When you think of drone incidents and airports what comes to mind? The Dublin Airport incidents? Or what about the Reagan Airport incident? While years have passed since the first infamous Gatwick Airport incident when drones reportedly infiltrated our airspace, causing flight disruptions, collision fears, and a hefty financial loss, this turned out to be NOT an isolated incident, but rather the start of a wave of such incidents.
Airports around the world are continuously grappling with the challenges posed by drones in our increasingly congested airspace. In fact, in the U.S. airspace alone, there are over 850,000 drones in operation, with two-thirds flown by hobbyists.
So, what can be done to minimize the risks and vulnerabilities our airports face? Currently, some airports, where allowed, have already begun to bolster their security measures by investing in innovative counter-UAS technology, as well as turning to regulatory bodies for guidance.
Yet, the question remains, is that enough?
Navigating the drone dilemma demands strategic steps in drone detection and mitigation measures for aviation. And the role of human factors in this equation cannot be understated.
Let’s delve into how human elements are pivotal in maintaining safety and efficiency in aviation operations amidst the growing prevalence of drone incidents.
Undoubtedly, counter-UAS technologies play a fundamental role in drone detection and mitigation for aviation strategies. But the complexities of drone-related threats demand more than just a technological ‘intervention’ in the form of automated systems.
Nuanced understanding, informed decision-making, and adaptive strategies form the first line of defense, and this is something that humans can bring to the table.
With significant advancements in drone speed, agility, range, payload capacity, sensor accuracy, and AI on the horizon, the potential for dangerous scenarios in and around our airports is set to escalate.
Within this dynamic environment, the expertise of airport security and operations personnel, as well as national, state, and local law enforcement agencies that support and respond to airports in their communities in navigating the complexities of drone operations is crucial. Their keen insight into aviation enables them to identify irregularities and evaluate drone activities with precision.
What’s more, it’s important to remember that no two airports are the same. Each airport environment has its own set of challenges. This reality underscores the necessity for a profound depth of knowledge and flexibility, ensuring the development and implementation of robust drone detection and mitigation strategies tailored to the specific needs of each airport.
When a drone incident unfolds, informed and proper decisive action becomes imperative. The safety of passengers, crew, airport staff, and communities surrounding the airport could hang in the balance.
Or can it? How severe is the threat? Is it a minor threat that calls for close observation? Or a critical situation that demands immediate activation of counter-UAS measures?
Professionally trained airport personnel could be armed with the capability to assess the magnitude of a drone threat accurately, consider all possible courses of action, and make well-informed decisions without delay. Not to mention, in situations where multiple considerations come into play, human intuition and judgment of aviation professionals are invaluable. They can navigate the delicate balance between necessary action for airport drone security and broader safety implications, making decisions that respect both security needs and the broader context in which they operate.
Of course, we wouldn’t be able to talk about the human factors of drone detection and mitigation without mentioning the critical role of regulatory bodies, such as the FAA, EASA, and CAA. These organizations are dedicated to crafting and revising regulations and guidelines to navigate the ever-increasing complexity of drone usage and its implications for airspace safety.
The development of a comprehensive framework for drone countermeasures is an ongoing process. However, it is not possible to have a standardized ‘one-fits-all’ approach, due to the unique characteristics of each airport and the diverse operational applications of drones.
With that in mind, counter-drone strategies necessitate a tailored, human-informed approach to combine both compliance with regulatory guidance with on-the-ground decisions made by aviation professionals.
While most recreational and commercial drone users are law-abiding citizens, keeping up with evolving rules and regulations, we can’t discount ignorant, careless, or criminal drone users, who are responsible for the many dangerous incidents that occur in and around our airports.
Where and when detection and mitigation are allowed, reporting procedures may come into effect. Airport personnel may be required to report drone sightings or incidents to relevant authorities, such as the FAA or local law enforcement. Understanding reporting protocols and timelines is essential for effective response.
Moreover, cooperation between airlines, aviation authorities, Law Enforcement agencies, and airport personnel is critical. Establishing lines of communication and cooperation can expedite responses to drone incidents and mitigate risks.
While not explicitly part of their typical job description, airport personnel play a pivotal role in ensuring the safety of passengers and staff during a drone incident. To that end, raising public awareness about the dangers of drones in and around airports is of paramount importance.
One effective approach is active engagement in public awareness campaigns designed to educate drone operators on drone legislation and regulations, including where they can safely operate their drones, and where such activities are strictly prohibited. This proactive approach aims to prevent unauthorized drone incursions into restricted areas, ultimately contributing to the safety of aircraft operations and those on the ground.
When a drone is spotted, there should be a range of response protocols in place. These protocols may encompass a range of actions, from deploying C-UAS at airports, when and where allowed, to adjusting flight schedules or even temporarily halting air traffic.
Whatever the protocol, strict compliance is key in bolstering safety protocols but also in fostering a cohesive and effective strategy to counteract the risks presented by unauthorized drones.
Finally, airport staff are not alone in their efforts for drone detection and mitigation. When allowed by local regulations, the role of authorized airport staff, security personnel, and assigned law enforcement is significantly enhanced with innovative RF cyber detection and takeover technology, such as EnforceAir2, which provides substantial backing to those on the front lines of airspace security.
But don’t just take my word for it, learn more about EnforceAir2’s participation in the FAA’s airport drone detection evaluation program, also known as the 383 program, at Atlantic City International Airport (ACY) and Syracuse Hancock International Airport (SYR).
