What is a PDRA? Pre-defined risk assessments in EU drone rules

A PDRA is a risk assessment EASA has already carried out for a recognisable type of operation, published as a table an operator completes rather than a study an operator writes. You find the PDRA that matches what you intend to fly, demonstrate that your operation meets every condition in it, produce an operations manual, and apply to your national aviation authority for an operational authorisation. What you skip is the full Specific Operations Risk Assessment, which is a substantial piece of analytical work most operators would rather not repeat for routine flying.

It sits deliberately between the two other routes into the Specific category. A standard scenario is faster still, because it needs only a declaration, but it is rigid and tied to a class labelled aircraft. A full risk assessment is completely flexible and correspondingly expensive in time and expertise. The PDRA takes the regulator's analysis and leaves the operator more room than a standard scenario allows. This article covers the five published PDRAs, how the route works, and where it fits for a commercial programme.

How a PDRA differs from the routes either side of it

The first difference is the outcome. A standard scenario ends in a declaration that the authority acknowledges; a PDRA ends in an operational authorisation that the authority issues after reviewing what you submitted. That means a queue and a review, which is slower, and it also means an approval document naming your operation, which some clients and insurers prefer to a self declaration.

The second difference is the aircraft. Standard scenarios require a C5 or C6 class identification label, and a great deal of capable equipment does not carry one. The PDRAs derived from those scenarios, labelled S-01 and S-02, rest on the same underlying risk assessment without imposing that label requirement. For a programme flying aircraft that predate class marking, or aircraft that were never marked for the European market, this is frequently the only practical route into work that would otherwise fit a standard scenario perfectly.

The five published PDRAs

Two families exist. The S family is derived from published standard scenarios, and the G family is generic, covering operations that no standard scenario describes. EASA publishes the tables alongside the application forms for the Specific category, and its application forms page lists all five: PDRA S-01 for agricultural works and short range cargo operations, PDRA S-02 for surveillance together with agricultural works and short range cargo operations, PDRA G-01 for surveillance and long range cargo operations, PDRA G-02 covering all ranges of operation, and PDRA G-03 for linear inspections and agricultural works.

Reading the five together is the exercise worth doing, because the boundaries between them are set by range, environment, and payload rather than by industry. The names are less limiting than they read. PDRA G-03, covering linear inspections, is the one most likely to matter to utility, rail, and pipeline programmes, because corridor work is exactly the profile it describes. G-01 and G-02 open up longer range operations that no standard scenario reaches. The practical exercise at the start of any Specific category project is to read all five against the intended operation before assuming a full risk assessment is necessary, because the tables cover more commercial flying than their titles suggest.

What applying involves in practice

The work is real but bounded. You complete the relevant PDRA table, demonstrating compliance with each of its points rather than deriving your own mitigations from first principles. You write an operations manual describing how the operation will run, which is where procedures, crew roles, emergency handling, and maintenance arrangements get set down. You submit the application form for an operational authorisation to your national authority along with that evidence, and the authority reviews it against the published assessment it already trusts.

The reason this is easier for both sides is that the authority is checking conformity rather than judging novelty. Your submission is being compared against a document the regulator wrote, so the question is one of conformity rather than persuasion. That shortens review and makes refusals more predictable, because the grounds for one are visible in the table before you submit anything. It also means that anything genuinely unusual about your operation, an unusual aircraft, an unusual environment, an unusual containment problem, will push you back towards a full risk assessment however well the rest fits.

Holding an authorisation open over time

An operational authorisation describes an operation as you presented it, which makes it a commitment rather than a certificate. The conditions in the PDRA table become the conditions of your approval, and they bind the crew flying next spring as firmly as the person who filled in the form. Aircraft get replaced, pilots join, procedures are revised after an incident, and a programme that stops checking will eventually fly a job that the authorisation does not cover without anyone deciding to.

Amendments are the usual remedy and they are far cheaper to obtain than a fresh application, provided the operator notices the need before an authority does. Keeping the authorisation honest means the same records that supported the application staying current: which aircraft are approved for the operation, which pilots hold the required competency, what the operations manual currently says and when it last changed, and which jobs were flown under the authorisation. That record is also what an authority asks for during oversight, and it is what makes a renewal or an amendment a modest piece of work rather than a rebuild.

Common mistakes in PDRA applications

Assuming a PDRA means no paperwork. The risk assessment is done for you; the operations manual, the evidence of compliance, and the application are not. A PDRA reduces analysis, not documentation.

Reading the titles too narrowly. Linear inspections, surveillance, and cargo cover more commercial work than the labels imply. Read all five tables before commissioning a full risk assessment.

Confusing the S family with standard scenarios. PDRA S-01 and S-02 mirror the scenarios but end in an authorisation rather than a declaration, and they do not require the C5 or C6 class label.

Partial conformity. The tables are met in full or not at all. An operation that satisfies most conditions and improvises one is an operation that needs a different route.

Letting the operation drift from the approval. Authorisations are granted against a described operation. New aircraft, new crews, and revised procedures all need checking against the conditions that were approved.

FAQ

Is a PDRA the same as a SORA?

No. A SORA is a risk assessment you carry out yourself for an operation no published scenario covers. A PDRA is an assessment EASA has already completed, which you demonstrate compliance with instead of repeating.

Do I still need an operational authorisation with a PDRA?

Yes. The PDRA route ends in an authorisation issued by your national aviation authority, unlike a standard scenario, which is declared. The PDRA reduces the analysis behind the application rather than removing the application.

Does a PDRA require a class marked drone?

The PDRAs derived from standard scenarios do not impose the C5 or C6 label requirement, which is their main attraction for operators flying capable aircraft that were never class marked for the European market.

Which PDRA suits infrastructure inspection work?

PDRA G-03 covers linear inspections and is the natural fit for corridor work along power lines, rail, and pipelines. G-01 and G-02 extend to longer range operations where distance is the limiting factor.

Closing thought

The PDRA is the least discussed of the three Specific category routes and often the most useful, because it matches how commercial drone work is shaped in practice: repeatable, recognisable, and flown with aircraft chosen for the job rather than for a regulatory label. Reading the five tables early costs an afternoon and regularly saves a project from commissioning risk assessment work it never needed.

If you are choosing between a declaration and an authorisation for the same flight profile, FlybyOps was built for the operational record problem at the center of regulated drone work. A risk register with mitigation owners and review dates, a project and job hierarchy scoping work to sites, a document vault holding manuals and approvals with their dates, and an append-only audit log are all part of how the platform keeps the conditions a published risk assessment imposed visible to the crew flying under them.