Banning overflights of a site is not something a company rulebook can decree. In Europe it goes through a UAS geographical zone, decided by the State. Opinion No 06/2026 does not make those zones mandatory. It clarifies how they are justified, how they are published, and what a “national condition” is.
Geographical zone and national condition
A UAS geographical zone is tied to a portion of airspace: a ban, a height limit, a prior authorisation, a time window. A national condition is not tied to a polygon. It is a rule already set in national law — insurance, minimum age of the remote pilot — that the State must make readable from a single source. The opinion does not create those requirements. It asks that they be findable.
The power to create a zone stays discretionary. Article 15 keeps “may”, after authorities rejected a “shall”. Airspace management remains a Member State competence.
Proportionality, except on security grounds
Before creating a zone or a national condition for a risk to aviation safety, privacy, personal data or the environment, the State would have to ensure the measure is necessary and proportionate. The entity proposing the zone documents that assessment where appropriate. No imposed methodology, and no mandatory consultation inside the regulation.
That check does not apply to zones created on security grounds, for example in response to a specific threat. The State does not have to publish the analysis that justifies a protective measure in that case.
The opinion does not introduce a definition of “critical infrastructure”. Prisons, energy sites, events, exposed residences: all of that stays inside the general zone mechanism, including temporary orders.
Publication a machine can read, at least in English
Information on zones and national conditions would be published in a human- and machine-readable format, at least in English as well as the national language. A zone’s geometry, time validity and restrictions would be encoded in a common digital format defined by EASA.
EASA is building a module for this inside the IAM Hub. Authorities asked for numeric duties on timelines, update frequency and availability: those will go into guidance, not the regulation. Some of these publication duties would apply only twelve months after entry into force, so processes can adapt.
For an operator the practical point is simple: a zone that is poorly published, or published only in one language and a PDF, is a zone a visiting pilot will not see. Ask that your perimeter sits in the digital dataset, not only on an internal map.
What a zone does not do by itself
A published zone does not stop a drone. Geo-awareness, which warns the pilot when approaching a zone, is not extended by this opinion. Compliance remains first a duty of the pilot.
On the site, the zone is useful if you can evidence the crossing: timestamp, trajectory, Remote ID when it exists. That is what passive detection is for. Without that trace, the order exists and the proof does not.
Official source: EASA — Opinion No 06/2026, Article 15 on UAS geographical zones and national conditions
FAQ
Does my site automatically become a no-fly zone?
No. Unless a rule already applies (airfield, military site, prison, certain industrial sites), a State decision is required, permanent or temporary. The opinion creates no default ban.
Can I request a zone tailored only to my site?
You can propose it to the competent authority. Establishing the zone remains a State responsibility. It is not cut to an individual operator’s request.
Will geo-awareness block drones over my site?
No. The opinion drops the geo-awareness extension. Even where the function exists, it warns the pilot; it does not neutralise the aircraft.
Where do I check zones in France?
Géoportail and DGAC publications remain the operational reference. The common digital format described in the opinion is not yet law in force.