The FAA’s proposed Part 108 framework will require commercial drone operators to demonstrate operational discipline at a scale the current waiver system never demanded. Most aren’t ready. And the time to build that infrastructure is before the final rule lands, not after.
The Waiver System Created a False Sense of Security
Commercial drone operators in the US have been flying beyond visual line of sight for years. The mechanism has been Part 107 waivers: individual FAA authorisations granted on an operation-by-operation basis, each requiring its own safety case, each valid only for the specific scenario it describes.
It’s a system that works, after a fashion. Companies running pipeline inspection programmes, precision agriculture operations, or infrastructure surveys have accumulated stacks of approved waivers. Some have become expert at the waiver application process. A few large operators have dedicated compliance teams for little else.
But here’s what the waiver system never required: consistent, scalable operational infrastructure. Each waiver is essentially a one-off. The documentation you produce to support one application doesn’t necessarily feed the next. There’s no framework demanding that your risk assessment methodology, your crew records, your flight logs, and your equipment maintenance history all speak the same language and build a coherent operational picture over time.
That’s about to change. And operators who’ve built their BVLOS capability on waiver-by-waiver foundations are going to feel it.
What Part 108 Actually Proposes, and Where It Stands
The FAA published its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for Part 108 in August 2025. The comment period closed in October 2025 with over 3,100 responses, a volume that signals how much is riding on this rule across the commercial drone sector.
The NPRM proposes replacing the waiver system with a structured, scalable framework built around two approval pathways. Permitted Operations would provide a lower-bar entry point suited to operators establishing BVLOS capability in controlled environments. Operational Certificates would provide an ongoing approval structure for operators running BVLOS at scale, with correspondingly higher oversight requirements.
Both pathways require operators to demonstrate something the waiver system never consistently demanded: a documented, systematic safety programme. Not a one-off safety case for a specific operation, but an enduring operational framework that shows the FAA you can manage BVLOS risk systematically across multiple flights, crew members, and operational environments.
The rulemaking has since hit some genuinely complex questions. In January 2026, the FAA reopened the comment period for a targeted 14-day window, specifically to gather further input on right-of-way rules and electronic conspicuity provisions. More than half of all original comments had addressed the right-of-way proposals alone, and the FAA held listening sessions with UAS manufacturers and industry associations to work through the competing positions.
The practical implication is clear: the final rule is further away than many anticipated. The FAA is working through hard problems around airspace integration that don’t have simple answers. What that means for operators is more time to prepare, but the uncertainty is not a reason to wait.
The Documentation Challenge Most Operators Aren’t Ready For
There’s a pattern that plays out every time aviation regulation shifts from an exception-based model to a systematic one. Operators who’ve been managing by exception, applying for individual permissions and producing documentation reactively, suddenly discover they have no coherent operational baseline to point to.
The waiver system, by design, kept US BVLOS operators in exception mode. Each application was self-contained. There was no regulatory incentive to build the kind of operational infrastructure that Part 108 will require, because the current system didn’t reward it.
Part 108 will reward it. Explicitly. The Operational Certificate pathway in particular is built around the idea that the FAA can look at your operation and see consistent, auditable evidence of how you manage risk across all your BVLOS flights. That means your risk assessment methodology needs to be consistent, not rebuilt from scratch for each application. Your crew competency records need to be current and accessible. Your flight logs need to be structured and complete. Your aircraft maintenance history needs to be coherent.
Operators who’ve been assembling documentation reactively (pulling together what the waiver required, then filing it away) are going to spend a lot of time and money rebuilding that foundation when Part 108 lands. Operators who build it now won’t have to.
Why Software Is the Practical Answer
The operational infrastructure Part 108 demands isn’t complicated in concept. It’s complicated in execution, particularly for businesses that grew up managing BVLOS through individual waivers rather than systematic frameworks.
Purpose-built drone operations software addresses this at the workflow level. The goal isn’t to add a compliance layer on top of how you already operate. It’s to make compliance a byproduct of how you operate, so that the records Part 108 will require are built through the normal course of mission planning, crew briefing, and post-flight logging, rather than assembled under pressure before a submission deadline.
The specific requirements of Part 108’s final rule aren’t yet confirmed. But the structural demands are clear from the NPRM: documented risk assessment, crew competency records, flight logging, equipment status tracking, and integration with broader airspace management systems. Software that handles those disciplines now, built around consistent data structures and auditable records, will adapt to the final rule’s specifics far more readily than manual processes will.
