South Africa’s Drone Sector Waits for Long-Delayed Regulatory Changes

South Africa’s drone sector has developed considerably since commercial unmanned aircraft regulations were introduced, but several regulatory changes intended to support the next stage of the industry remain outstanding.

Operators are conducting increasingly complex missions, BVLOS operations are established within the commercial sector and training organisations are preparing pilots for a wider range of unmanned aircraft applications. At the same time, some requirements affecting entry-level and lower-risk operations have been identified for change but have yet to take effect.

The delays were among the issues raised during a discussion on drone regulation at the Drone & Unmanned Aviation Conference 2026 in Johannesburg, where industry, training and legal specialists examined licensing, operational approvals and the future of South Africa’s regulatory system.

The 33rd Amendment

One of the main concerns raised was the outstanding 33rd Amendment to the Civil Aviation Regulations.

Shaun Ledlie, Lead Director: Academic & Research at Drone Council of South Africa, said regulatory changes affecting the drone sector had already been developed through work between industry and the South African Civil Aviation Authority but had not reached promulgation.

“The work has been done by the CAA, the work has been done by industry, it has been agreed,” he said.

Part 71, dealing with personnel licensing for remotely piloted aircraft under 20 kg, provides a clear example of the work already completed.

According to the Association of Aviation Training Organisations of South Africa (AATOSA), an affiliate of CAASA, development of Part 71 involved more than 40 official meetings over three years before the regulation was finalised and submitted to the Minister for promulgation.

The proposed changes include aligning medical requirements more closely with drone operations and removing the restricted radio licence requirement for pilots operating sub-20 kg drones under visual line-of-sight conditions.

Ledlie linked these changes to the 33rd Amendment during the conference and argued that requirements taken from conventional aviation can add considerable cost and complexity for pilots entering lower-risk drone operations.

Dwayne Cloete, Chief Instructor for Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) at Cranfield Aviation Training, also highlighted the restricted radiotelephony examination, noting that it includes material used in conventional pilot training that many drone pilots would not normally encounter in their operations.

More complex unmanned aviation, however, presents a different regulatory requirement.

Regulation According to Risk

BVLOS operations illustrate the distinction.

Completing a BVLOS rating does not automatically allow a pilot to begin conducting BVLOS flights. The pilot must hold the appropriate qualification, while the operator and aircraft must also be approved for the operation.

“It’s not just doing the rating, five-day course, and off you go,” Cloete said.

As unmanned aircraft increase in size, range and capability, the regulatory requirements move closer to those expected elsewhere in commercial aviation.

Ledlie argued that South Africa therefore needs greater differentiation between different types of drone operation.

“We can’t have one fits all,” he said. “We have to have different bands of licence, different bands of skill for the risk that is attached to that.”

A small aircraft operating within visual line of sight does not carry the same risk as a larger platform conducting BVLOS operations or, in future, flying internationally.

Reducing requirements at the lower end does not mean removing regulation from more complex operations. It allows licensing and compliance requirements to follow the risk attached to the aircraft and operation.

Cross-Border Operations

The same issue becomes more complicated when South African operators want to work elsewhere in Africa.

National civil aviation authorities remain responsible for their own regulatory systems, and a South African qualification or operating approval cannot simply be assumed to provide equivalent privileges in another country.

Emerging South African legal scholar, researcher and candidate legal practitioner Sipho Matshie said greater harmonisation would depend on cooperation between African states rather than each country continuing to develop its framework in isolation.

This has practical implications for operators carrying out work such as surveying and infrastructure inspection in neighbouring countries.

International unmanned aviation rules are developing, but South Africa will need a domestic licensing and regulatory system capable of supporting recognition beyond its borders.

AATOSA has also worked on Part 72, aimed at providing internationally recognised licensing for remotely piloted aircraft above 20 kg. The regulation has similarly been submitted for promulgation, although further work remains on its supporting technical standards and training requirements.

Movement on the Outstanding Amendments

The position has moved since the June conference.

Following engagement between the Commercial Aviation Association of Southern Africa and senior Department of Transport officials on 5 August, the AIC 18.19 Task Team reported that the outstanding 33rd and 36th Amendments would be prioritised.

The Department reportedly indicated that the remaining promulgation process was expected to be concluded within approximately two weeks before the amendments proceeded to the Minister for signature.

For the drone sector, attention will now be on whether that undertaking results in the long-awaited regulatory changes moving forward.

South Africa does not need to start the process again. Industry and the regulator have already spent years developing parts of the framework required for a more mature unmanned aviation sector.

The next step is getting those changes into force.

As Ledlie put it during the conference: “The drones aren’t coming, the drones are already here.”