Navigating UK SORA: A guide to the CAA’s Decision No. 60 on drone operations

The UK’s lower airspace is becoming increasingly crowded. To safely integrate more complex Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS)—commonly known as drones—into our skies, the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) has issued Decision No. 60, which comes into force on 1 October 2026.

This directive adopts updated Acceptable Means of Compliance (AMC) and Guidance Material (GM) for the UK Specific Operation Risk Assessment (UK SORA) framework. If you are an operator looking to fly drones in the ‘Specific’ category, this update is designed to make the application process clearer, reduce avoidable bureaucratic friction, and ensure consistent safety assessments.

Here is a breakdown of what the new regulations entail, how compliance works, and what it means for the future of British drone operations.

What are the new pathways to compliance? Historically, proving to the regulator that a drone operation is safe has been a complex undertaking. The revised Annex A of the UK SORA aims to demystify how applicants gather and present their compliance evidence. The CAA has now established three distinct pathways:

• The Declarative Approach: For lower-risk requirements, operators can simply submit a standardised declaration stating they meet the acceptable means of compliance.
• The Agreed Compliance Basis Approach: This is a collaborative path where the operator and the CAA agree on the methods of compliance upfront (such as a specific flight test or engineering analysis). Once agreed, the operator collects the evidence and submits a declaration—though the CAA reserves the right to inspect the actual evidence during oversight.
• The Compliance Evidence Approach: The most rigorous route. Operators must submit both their compliance basis and all the raw physical evidence—such as flight logs, design appraisals, and parachute deployment analyses—directly to the CAA for full evaluation.

The update also mandates that all compliance evidence must be stored for three years after an operational authorisation ceases, ensuring a robust paper trail.

How is ‘Ground Risk’ being managed? What goes up must come down—but if a drone comes down unexpectedly, the CAA wants to ensure the risk to the public is minimised. Annex B extensively details how operators can mitigate the intrinsic ground risk of their flights.

The regulations categorise these strategic and tactical mitigations into four distinct types:

• M1A (Sheltering): Claiming a risk reduction because the drone only flies over areas where people are sheltered inside structures. The drone must not be capable of penetrating these buildings.
• M1B (Operational Restrictions): Flying at times or in areas where fewer people are present.
• M1C (Ground Observations): Using visual observers or technical means (like onboard cameras) to actively detect and avoid uninvolved people on the ground.
• M2 (Reducing Impact Dynamics): Employing technical designs, such as parachutes, to ensure that if a drone falls, its impact is less lethal.

The physics of falling drones To accurately assess the danger of a falling drone, the CAA relies heavily on kinetic energy (KE) calculations. The new guidance provides strict thresholds:

• Low Hazard (< 175 Joules): A drone that strikes the ground with less than 175 J of kinetic energy at its terminal velocity is generally deemed safe enough not to penetrate a standard structure.
• Medium Hazard (175 J to 7000 J): Operators must conduct a penetration analysis based on the specific building materials in their flight area (e.g., concrete vs. plywood).
• High Hazard (> 7000 J): Heavy or fast-moving drones require rigorous crashworthiness testing, structural simulations (such as Finite Element Analysis), and an assessment of secondary hazards like battery fires or fuel explosions.

Keeping drones contained A central pillar of the UK SORA update is Annex E, which governs “Containment”. If an operator loses control of their drone, it is vital that the aircraft does not breach its designated Operational Volume (OV) or the surrounding Ground Risk Buffer (GRB).

The CAA now requires operators to meet specific probability targets to prevent “fly-aways”. Depending on the operation’s Specific Assurance and Integrity Level (SAIL), containment is assessed either qualitatively or quantitatively:

• Qualitative Containment: Proving through design appraisals that “no probable single failure” (or an extremely remote failure, for higher risks) will cause the drone to leave its designated area.
• Quantitative Containment: For higher-risk operations, operators must prove mathematically that the probability of the drone exiting its buffer is less than 1 in 10,000 flight hours (10⁻⁴/FH) or even 1 in 1,000,000 flight hours (10⁻⁶/FH).

To achieve this, operators might use tethering, geo-caging systems, or independent Flight Termination Systems (FTS) that automatically end the flight the moment the drone crosses a digital boundary.

Why does this matter? Ultimately, Decision No. 60 represents a maturing of the UK’s drone industry. By explicitly aligning with international standards (such as JARUS SORA 2.5) and setting out clear mathematical and procedural boundaries for risk, the CAA is moving away from guesswork. This updated framework provides drone operators with a predictable, scalable rulebook to innovate—whether they are surveying infrastructure, delivering medical supplies, or filming the next blockbuster—while keeping the public firmly protected.