BVLOS trial pathway requirements for agricultural operators

BVLOS pathways widen the operating area, not the margin for error

Beyond visual line of sight means the remote pilot does not use direct sight to operate the aircraft. The operator instead relies on technology, set procedures and an approved operating area.

For farms, that could support work across fields, irrigation lines and remote pasture without moving the pilot to keep the aircraft in view. It may suit crop mapping, livestock checks and other work over large holdings. Operators planning such work should first define the farm task, not start with the approval form.

Australia’s Civil Aviation Safety Authority has launched a 12-month trial for broad area BVLOS approvals. It started on 15 October 2025 and offers 4 pathways under Temporary Management Instruction 2025-03. CASA says the aim is to cut approval hurdles while keeping safety as the main test.

The United States approach is at a different stage in the supplied material. The Federal Aviation Administration’s proposed rule would create a wider framework for routine BVLOS work, including agriculture. It describes flights at or below 400 feet above ground level from pre-designated, access-controlled sites.

These are not loose permissions to fly anywhere. Both approaches centre on a defined area, known risks and an operator who can show how the flight will stay safe.

Farm operators should therefore treat BVLOS approval as an operating-system task. The aircraft is only one part of it. Existing rules still matter, as set out in our guide to agricultural drone rules in Australia.

Pathway fit should be settled before paperwork starts

Australian operators should first test whether the proposed work fits a broad area trial pathway. If it does not, CASA says the operator must use the standard BVLOS approval route.

The broad area pathways apply to the small drone category, meaning 25kg or under. They are open to holders of a remotely piloted aircraft operator’s certificate, or ReOC. Each pathway sets limits for aircraft size, speed and population density.

CASA says smaller drones may be approved in suburban areas. Larger drones may be approved in lightly or sparsely populated areas. That makes the land around the flight area as important as the farm boundary itself.

Question to settle	Australia broad area trial	FAA proposal
Is agriculture in scope?	A farm operation may use a pathway if it meets the stated limits	Agriculture is one of the proposed operation types
How is the area treated?	The operator completes a BVLOS area feasibility assessment	The operator identifies the proposed area boundaries
What aircraft limits apply?	Small drone category, 25kg or under, with pathway limits for size and speed	The form of authorisation would depend on operating scope and risk
Does population density matter?	Yes; pathway fit depends in part on population density	Operators must identify and mitigate hazards in the approved area
What if the work does not fit?	Apply for standard BVLOS approval	The FAA would assess the requested operating authority

Do not describe the job only as “farm mapping” or “crop spraying”. Set out where the aircraft will fly, what surrounds that route and how often the work is planned. The route may cross or approach roads, homes or other areas that change its risk profile.

Aircraft choice should follow that operating case. Our guide on how to choose an agricultural drone covers the wider task and payload questions, but BVLOS pathway limits must come first.

Certificates, licences and forms need an early check

For Australia’s broad area process, the operator must hold a ReOC.

Check that record before drafting the rest of the case. CASA also points farm operators towards its BVLOS aviation theory routes, including the Instrument Rating Exam or the alternate exam for work outside controlled airspace.

The broad area application has its own form. CASA directs applicants to download and save that form to their device before filling it in.

A first BVLOS application needs more. The operator must also complete the standard BVLOS approval form and the required SORA checklist for an initial issue, variation or renewal. SORA is CASA’s Specific Operations Risk Assessment framework for BVLOS and other complex drone work.

Prepare an application file that brings together:

• proof of the operator’s ReOC;
• the broad area BVLOS application form;
• the standard BVLOS form and SORA checklist where required;
• updated documented procedures;
• completed BVLOS area feasibility assessment records.

Keep the names used for the operator, pilots and proposed activity consistent across the forms. The documents should describe the same operating area and the same method of control.

The feasibility assessment must become part of normal work

CASA does not treat the BVLOS area feasibility assessment as a note written only for the application. The operator must update documented procedures to include the assessment process.

Those procedures should tell staff when an assessment is needed, who completes it and where the record is kept. They should also make clear how the operator decides whether an area still fits the approved pathway.

