Does ICAO allow a drone to check a PAPI?

ICAO does not approve instruments. It sets standards and publishes guidance. Annex 14 Volume I defines the PAPI's geometry, the obstacle protection surface and the tolerances, and says nothing about how the check is made. Doc 9157 Part 4, the Aerodrome Design Manual on visual aids, describes methods for checking the setting of visual approach slope indicators and names unmanned aircraft among them, in paragraph 8.3.43. That sentence is the reference to quote: the manual treats the drone as one of the instruments, and leaves the acceptance to the state.

EASA's rules apply through Regulation (EU) 139/2014 and its certification specifications, CS-ADR-DSN. The regulation requires the aerodrome operator to run a system of preventive and corrective maintenance for visual aids and to keep records. CS-ADR-DSN fixes the design and performance the aids are certified against. Neither names a verification instrument. Acceptance of a drone method is therefore not an EASA decision but a change to the operator's maintenance programme, assessed by the national competent authority under the regulation's change management. The question to that authority is whether the method's evidence demonstrates the parameter to the tolerance, which is what the programme has to show.

Is there a precedent in France?

Yes, the clearest one in Europe. A drone-based PAPI calibration method developed with the French DSNA was approved by STAC, the civil aviation technical service, in 2021, and has been used commercially at French aerodromes since 2022, with Geneva following. A second provider states a DGAC approval. Both are the vendors' own statements and both are worth confirming, but the point stands: a French authority has accepted a drone method for PAPI, on the basis of its evidence, and that is the template for the question elsewhere.

What about Spain, Germany, Poland, Slovakia and the Czech Republic?

All are EASA states, so the same mechanism applies: the aerodrome's maintenance programme under 139/2014, assessed by AESA, the LBA or the Länder authorities, the ULC, the Dopravný úrad and the ÚCL respectively. None publishes a position on drone methods as such. In practice the first aerodrome in each state to change its programme has to present the method's evidence, and the ones after it can point to that decision. TarmacView presents the method and its uncertainty statement. The acceptance is the authority's, and this page will record each decision as it is made.

How does the United Kingdom treat it?

The UK left EASA but retained the regulation's structure in domestic law, and the CAA's aerodrome licensing guidance in CAP 168 sets the lighting requirements. As with the EU, the instrument is not specified and the aerodrome's maintenance arrangements carry the duty. The CAA has a long history with mobile photometric testing, which grew out of its own research programme, so the useful conversation is about what the drone measures that the photometer does not, rather than about the platform.

What do the FAA and Transport Canada say?

In the United States a PAPI at a federally obligated airport is flight-checked when commissioned, and maintained under the airport's programme following AC 150/5340-26, which addresses aiming and photometric maintenance without specifying the instrument. The flight check is not a periodic calibration. Transport Canada goes a step further in AC 300-014, stating that a flight check of a PAPI or APAPI is not required for calibration purposes, which places the verification firmly with the ground-based method the aerodrome chooses. Neither authority has published a position on drones for visual aids.

What should we ask our authority, exactly?

Three things, in writing. Which document sets the parameters and tolerances the PAPI is verified against at your aerodrome. Whether the authority requires a specific instrument or method for that verification, and if so where that requirement is written. And what evidence the authority would want to see attached to a maintenance programme change that introduces a new method: raw data retention, method description, stated uncertainty, calibration of the instrument. A method that can answer the third question is the one that gets accepted.

Does accepting the method mean the drone flight is allowed?

No, those are two separate permissions. The inspection method enters through the maintenance programme and the aviation authority's acceptance of its evidence. The drone flight at the aerodrome needs the operator's authorisation under the drone rules, in Europe the specific category under Regulation (EU) 2019/947, plus the aerodrome's permission and coordination with air traffic control. The inspection provider holds the flight authorisation. The aerodrome holds the maintenance programme. Confusing the two is the most common reason a conversation with an authority goes nowhere.

Is Drone-Based PAPI Calibration Accepted by Regulators?

What ICAO, EASA, the FAA, Transport Canada and the national authorities in France, Spain, Germany, Poland, Slovakia and Czechia say about drone PAPI checks.

Published 2026-09-07 Updated 2026-09-14 Reviewed by Štefan Moravík · 2026-09-07 5 MIN READ

Is Drone-Based PAPI Calibration Accepted by Regulators? — THE CLAUSES · THE APPROACH · NIGHT SHIFT

Direct answer

No regulator bans drone-based PAPI calibration and none has a rule that names it. The standards define the parameters and tolerances a PAPI must meet and are silent on the instrument, ICAO’s visual aids manual lists unmanned aircraft among the ways to check the setting, and acceptance happens through the aerodrome’s approved maintenance programme, authority by authority.

Key takeaways

01 The question to put to an authority is whether the method's evidence satisfies the parameter, not whether it approves of drones.
02 ICAO Doc 9157 Part 4 names unmanned aircraft as a means of checking visual approach slope indicator settings. That is the sentence to quote.
03 In EASA states the binding document is the operator's maintenance programme under Regulation (EU) 139/2014, and a method enters through a change to it.
04 France has the most formal precedent, with a drone method approved by STAC in 2021. Other states accept case by case.
05 In the United States and Canada the flight check of a PAPI is not a calibration, and the aerodrome's photometric and aiming maintenance carries the duty.

