UAS OPERATORS
Preparing new BVLOS operations, expanding operating areas or changing communication architecture.
Assure
ASSESSC2 Assurance
Build the evidence behind your C2 operation.
Flyvercity helps professional UAS operators and integrators turn an intended operation, its C2 architecture and the applicable compliance path into measurable claims and traceable engineering evidence.
END-TO-END C2 CHAIN
Aircraft
↔Communication
service
↔service
Ground
system
system
The real buyer problem
You may know the rule. The hard part is proving the chain.
Operators frequently arrive with a SORA result, an upcoming authorisation milestone or a request to address OSO #6—but no practical evidence architecture.
Flyvercity connects the compliance objective to the complete technical chain: aircraft equipment, external communication service, ground system, procedures and representative operating conditions.
Means of Compliance are the reference point.The deliverable is operation-specific, measured and traceable evidence.
Who it is for
Built around real operational decisions.
SYSTEM INTEGRATORS
Responsible for demonstrating the performance of the complete UAS system.
UAS OEMs
Building reusable evidence approaches across customer deployments.
SAFETY & PROGRAMME TEAMS
Preparing technical material for safety reviews, customer acceptance or regulatory interaction.
The strongest fit is an organisation with a defined operation and a real deployment or authorisation milestone.
Engineering process
From operation to evidence.
01ConOps
02Requirements
03Testing
04Assessment
05Evidence
UNDERSTAND
Review the Concept of Operations, aircraft, communication architecture, operating environment, external services and existing evidence.
DEFINE
Identify relevant C2 performance claims, required evidence, operational thresholds and degraded conditions.
TEST
Design representative measurement across the complete communication chain.
ASSESS
Analyse performance, margins, exceptions, degraded states and operational limitations.
EVIDENCE
Document method, provenance, assumptions, results, exceptions and unresolved risks.
Compliance references
A defensible route from SORA objective to Means of Compliance.
Flyvercity starts with the applicable authorisation and design context, then identifies which published material is relevant to the specific C2 architecture.
For medium-risk Light-UAS work, EUROCAE ED-325 Vol. I presents proposed MoC material for selected SAIL III/IV requirements. EASA’s proposed MoC to OSO #6 adds focused C2-link guidance, including representative testing.
EASA / SORA 2.5Easy Access Rules for UAS
The June 2026 consolidated rules include SORA 2.5, AMC and GM to Regulation (EU) 2019/947.
OPEN SOURCE ↗EASA / OSO #6MoC to OSO #6-01 — C2 LinkProposed SAIL III Means of Compliance describing C2 claims and substantiation by representative testing.
OPEN SOURCE ↗EUROCAE / ED-325SC Light-UAS — Medium Risk, Vol. IWG-105 guidance presenting proposed Means of Compliance for selected SAIL III and IV requirements, including Subpart H.
OPEN SOURCE ↗EASA / DVR MAPPINGTable of MoCs to SC Light-UASEASA mapping for Light-UAS 2710, 2715, 2720 and 2730 references ED-325 Vol. I and OSO #6 guidance.
OPEN SOURCE ↗These sources are references—not a universal checklist. Applicability, acceptable evidence and approval remain operation-, design- and authority-specific. Flyvercity supports the applicant’s engineering case; it does not guarantee certification or operational authorisation.
Assessment scope
Operation-specific performance.
Assessment areas are selected for the actual operation and communication architecture—not applied as a generic checklist.
01Latency02Availability03Continuity04Packet loss05Service area06Degradation07Handover behaviour08Lost-link conditions09Geographical variation10Pre-flight checks
Market + compliance trajectory
From coverage confidence to continuous C2 assurance.
This is an operating maturity path, not a forecast of regulatory dates. Organisations may enter at different points depending on their SAIL, design path, external services and authority expectations.
EVOLUTION
TODAYBASELINE
OPERATION-SPECIFICPERFORMANCE
HIGHER ASSURANCEEVIDENCE
AT SCALECONTINUOUS
MARKET
01
Coverage maps, supplier SLAs and successful flights are used as broad proxies for C2 suitability.
02
Operators define the communication performance actually needed for a route, aircraft and operating environment.
03
Procurement and deployment decisions increasingly require repeatable evidence—not vendor coverage assertions alone.
04
Changing routes, networks and fleet configurations make one-off evidence progressively less useful.
COMPLIANCE
01
The operation establishes its authorisation basis, SORA result and relevant C2 safety objectives.
02
Map claims to applicable AMC/GM, OSO #6 guidance, external-service objectives and required C2 link performance.
03
Select a defensible MoC path; use relevant EUROCAE ED-325 guidance and representative end-to-end tests where applicable.
04
Maintain assumptions, configuration and change impact as the approved operation and supporting services evolve.
FLYVERCITY
01
Readiness Scan: define the C2 chain, decision boundary, existing evidence and gaps.
02
Claim Map: turn the ConOps and architecture into measurable thresholds and degraded conditions.
03
Test + Evidence: design representative measurement, analyse margins and build traceable documentation.
04
Operational assurance: route checks, service-volume analysis, degradation detection and periodic evidence updates.
START HERE
ASSESSC2 Evidence Readiness Scan
Before commissioning another test campaign, establish what actually needs to be demonstrated.
- Operation and C2 architecture
- Intended approval or deployment path
- Existing measurements and documentation
- Evidence gaps
OUTPUTS
CLAIM MAP
What needs to be demonstrated.
EVIDENCE GAP REGISTER
What is already supported and what remains missing.
PRELIMINARY TEST PLAN
What should be measured and under which representative conditions.
NEXT-STEP RECOMMENDATION
Whether further testing is justified and what it should achieve.
Start with the operation
Does your operation depend on external C2 connectivity?
Show us the intended operation, communication architecture and current evidence. We will start with what actually needs to be demonstrated.
Discuss your C2 operation ↗