are not the reckless, but the compliant. Over time, this reduces real oversight and weakens safety outcomes, the opposite of the regulatory intent.

Europe Does Not Need Less Regulation. It Needs Smarter Regulation

The growing criticism of SORA is not a call for deregulation. It is a call for regulatory realism.

If SORA is to remain relevant, its role must change:

• From a permanent gatekeeper,
• Targeted tool for genuinely novel or high-risk operations.

Routine commercial activities should transition toward capability-based approvals, where operators, aircraft classes, and operational envelopes are approved once and reused.

Operational data must reduce regulatory burden over time, not reset it. And approval timelines must reflect how businesses actually operate.

A Warning Europe Should Not Ignore

The unanimous feedback emerging from industry professionals and researchers is a warning sign. Europe has invested heavily in drone regulation, U-space, and strategic autonomy in aviation technology.

Yet regulation that prevents lawful operations from scaling will not deliver leadership. It will deliver stagnation.

If Europe wants a competitive, safe, and economically viable drone sector, maintaining the current SORA model without fundamental reform is no longer an option.

The industry has matured. The technology has matured. Now Europe’s regulatory framework must do the same.