Why security drones are a BVLOS problem#
An autonomous security drone that patrols a site at night with nobody watching it from the ground is operating beyond visual line of sight. Under the U.S. small-UAS rule (14 CFR Part 107) that requires a waiver or another authorization. In the EU, it moves the operation out of the low-risk “open” category. Architecture choices — patrols vs. docks vs. perching — change how much flying happens and therefore how much risk there is to assess, but they do not change the category.
United States: Part 107 today, Part 108 pending#
Today, U.S. BVLOS security operations generally run under Part 107 waivers or exemptions, issued case by case with conditions on airspace, altitude, detect-and-avoid and crew. In August 2025 the FAA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, “Normalizing Unmanned Aircraft Systems Beyond Visual Line of Sight Operations,” which would add a new Part 108 for BVLOS operations (and a Part 146 for supporting data services). The proposal would generally limit operations to 400 ft above ground level and covers aircraft up to 1,320 lb including payload, with airworthiness accepted through industry consensus standards rather than traditional certificates. Public safety and civic-interest operations are among the proposed use cases.
Remote ID (14 CFR Part 89)#
Most drones operating in U.S. airspace must broadcast Remote ID — identity, position, altitude, velocity and the control station or take-off location — either from a standard Remote ID aircraft or via a broadcast module. Part 89 took effect in April 2021; operators had to comply from September 16, 2023, and the FAA later extended its enforcement discretion by six months. For security teams Remote ID cuts both ways: your own fleet must broadcast, and a receiver lets you see cooperative drones near your site. Non-compliant drones, by definition, will not appear. See Remote ID explained.
European Union: the specific category and SORA#
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/947 divides operations into open, specific and certified categories. Open operations need no operational authorisation but exclude BVLOS over most ground. Security operations therefore typically fall in the specific category, which requires an authorisation from the national aviation authority based on a risk assessment — commonly the JARUS Specific Operations Risk Assessment (SORA), now at version 2.5 — or compliance with a standard scenario where one fits. The certified category applies to the highest-risk operations and resembles manned-aviation regulation.
Counter-drone: what you may not do#
Detection is generally lawful; mitigation is where most private operators run into trouble. In August 2020 the U.S. Department of Justice, FAA, Department of Homeland Security and Federal Communications Commission issued a joint advisory on the federal laws that may apply to drone detection and mitigation technologies — including criminal statutes on aircraft, wiretap and pen-register laws (relevant to some RF detection) and communications law (relevant to jamming). The advisory's core recommendation is to obtain legal advice before testing, acquiring or using such systems. Our counter-drone briefing and radar vs. RF guide cover the practical consequences.
How architecture affects authorization#
| Factor | Patrol drone | Drone-in-a-box | Perching sentry |
|---|---|---|---|
| Flight hours per day of coverage | High | High (continuous rotation) | Low (relocations only) |
| Time over people/roads | Route-dependent | Route-dependent | Short transits |
| Ground risk while watching | Aircraft airborne | Aircraft airborne | Aircraft landed |
| Typical authorization basis today (US) | Part 107 waiver | Part 107 waiver | Part 107 waiver |
Fewer flight hours per hour of coverage reduces exposure in a risk assessment; it does not remove the need for one. Ask any vendor who holds the authorization, what conditions it carries, and whether it transfers to your site.
Frequently asked questions#
Is Part 108 in effect?
As of October 2026 the final rule has not been published. The NPRM was published on August 7, 2025.
Do security drones need Remote ID?
In the United States, most drones operating in the national airspace must comply with Remote ID under 14 CFR Part 89.
Can a business jam drones over its property?
Generally no in the United States; mitigation is restricted by federal law. The 2020 DOJ/FAA/DHS/FCC advisory recommends seeking legal counsel before using detection or mitigation systems.
References#
- FAA, “Normalizing Unmanned Aircraft Systems Beyond Visual Line of Sight Operations,” Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Federal Register Vol. 90, No. 150, August 7, 2025. govinfo.gov
- 14 CFR Part 89, Remote Identification of Unmanned Aircraft; FAA Advisory Circular AC 89-1; ASTM F3586-22 (accepted means of compliance). faa.gov
- FAA, “FAA Extends Remote ID Enforcement Date Six Months.” faa.gov
- Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/947 on the rules and procedures for the operation of unmanned aircraft (open, specific and certified categories); JARUS SORA 2.5. easa.europa.eu
- U.S. DOJ, FAA, DHS and FCC, Advisory on the Application of Federal Laws to the Acquisition and Use of Technology to Detect and Mitigate Unmanned Aircraft Systems, August 2020. justice.gov