Remote and BVLOS operations: can the sky stay safe when nobody is on site?

A drone-in-a-box (dock) automatically stores, charges (or swaps batteries for) and launches an aircraft. Installed on site, it takes off on schedule, flies a fixed route and returns. With no need to drive crews out, inspection frequency can rise without the workload rising with it.

A dock is not finished once it is installed: it has a capacity — how many aircraft can land at once. The delivery view of hub capacity and simultaneous take-off and landing (Airffic Logistics) helps when deciding how many inspection docks to place.

Docked aircraft are supervised from a remote operations centre. The remote pilot no longer “flies” so much as approves plans, watches for anomalies and intervenes when needed. One-to-many supervision will spread, which makes screen design and contingency procedures all the more important.

• Links: cellular (LTE, 5G) or dedicated radio. Decide what the aircraft does when the link drops (hold, return, land).
• Local eyes: weather sensors, dock cameras, contact with people nearby. Never fly blind to conditions on site.
• Intervention procedures: who does what, on which signal. More people mean more confusion, so keep roles tight.
• Records: flight logs, decision logs, incident reports, kept alongside the inspection data.

The core problem in beyond visual line of sight (BVLOS) flight is how to avoid meeting other aircraft. Within visual line of sight, the pilot or an observer watches the sky. Beyond it, that job has to be done by machines and rules. This is detect-and-avoid (DAA).

Inspection BVLOS flights tend to be low, close to structures, on fixed routes. The chance of meeting crewed aircraft is lower, but coordination with low-flying crewed aircraft such as air ambulances and agricultural helicopters remains essential.

How BVLOS over people is gated differently in Japan, the US and Europe is laid out, from the delivery side, in telling apart Level 4, Part 135 and the Specific category (Airffic Logistics).

UTM (unmanned aircraft traffic management) shares flight plans in advance, deconflicts overlaps and makes positions visible in flight. In Europe it is being institutionalised as U-space (its regulatory framework has applied since 26 January 2023), while the United States and Japan are running trials and building rules.

Rules vary by country and keep changing. In Japan, BVLOS flight over populated areas without observers (so-called Level 4) became possible on 5 December 2022, subject to aircraft certification and pilot licensing. In the United States, a proposed rule to normalise BVLOS (Part 108) was published in August 2025 and rulemaking is in progress. See world regulations for an up-to-date comparison.

For the whole structure of UTM beyond inspection, read how UTM lets operators share airspace (Airffic Flight Institute).

Inspection flights need coordination with both airspace rules and landowners. The asset owner’s permission alone is often not enough.

• Aviation authority: permissions, approvals and flight-plan notification (MLIT in Japan).
• Airports and air traffic control: near airports or inside controlled airspace.
• Road, river and rail authorities: when crossing or flying near their assets.
• Local crewed operators: air ambulances, emergency and agricultural helicopters.
• Residents and neighbouring businesses: flights near third parties, noise, privacy. See urban areas & people below.

What follows is the editors’ (Airffic World’s) view. When inspection shifts from once every five years to daily watching, inspection aircraft for bridges, power lines, buildings, sewers and factories — from different companies, on different airframes — will be flying over the same town at the same time. Getting permission one flight at a time and coordinating by phone will not scale.

We believe what is needed is an operating system for the airspace. Just as a computer’s OS allocates CPU and memory among many applications so they do not collide, an airspace OS allocates slices of space and time among many flights. That is what Airffic World is building.

• Non-cooperative crewed aircraft: reliably detecting small crewed aircraft or low helicopters that do not transmit is still costly or incomplete.
• Link loss: cellular coverage is weak in mountains, valleys and structural shadows. Safe lost-link behaviour must be designed in.
• How many per person: how many aircraft one supervisor can handle, and what happens when anomalies coincide, is still being proven.
• National differences: aircraft certification, licensing and UTM vary by country — a heavy burden for cross-border inspection providers.
• Social acceptance: how residents feel about drones flying over town every day. Noise, privacy and communication all matter.