For

Aerodrome operators and safety managers who need to know what their authority will accept before they change the verification method.

Authority inspectors and flight inspection units assessing a drone method against the standard rather than the platform.

Consultants preparing a maintenance programme change or a tender that has to cite the regulatory basis.

Not for

The drone flight authorisation itself, which is the operator's obligation under the drone rules and separate from the inspection method.

Radio navigation aid calibration, which the flight inspection regulations cover explicitly and which a drone does not replace today.

The question behind the question

“Does the regulator accept drones” is the wrong question, and it is the one every aerodrome asks first. Regulators do not accept instruments. They set the parameters a PAPI has to meet, the tolerances, and the duty on the operator to verify and record. The instrument is the operator’s choice, made inside a maintenance programme the authority has approved.

That is why the honest answer to this page’s title is neither yes nor no. It is: no authority forbids it, ICAO’s own guidance lists it, one European authority has formally approved a drone method, and in every other state the answer is made aerodrome by aerodrome when the programme changes. The rest of this page goes authority by authority, quoting what the documents actually say and marking where the evidence is a vendor’s statement rather than a regulator’s.

ICAO: the parameters, and one sentence about drones

Annex 14 Volume I defines the PAPI: the unit spacing, the set angle, the transition, the obstacle protection surface, and the tolerances. It does not describe how any of them is verified. The verification guidance is in Doc 9157 Part 4, the Aerodrome Design Manual on visual aids, which describes ways of checking the setting of a visual approach slope indicator and names unmanned aircraft among them, in paragraph 8.3.43.

That paragraph is the reference to bring to any conversation with an authority. It does not approve a method. ICAO manuals do not approve anything. It establishes that the drone is one of the recognised instruments for the check, which moves the discussion to where it belongs: whether the evidence meets the parameter.

EASA states: the maintenance programme is the door

Regulation (EU) 139/2014 requires the aerodrome operator to establish a system of preventive and corrective maintenance for visual aids and electrical systems, and to keep the records. CS-ADR-DSN, the certification specifications, fix the design and performance the aids are certified against. Neither names an instrument, and neither has to.

A new verification method therefore enters through a change to the operator’s maintenance programme, assessed by the national competent authority under the regulation’s change management provisions. The authority’s question is whether the method demonstrates the parameter to the tolerance, with evidence it can audit. The three things that make that demonstration are retained raw data, a documented and versioned method, and a stated uncertainty per measurement.

France

The clearest precedent. A drone-based PAPI calibration method developed with the DSNA was approved by STAC in 2021 and has been in commercial use at French aerodromes since 2022, with Geneva following in 2024. A second provider states a DGAC approval. Both are the providers’ own statements, referenced at the end, and both should be confirmed with the authority, but the shape is what matters: a French technical authority assessed a drone method’s evidence for PAPI and accepted it.

Spain, Germany, Poland, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Hungary

AESA, the LBA and the Länder aviation authorities, the ULC, the Dopravný úrad, the ÚCL and the Légügyi Hatóság operate the same regulation with the same mechanism. None has published a position on drone methods for visual aids. The first aerodrome in each state to change its programme presents the evidence. The ones after it can point to the decision. This page records each decision as it is made.

United Kingdom

The UK retained the structure of the EU regulation in domestic law after leaving EASA, and the CAA’s CAP 168 sets the aerodrome licensing requirements including lighting. The instrument is again not specified. The CAA has a long history with mobile photometric testing, which grew out of a CAA research programme, so the productive conversation is about which parameters a drone measures that a photometer does not, and vice versa, rather than about platforms.

United States

A PAPI at a federally obligated airport is flight-checked when commissioned under the FAA’s flight inspection programme, and then maintained by the airport under AC 150/5340-26, which addresses aiming and photometric maintenance without specifying the instrument. The periodic flight check is not a calibration of the PAPI. It confirms the facility supports the procedure. The maintenance duty, and the choice of instrument for it, sits with the airport.

Canada

Transport Canada’s Advisory Circular 300-014 states that a flight check of a PAPI or APAPI is not required for calibration purposes. That is the most explicit statement any authority on this page makes: the verification is a ground-based, or in this case air-based, measurement the aerodrome arranges, and the aircraft is not the instrument.

What to put in front of your authority

A one-page note that answers the authority’s real questions before they are asked: the parameter list the method covers, with the Annex 14 or CS-ADR-DSN reference for each. Then the method description and its version, the instrument and its calibration, including the RTK positioning and the camera intrinsics, and the stated uncertainty per parameter. Then what raw data is retained and for how long. The drone flight authorisation, held by the provider, goes in as a separate attachment. An authority that receives that note is being asked to assess evidence, which is a question it knows how to answer.

