UK BVLOS and UTM Consultations Explained

The CAA has opened three related consultations on UAS Traffic Management, usually called UTM. Together, they give the clearest indication yet of how the UK intends to move from limited, case-by-case BVLOS approvals towards more routine and scalable BVLOS operations.

This does not mean BVLOS is now generally available. Operators still need the correct Operational Authorisation for the operation they want to conduct. What the consultations do show is the system the CAA believes will be needed around BVLOS: certified UTM service providers, reliable data, digital flight authorisation, geo-consciousness, conflict management, electronic conspicuity, detect and avoid, and better coordination with existing air traffic management.

The consultations opened on 5th June 2026 and close on 28th August 2026.

At-a-Glance Facts

In simple terms, the CAA is not just asking whether drones should be allowed to fly BVLOS. It is asking what safety and traffic management system must exist before BVLOS can happen repeatedly and at scale.

The Three Consultations

The three consultations should be read together.

The UTM Policy Concept explains the proposed policy direction. It treats UTM as part of the wider air traffic management and air navigation services environment, rather than as a separate drone-only system. That is important because future BVLOS operations will need to interact with existing airspace structures, air traffic services, aerodromes and other aircraft.

The UTM Concept of Operations explains how UTM could work in practice. It describes a phased approach, moving from early BVLOS operations that may still rely on segregated or specially managed airspace, towards more integrated operations supported by digital services.

The UTM Certification Consultation looks at how UTMSPs and UDSPs should be certified. The CAA is considering changes to UK Regulation (EU) 2017/373 so that UTM providers and drone data providers are brought into a formal assurance and oversight framework.

That certification point matters. If a digital service is being used to support flight authorisation, conflict management, geo-awareness or safety-critical data, it cannot sensibly be treated like an ordinary software product.

Why BVLOS Needs More Than an Authorisation

BVLOS changes the safety problem.

In VLOS, the remote pilot can directly see the aircraft and remains a major part of the “see and avoid” process. In BVLOS, that direct visual mitigation is no longer available in the same way. The operation therefore needs other mitigations to manage air risk, ground risk, loss of control, traffic conflicts, obstacles and emergency situations.

Depending on the operation, those mitigations may include:

• Detect and Avoid (DAA).
• Electronic Conspicuity (EC).
• Reliable command and control links.
• Strategic deconfliction before flight.
• Tactical traffic information during flight.
• Geo-consciousness and conformance monitoring.
• Accurate aeronautical, obstacle, terrain and weather data.
• Clear contingency procedures.
• Coordination with an Air Navigation Service Provider where relevant.
• Temporary or managed airspace structures where integration is not yet possible.

The current route for most complex BVLOS operations remains the Specific Category. Operators must build a safety case under UK Regulation (EU) 2019/947 and the associated AMC/GM, using the applicable risk assessment methodology, including UK SORA where required.

UTM does not remove that requirement. It is better understood as part of the future support system that may help operators meet, evidence and deliver some of those safety mitigations.

What UTM Would Actually Do

UTM is sometimes described as “air traffic control for drones”, but that is too simplistic.

In the CAA’s documents, UTM is a set of digital services that help organise, coordinate and manage unmanned aircraft operations. The key proposed services are flight authorisation, geo-consciousness and conflict management.

Flight authorisation

A UAS operator would submit the intended flight, including information such as the route, operating volume, timing, aircraft performance, equipage and relevant risk assessment outputs.

The UTM system would then check that request against airspace restrictions, other UAS activity, relevant traffic constraints and other operational data. The aim is to reduce conflicts before the aircraft takes off.

Geo-consciousness

Geo-consciousness is about knowing whether the aircraft is where it is supposed to be.

This may include alerts when a UAS approaches the edge of its authorised operating volume, enters an area it should not enter, or departs from its planned route. In practice, this links closely to geofencing, geo-caging and conformance monitoring.

Conflict management

Conflict management is about identifying and managing possible traffic conflicts.

This could include traffic information, where the UAS or operator is warned about nearby aircraft, or a more active traffic separation service where surveillance-derived information is used to support deconfliction from known traffic.

This is one of the most difficult areas, particularly in uncontrolled Class G airspace where not every aircraft is electronically conspicuous.

UTMSPs and UDSPs

The consultations introduce two important provider types.