CASA requires operators to complete and record all BVLOS area feasibility assessments. That creates a clear need for repeatable records when work shifts from one field or property to another.

A sound procedure should link the proposed task to the actual operating area. For instance, a crop-imagery job needs a defined route and launch point, not just a property name. The same applies to work covered in precision agriculture mapping with drones or to checks along irrigation assets.

The process should also flag changes which may affect pathway fit. A route near a more populated area may not present the same case as one over sparsely populated land. A change in aircraft size or speed may also move the work outside the chosen pathway.

The key test is simple: can another trained person read the procedure, assess the area and create a record that supports the same safe decision? If not, the process is too dependent on personal judgement.

Route detail and hazard controls should be written before submission

The FAA proposal shows the level of area detail regulators may expect from a BVLOS operator. Applicants would identify operating boundaries, the approximate number of daily operations and the take-off, landing and loading areas.

For a farm, these details should match the way work will happen on the ground. A launch area may need controlled access. Loading may bring staff and equipment close to the aircraft. Landing plans must account for the chosen route and the hazards around the recovery area.

The proposal would also require operators to know the airspace and flight restrictions along the intended route. That includes reviewing Notices to Airmen, or NOTAMs. An applicant should be able to show how this check enters the go or no-go decision.

Build the route pack around clear evidence:

Planning item	What the operator should define
Operating area	Boundaries of the proposed BVLOS area
Work rate	Approximate number of daily operations
Ground sites	Take-off, landing and loading areas
Airspace	Restrictions along the intended route
Current notices	How NOTAMs are reviewed
Hazards	What can affect the flight and how each hazard is reduced
Communications	Coverage across the route and action after a lost link

Hazard work should address the actual site rather than rely on a generic farm checklist. The FAA proposal calls for operators to identify and mitigate hazards. The application should link each key hazard to a control, an owner and a flight decision.

Communications plans need both coverage and a lost-link response

BVLOS removes direct sight as the pilot’s main means of monitoring the aircraft. Communications coverage therefore needs to support the whole planned route, not only the launch point.

Under the FAA proposal, operators would have to ensure adequate communications coverage. They would also need procedures for cases where communications with the drone are lost.

Before applying, map where the communications service is expected to work across the operating area. Check the route, take-off area, loading point and landing area against that plan. The application should not assume that coverage at the farm office proves coverage over a distant field.

The lost-link procedure should state what staff do when communications fail. It should fit the approved area, local hazards and planned landing sites. It must also be known by the people who oversee the flight, rather than left unread in an operations manual.

Applicants should test whether roles are clear during a fault. The pilot, ground staff and any person overseeing the wider operation need a shared account of who acts and how the area remains controlled.

This is also where the mission type matters. A communications plan for drones in livestock monitoring may cover remote pasture and fence routes. One written for a compact mapping site may face a different coverage pattern.

Separation and operator maturity will decide whether the case is credible

BVLOS approval is not only about keeping the aircraft inside a digital boundary. Regulators also want a clear account of how it remains separated from other air traffic.

The FAA proposal includes rules for keeping drones safely apart from other drones and crewed aircraft. It describes Automated Data Service Providers, or ADSPs, as a means to support BVLOS work at scale. An operator could provide that service itself or contract with another company under the proposal.

The proposed framework also assigns responsibility for higher-risk work. It describes an operations supervisor responsible for overall safety and security, with flight coordinators overseeing aircraft operations and stepping in when needed.

Australian operators should read CASA’s broad area process through the same practical lens. CASA’s wider policy work refers to operator maturity, knowledge and competence. It also asks how a proposed approach would reach and keep an acceptable level of safety.

Before submission, management should be able to answer direct questions. Do staff follow the written process? Can the operator produce past training and operating records? Are area assessments reviewed rather than merely filed? Does each person know when a flight must stop?

A strong application joins pathway fit, licences, area records, route controls and lost-link action into one working system. If those parts conflict, more form filling will not fix the case. Prepare the operation first; then use the application to show how it works.