If the question is what the drone method measures and where it stops, drone airport inspection is the method page. If it is how a drone measurement holds up as evidence months later, how a drone measurement becomes evidence sets out the chain. If it is who else offers the method and what each has had accepted, the vendor comparison names them. And the service this page supports is the PAPI inspection .

Frequently Asked Questions

Does ICAO allow a drone to check a PAPI?: ICAO does not approve instruments. It sets standards and publishes guidance. Annex 14 Volume I defines the PAPI's geometry, the obstacle protection surface and the tolerances, and says nothing about how the check is made. Doc 9157 Part 4, the Aerodrome Design Manual on visual aids, describes methods for checking the setting of visual approach slope indicators and names unmanned aircraft among them, in paragraph 8.3.43. That sentence is the reference to quote: the manual treats the drone as one of the instruments, and leaves the acceptance to the state.
What does EASA say?: EASA's rules apply through Regulation (EU) 139/2014 and its certification specifications, CS-ADR-DSN. The regulation requires the aerodrome operator to run a system of preventive and corrective maintenance for visual aids and to keep records. CS-ADR-DSN fixes the design and performance the aids are certified against. Neither names a verification instrument. Acceptance of a drone method is therefore not an EASA decision but a change to the operator's maintenance programme, assessed by the national competent authority under the regulation's change management. The question to that authority is whether the method's evidence demonstrates the parameter to the tolerance, which is what the programme has to show.
Is there a precedent in France?: Yes, the clearest one in Europe. A drone-based PAPI calibration method developed with the French DSNA was approved by STAC, the civil aviation technical service, in 2021, and has been used commercially at French aerodromes since 2022, with Geneva following. A second provider states a DGAC approval. Both are the vendors' own statements and both are worth confirming, but the point stands: a French authority has accepted a drone method for PAPI, on the basis of its evidence, and that is the template for the question elsewhere.
What about Spain, Germany, Poland, Slovakia and the Czech Republic?: All are EASA states, so the same mechanism applies: the aerodrome's maintenance programme under 139/2014, assessed by AESA, the LBA or the Länder authorities, the ULC, the Dopravný úrad and the ÚCL respectively. None publishes a position on drone methods as such. In practice the first aerodrome in each state to change its programme has to present the method's evidence, and the ones after it can point to that decision. TarmacView presents the method and its uncertainty statement. The acceptance is the authority's, and this page will record each decision as it is made.
How does the United Kingdom treat it?: The UK left EASA but retained the regulation's structure in domestic law, and the CAA's aerodrome licensing guidance in CAP 168 sets the lighting requirements. As with the EU, the instrument is not specified and the aerodrome's maintenance arrangements carry the duty. The CAA has a long history with mobile photometric testing, which grew out of its own research programme, so the useful conversation is about what the drone measures that the photometer does not, rather than about the platform.
What do the FAA and Transport Canada say?: In the United States a PAPI at a federally obligated airport is flight-checked when commissioned, and maintained under the airport's programme following AC 150/5340-26, which addresses aiming and photometric maintenance without specifying the instrument. The flight check is not a periodic calibration. Transport Canada goes a step further in AC 300-014, stating that a flight check of a PAPI or APAPI is not required for calibration purposes, which places the verification firmly with the ground-based method the aerodrome chooses. Neither authority has published a position on drones for visual aids.
What should we ask our authority, exactly?: Three things, in writing. Which document sets the parameters and tolerances the PAPI is verified against at your aerodrome. Whether the authority requires a specific instrument or method for that verification, and if so where that requirement is written. And what evidence the authority would want to see attached to a maintenance programme change that introduces a new method: raw data retention, method description, stated uncertainty, calibration of the instrument. A method that can answer the third question is the one that gets accepted.
Does accepting the method mean the drone flight is allowed?: No, those are two separate permissions. The inspection method enters through the maintenance programme and the aviation authority's acceptance of its evidence. The drone flight at the aerodrome needs the operator's authorisation under the drone rules, in Europe the specific category under Regulation (EU) 2019/947, plus the aerodrome's permission and coordination with air traffic control. The inspection provider holds the flight authorisation. The aerodrome holds the maintenance programme. Confusing the two is the most common reason a conversation with an authority goes nowhere.

References

icao-annex-14-v1: Annex 14 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation, Volume I: Aerodrome Design and Operations International Civil Aviation Organization
icao-doc-9157-p4: Doc 9157, Aerodrome Design Manual, Part 4: Visual Aids International Civil Aviation Organization
eu-139-2014: Commission Regulation (EU) No 139/2014 laying down requirements and administrative procedures related to aerodromes Publications Office of the European Union
easa-cs-adr-dsn-7: Certification Specifications and Guidance Material for Aerodrome Design, CS-ADR-DSN Issue 7 European Union Aviation Safety Agency
faa-ac-150-5340-26: AC 150/5340-26, Maintenance of Airport Visual Aid Facilities Federal Aviation Administration
tc-ac-300-014: Advisory Circular 300-014, Precision Approach Path Indicator and Abbreviated Precision Approach Path Indicator Transport Canada
fracs-papi-2025: Revolutionizing PAPI Calibration with Drone Technology FRACS, France Aviation Civile Services