A UTM Service Provider (UTMSP) would provide one or more UTM services, such as flight authorisation, geo-consciousness or conflict management. Under the CAA’s proposals, providing those services would require certification.

A UAS Data Service Provider (UDSP) would provide data used by UTM systems, operators or remote pilots. This could include aeronautical, weather, terrain, obstacle, CNS or other safety-related data.

That distinction matters because BVLOS safety cases depend heavily on data. If an operation relies on poor obstacle data, outdated airspace information, incomplete traffic information or unsuitable weather data, the safety case may fail in practice even if it looks acceptable on paper.

The CAA’s direction is therefore towards assured data and accountable providers, not a loose collection of unverified feeds.

Why UK Regulation (EU) 2017/373 Is Part of This

UK Regulation (EU) 2017/373 is the existing framework for air traffic management and air navigation service providers. It covers areas such as safety management, organisational requirements, competence, communications, navigation, surveillance, meteorology, data quality and oversight.

The issue is that it was not written with UTM in mind. It does not currently provide a clear fit for UTMSPs or UDSPs.

Rather than creating an entirely separate drone traffic management framework from scratch, the CAA is looking at adapting the existing ATM/ANS framework so that UTM can be regulated proportionately. That is a logical direction because UTM will need to interact with existing aviation systems, not sit outside them.

How This Links to CAP3182 and the BVLOS Roadmap

CAP3182 sets out the CAA’s Future of Flight BVLOS Roadmap. The roadmap describes how BVLOS operations are expected to develop from today’s limited operating scenarios towards more routine operations.

The UTM consultations sit directly underneath that direction of travel.

The broad path is:

1. Early BVLOS in controlled or segregated environments
   This may include Temporary Danger Areas, Temporary Reserved Airspace, atypical air environments, defined corridors or tightly managed operating areas.

2. BVLOS supported by structured digital services
   Operators begin to rely more on UTM services, electronic flight planning, traffic information, geo-consciousness, surveillance, EC and defined ANSP coordination.

3. More integrated BVLOS operations
   UAS operate more routinely alongside other airspace users, supported by mature UTM, reliable data, DAA, EC, robust C2 links and clear responsibilities.

This does not mean all airspace becomes freely available for BVLOS. It means the UK is trying to build a staged route where the level of integration increases as the technology, evidence and regulatory assurance improve.

Why Temporary Segregation Is Not the Final Answer

Temporary segregated airspace can be useful for trials and early BVLOS operations because it reduces interaction with other airspace users. It is often easier to prove safety when the operation is kept away from normal traffic.

However, that approach does not scale well.

If every delivery route, inspection task, emergency response route or infrastructure survey needed its own segregated block of airspace, the result would be fragmented and inefficient. Other airspace users would also be affected.

The long-term aim is therefore not to remove segregation overnight, but to reduce the need for it where integrated operations can be shown to be safe. UTM is one of the main tools intended to support that transition.

What Still Needs to Happen

The consultations are an important step, but they are not the finished system. Several things still need to be resolved before routine BVLOS can operate at scale in the UK.

1. Final rules and implementation

The CAA must review consultation responses and decide the final policy position. If legal changes are needed, they will need to be taken forward through the appropriate route, including changes to UK Regulation (EU) 2017/373 where required.

2. Certified UTM providers

UTMSPs will need a clear certification pathway. That pathway must be strong enough to protect safety, but proportionate enough that useful UTM services can actually be delivered.

Certification is likely to need to address safety management, security, service reliability, competence, data quality, interoperability, contingency arrangements and oversight.

3. Assured data

BVLOS relies on data. That data needs to be accurate, current, traceable and suitable for the safety function it supports.

The UK needs clear rules for when data providers need certification, how data quality is assured, and who is accountable when data is modified, combined or redistributed.

4. Electronic conspicuity

Integrated BVLOS becomes much harder if the traffic picture is incomplete.

Electronic conspicuity can help, but only if aircraft in the relevant environment can be detected, the systems are compatible, and the data can be used in a reliable way. This is a particular challenge in Class G airspace.

5. Detect and Avoid

BVLOS needs a credible replacement for direct visual see and avoid. That may involve onboard DAA, ground-based DAA, UTM-supported traffic information, procedural controls or a combination of these.