For operators familiar with EASA’s SORA methodology or the UK’s equivalent framework, this is familiar territory. Structured, data-driven risk assessment is already baked into how they operate. For most US operators, it’s a significant shift in how they think about operational management. The extended window between now and the final rule is the time to make it.
More Runway Isn’t a Reason to Wait
The reopening of the comment period on specific technical provisions is a signal worth reading carefully. It doesn’t mean Part 108 is in trouble. It means the FAA is doing the work properly: gathering the input it needs to write a rule that holds up. The core framework (systematic operational management, two-tier approvals, the end of the waiver-by-waiver era) is not in doubt. The FAA is resolving complexity around airspace integration, not reconsidering the fundamental direction.
What the extended timeline does change is the competitive dynamic. Operators who treat the delay as a reason to defer preparation will find themselves behind when the rule is confirmed and the race to obtain Operational Certificates begins. The operators who move now, who build genuine operational maturity while others wait, will be first in line.
Building that maturity takes longer than most operators expect. Getting crew records in order, standardising risk assessment approaches, establishing consistent flight logging disciplines, and integrating those systems into a coherent operational picture is six to twelve months of work on its own. Factor in the time needed to apply and get approved under a new framework, and the window looks a lot shorter than the rulemaking timeline suggests.
Founder & Director of Dronedesk
Q&A with Dorian Ellis, Founder & Director of Dronedesk
The Part 108 rulemaking has taken longer than expected. Does that change your view on when operators should start preparing?
It makes the case for preparing now stronger, not weaker. The NPRM is clear about what the FAA wants: systematic operational management, documented risk assessment, auditable records across your whole BVLOS operation. None of that depends on knowing the final rule’s exact wording. The operators who build solid operational infrastructure now will adapt to the specifics when they’re confirmed. Operators who waited for certainty will be starting from scratch at the worst possible time.
How does the US situation compare to what you’re seeing in the UK?
The fundamental challenge is the same on both sides of the Atlantic. Operators need structured operational data to satisfy regulators that they can manage BVLOS risk consistently at scale. In the UK, the methodology is SORA. In the US, Part 108 is proposing its own framework. The specific requirements differ, but the underlying need is identical: your risk assessments, crew records, flight logs, and equipment status all in one place, building a coherent picture over time. Operators who understand that, regardless of which market they’re in, are the ones who’ll move quickly when approvals open up.
How does Dronedesk fit into the picture for US operators right now?
We built Dronedesk around structured operational management for the SORA framework in the UK. The same principles apply directly to what Part 108 is proposing. When the final rule defines the specific requirements, we’ll map our platform to them the same way we mapped it to SORA, so the complexity of the regulatory methodology is abstracted and the operator focuses on flying rather than on working out what the framework demands. We’re watching the rulemaking process closely precisely because we want to be ready the moment the final rule lands.
What should a US BVLOS operator actually be doing right now?
Audit your current records honestly. Can you produce a coherent operational history for the last twelve months? Flight logs that are consistent and complete, crew records that are current, maintenance history that’s auditable? If the answer is no, start fixing that now. It doesn’t require knowing exactly what Part 108 will demand. It requires basic operational discipline. The operators who have that in place when the rule is confirmed will move fast. The ones who don’t will spend the first year catching up.
Part 108 is Taking Shape. The Time to Prepare is Now
Part 108 isn’t a distant prospect. The NPRM is published. Two rounds of public comment are closed. The FAA is working through complex questions about airspace integration that need careful resolution. The direction of the framework is not in question: systematic operational management, two-tier approvals, and the end of the waiver-by-waiver era.
The commercial opportunity BVLOS represents in the US is significant. The use cases are well-established: infrastructure inspection, agricultural monitoring, logistics, emergency response. The technology exists. The regulatory framework is being built. What will separate operators who capitalise on that opportunity from those who watch it pass is operational maturity: the ability to show the FAA, consistently and credibly, that you can manage BVLOS risk at scale.
For a detailed comparison of how BVLOS frameworks are developing across the US, UK, and EU, including where Part 108 sits relative to SORA, see our full framework comparison.
If you’re building towards BVLOS operations and want to see how purpose-built software changes the compliance picture, Dronedesk is worth a look.
Related Categories