For years, the European drone industry has positioned itself as a global leader in safety, regulation, and innovation. At the center of this framework sits Specific Operations Risk Assessment (SORA), a methodology designed to enable safe, risk-based approvals for complex drone operations.

On paper, SORA is exactly what the industry needs: a structured, flexible approach to unlocking higher-risk missions such as BVLOS, urban operations, and scalable commercial services.

In reality, however, something has gone wrong.

Across Europe, companies are now facing approval timelines that stretch from several months to, in some cases, close to a year. For an industry built on innovation and agility, this is more than an inconvenience, it’s a structural problem.

The question is no longer whether SORA works in theory. The question is whether it works in practice.

The Growing Bottleneck

The issue is often framed as a failure of local aviation authorities. But that narrative misses the point.

Authorities across Europe are not the root cause, they are operating within a system that is inherently complex, resource-intensive, and, in many cases, open to interpretation. SORA demands deep technicalunderstanding, detailed risk modelling, and extensive documentation.

That alone is not the problem.

The problem is consistency.

When a framework is so intricate that two competent reviewers can interpret it differently, delays become inevitable. Each iteration, each clarification request, each revision adds weeks, sometimes months, to an already lengthy process.

This creates a bottleneck not because authorities are unwilling, but because the system itself demands a level of effort that is difficult to scale.

A System Few Truly Understand

One of the more uncomfortable truths about SORA is that, despite its widespread adoption, relatively few people fully understand it end-to-end.

Operators struggle to prepare applications. Consultants build entire businesses around navigating it. Authorities themselves are still aligning internally on how to interpret specific elements.

That should be a red flag.

A regulatory framework designed to enable industry growth should not require specialist interpretation at every step. When the barrier to entry becomes this high, innovation slows, smaller operators are pushed out, and only those with significant resources can compete.

This is not a failure of individuals. It is a signal that the system may be too complex for its intended purpose.

Let’s Stop Blaming Authorities

It’s easy to point fingers at regulators.

But the reality is more uncomfortable.

Authorities are trying to apply a system that is:

 Difficult to interpret
 Resource-heavy
 Lacking consistency across Europe

This isn’t a people problem. It’s a system problem.
When a framework is so complex that even experienced professionals struggle to apply it consistently, delays are inevitable.

And right now, those delays are killing momentum.

The Business Reality

From a business perspective, unpredictability is more damaging than restriction. Drone companies can adapt to strict rules. They can invest in technology, training, and compliance. What they cannot manage is uncertainty.

If a SORA approval takes three months, companies can plan around that. If it takes nine months, or twelve, planning becomes impossible.

Budgets cannot be forecast. Contracts cannot be guaranteed. Clients lose confidence.

This has a direct impact on growth. It discourages investment, delays innovation, and pushes companies to either limit their ambitions or explore opportunities outside Europe.

As a result, many operators are falling back on the only truly reliable pathway for generating consistent revenue: operating within the Open Category (EU drones).

The Open Category offers clarity, speed, and predictability. There are clear rules, no lengthy approval processes, and operations can be conducted almost immediately within defined limits.

But that reliability comes at a cost.

The Open Category is inherently restrictive. It limits the scale, complexity, and commercial potential of drone operations. In other words, while it enables revenue, it also caps growth.

This creates a paradox: the most accessible pathway is also the least transformative for the industry.

What This Means for U-Space

The vision of U-Space is built on the idea of scalable, integrated drone operations across Europe. It promises automation, efficiency, and the ability to manage high volumes of drone traffic safely.

But there is a fundamental contradiction.

U-Space depends on operators being able to access airspace in a predictable and timely manner. If the gateway to that airspace, SORA, takes up to a year to navigate, the entire model begins to break down.

This is particularly relevant as the industry gathers for the upcoming EUROCONTROL U-space event in Helsinki on April 15th, where regulators, UTM providers, and operators will discuss the future of European drone integration.

The conversations at these events are increasingly focused on scalability, automation, and commercial viability. But those ambitions must be grounded in operational reality.

You cannot build a high-frequency, on-demand drone economy on top of a low-speed approval system.

Until this mismatch is addressed, does it mean U-Space risks remaining more of a concept than a commercial reality?

The Open Category Is Quietly Winning

Here’s the part nobody really wants to admit

If you want predictable revenue in today’s drone industry, you don’t rely on SORA.

You operate in the Open Category (EU drones).

Why?
Because it works.
 No waiting months for approvals
 No endless back-and-forth
 No regulatory guesswork

You can plan. You can deliver. You can invoice.

That’s what businesses need.

But let’s not pretend this is a success story.

The Open Category is restrictive by design. It limits scale (although not impossible), complexity, and innovation.

So what do we have?

An industry where:

 The only reliable way to make money is also the least scalable

 And the pathway to real growth is stuck in regulatory limbo

That’s not a healthy ecosystem.

What Needs to Change
Not tweaks.
Not minor updates.

Real change.
 Simplification — Make SORA understandable without needing a over-priced
consultant that draines an already tight cashflow
 Consistency — Same expectations across Europe, not country-by-country guesswork
 Timelines — Predictable approval windows that businesses can plan around
 Accountability — If the system doesn’t work, it needs to be fixed, fast

Because here’s the reality:

If a process takes a year and nobody fully understands it, it’s not fit for purpose.

If SORA is to remain the backbone of European drone regulation, it needs to evolve. Not incrementally, but meaningfully.

First, simplification is essential. The framework must become more accessible, not only to regulators but to operators. Clearer guidance, standardised interpretations, and reduced ambiguity would go a long way in shortening approval timelines.

Second, consistency across Europe must improve. A SORA application should not face fundamentally different expectations depending on the country in which it is submitted.

Greater alignment between authorities is critical.

Third, timelines need to be addressed directly. Whether through defined service levels, prioritisation mechanisms, or partial approvals, the industry needs predictability.

Finally, there must be stronger collaboration between regulators and industry. Feedback loops should be continuous, not reactive. The people using SORA daily are in the best position to identify where it breaks down.

The Risk of Standing Still

The global drone industry is moving quickly. Other regions are experimenting with faster approval processes, clearer pathways, and more commercially focused frameworks.

If Europe does not adapt, it risks falling behind.

SORA was designed to enable the future of drone operations. But if it continues to create delays of up to a year, it may end up doing the opposite.

The industry does not need less regulation. It needs better regulation.

My Final Thoughts

SORA is not beyond saving, but it cannot remain as it is.

The challenges we are seeing today are not the result of bad actors or underperforming authorities. They are the natural outcome of a system that has become too complex, too slow, and too difficult to scale.

Fixing that system will require honest reflection, bold decisions, and a willingness to change.

Because if approval timelines continue to stretch toward a year, the question will no longer be whether SORA is flawed.

The question will be whether the industry can afford to wait.