CAP3015 is relevant here because Detect and Avoid is one of the key policy areas needed to support routine BVLOS.

6. Command and control link reliability

A BVLOS aircraft must remain controllable, and it must behave predictably if the control link is degraded or lost.

Operators will need to consider link coverage, latency, resilience, lost link behaviour, emergency procedures and operational containment. UTM can support the wider airspace picture, but it does not remove the operator’s responsibility for safe control of the aircraft.

7. ANSP coordination

Where UAS operate in controlled airspace, near aerodromes, or in areas where air traffic services are involved, responsibilities must be clear.

That may require technical interfaces, agreed procedures, handover points, data exchange, escalation routes and defined contingency arrangements.

8. Operator competence and safety management

UTM will not make a weak operator safe.

BVLOS operators will still need proper procedures, trained personnel, maintenance control, occurrence reporting, emergency response, operational supervision and compliance monitoring. The more complex the operation, the more important those organisational controls become.

What This Means for Operators

For most day-to-day VLOS operators, nothing changes immediately. A normal roof inspection, estate survey or filming job will usually remain within the Open Category or an existing Specific Category authorisation route, depending on the aircraft, location and risk.

For operators planning BVLOS, these consultations are much more significant. They show the direction of travel and the kind of evidence future operations are likely to need.

A serious BVLOS operator should already be thinking about:

• Whether the operation genuinely needs BVLOS.
• Which Specific Category authorisation route applies.
• How the operation will be assessed under UK Regulation (EU) 2019/947 and the relevant AMC/GM.
• The air risk and ground risk of the operating environment.
• Whether the operation relies on segregation or can move towards integration.
• What DAA, EC, C2 and surveillance capability is available.
• What data sources are being used and whether they are suitable.
• How the operation will coordinate with ANSPs, aerodromes and other airspace users.
• How compliance, logging, occurrence reporting and post-flight review will be managed.
• Whether future certified UTM services could support the safety case.

The first operators to benefit are likely to be those with repeatable, well-defined use cases such as infrastructure inspection, offshore operations, medical logistics, environmental monitoring, emergency response and controlled cargo routes.

What This Does Not Mean

The consultations do not mean:

• BVLOS is now open to everyone.
• UK SORA is being replaced by UTM.
• An app showing drone positions automatically counts as UTM.
• Electronic conspicuity alone solves BVLOS.
• Temporary segregated airspace will disappear immediately.
• Operators no longer need a CAA Operational Authorisation.
• Remote pilots and operators no longer carry safety responsibility.

The more accurate position is that the UK is building the regulatory and technical framework needed to make BVLOS repeatable, auditable and scalable.

Key Takeaways

The CAA’s 2026 UTM consultations are a major step towards routine BVLOS in the UK, but they are not an immediate operational permission.

The future model is likely to involve certified UTM providers, assured data providers, reliable digital flight authorisation, geo-consciousness, conflict management, EC, DAA, robust C2 links and clear coordination with the existing ATM/ANS system.

UK Regulation (EU) 2019/947 and its AMC/GM remain central for UAS operations, especially Specific Category safety cases. UTM is not replacing that framework. It is being developed as part of the system that may help operators meet and evidence some of the mitigations required for more complex BVLOS operations.

The key question is no longer simply whether BVLOS should be allowed. It is whether the UK can build a system where BVLOS can happen safely, repeatedly and without unnecessarily blocking other airspace users.

Sources and Further Reading

• CAA consultation: UK Unmanned Aircraft Systems Policy Concept
• CAA consultation: UK Unmanned Aircraft Systems Traffic Management (UTM) Concept of Operations
• CAA consultation: UAS Traffic Management Certification Consultation
• CAP3271: Unmanned Aircraft Systems Traffic Management Certification Consultation
• CAP3272: UK Unmanned Aircraft Systems Traffic Management Policy Concept
• CAP3273: UK Unmanned Aircraft Systems Traffic Management Concept of Operations
• CAP3182: Future of Flight BVLOS Roadmap
• CAP1711: Airspace Modernisation Strategy
• UK Regulation (EU) 2019/947 and associated AMC/GM
• CAP3015: Detect and Avoid Policy Concept
• CAP3139: Electronic Conspicuity Consolidated Study Report
• CAP3098: Specific Category UAS Cyber Safety Objectives