Renowned for its accuracy in detecting drones, our system enables personnel to pinpoint and focus on legitimate threats with confidence. Moreover, the capability of EnforceAir2, when allowed, to neutralize and safely redirect hostile drones from the sensitive environment you try to protect is central to averting security breaches.
What sets EnforceAir2 apart is its real-time intervention capacity, empowering security personnel to respond swiftly and proactively, significantly reducing the potential for human error that is more likely to occur when using jamming or kinetic methods. The control and precision EnforceAir2 provides airport personnel are invaluable for maintaining safety and operational integrity.
Ready to take your drone detection and mitigation for aviation strategy to the next level? Reach out to me today to see our drone detection and mitigation solution in action and discover the future of safeguarding your airspace.
Five years have passed since the infamous incident at Gatwick Airport. Since then, some airports around the world started to ‘arm’ themselves with counter-drone tech to protect themselves from drone intrusions.
In reality, the Gatwick incident is not merely a past occurrence, but rather an ongoing reality for many airports around the world as they experience drone intrusions, resulting in flight diversions or cancellations and causing disruptions that last anywhere from minutes to hours. These incidents even happened at airports that had some form of drone detection system in place. SO, WHAT HAPPENED?
The many drone incidents highlight the need for effective countermeasures to prevent and respond to drone intrusions at airports. And while we brace ourselves for FAA and TSA to conclude their testing, and issue findings and recommendations for what those effective measures should be, airport operators find themselves at a challenging crossroads where they must make the best decision for their airport.
From a best practices perspective, the core issue is identifying the most suitable counter-drone detection and/or mitigation technology for airports. To make informed decisions, responsible decision-makers must assess the advantages and disadvantages of each detection and mitigation technology while carefully selecting a system to protect their community.
But first, what are you really looking for?
An increasingly wide range of C-UAS technologies are available today, making it challenging to effectively evaluate and compare them. Different technologies vary in their suitability for various use cases, environments, and scenarios.
An airport environment is a unique, sensitive, and demanding environment. I can confidently state that the ‘only’ thing in common across airports around the world is that they have aircraft landing and taking off at their facility. The rest differs by so many variables, such as governance, national, state and local regulations, terrain – you name it – each airport is just an embodiment of its own unique situation.
So, with that in mind, let’s approach this crossroads carefully by highlighting key aspects airports should consider when evaluating various C-UAS technologies.
Both well-established legacy methods, as well as newer innovations and techniques, warrant deep investigation to provide thorough decision support for C-UAS system acquisition processes. Recent technologies have emerged with vastly different approaches and capabilities that should be considered. The most notable, for example, is RF Cyber Detection and Mitigation.
Regulations progress, and C-UAS technology constantly transforms. The need to ensure that the technology you invest in is future ready and can accommodate your ever evolving operational needs is key in the airport world. At the same time, this technology should be adaptable, in parallel with the aviation industry, to regulatory trends applicable to complex airport operations.
Choose a company with a global footprint and proven installed base of deployments and applications – ask for references!
An opinion piece by Mark Montgomery that came out this week reviewed the threat that cheap, commercial drones pose to the safety of our nation’s infrastructure. This observation could potentially also apply to various drone detection systems and services that are widely used in the US today.
So, “How did we get there?” Montgomery points out that by relying on cheap and commercially available products, we also wind-up confronting threats to our safety.
Drone “wars” and counter drone activity fascinated the world as we watched the war between Russia and Ukraine unfold. We now know that threats often eventually migrate from the battlefield to the homeland.
To always stay one step ahead, airport operators should bear all the everchanging regulations in mind as this year’s National Defense Authorization Act, which encompassed the American Security Drone Act (ASDA), prohibits the purchase and use of certain drones by Federal agencies. Airports and non-Federal entities should be standing by for potential expansions of policy to limit or eventually restrict the usage of other products, especially in a sensitive environment such as an airport.
The U.S. aviation industry depends on smooth, uninterrupted aircraft operations. Sensitive environments require high performance, safe and predictive anti-drone defense. Traditional C-UAS solutions were NOT designed for civilian airports. Some airports pay huge sums for systems that may not perform in such a sensitive environment, exposing themselves to a major threat.
Challenge the vendors to ensure you see a live demonstration that is relevant and applicable to your airport operation!
Of course, from my point of view, I urge clients to be future ready and one step ahead with RF-cyber takeover, such as that employed by D-Fend Solutions’ EnforceAir, which uses non-jamming and non-kinetic methods to keep airspace safe, without any disruption to the regular operation of the airport, its radio communications and navigation systems, while enabling airports to detect, and, as regulations allow mitigate rogue drone threats safely and efficiently, preserving operational continuity.
Do you want to see it to believe it? Contact us for a live demonstration.
As part of my role at D-Fend Solutions, I track open-source drone incidents in the public domain, which makes for a revealing journey into the world of drone-related challenges. To date, our Drone Incident Tracker includes over 900 incidents, providing a vast view of the ever-evolving drone threat landscape. Complementing this tracker, we have completed a year of sharing weekly Drone Incident Spotlights on social media. To mark this milestone, let’s delve into the insights and trends we’ve observed.
Unveiling Trends in Drone Incidents
Drone Incident Spotlights serve the dual purpose of providing a valuable resource for staying updated on the latest drone-related incidents and raising awareness of potential threats. The spotlights shed light on incident types, locations, and consequential impacts, offering anecdotal insights into emerging trends and patterns. These Spotlights play a role in raising awareness of the drone threat and advocating for responsible drone use.
Types and Locations of Drone Incidents
Over the past year, smuggling incidents were the most prevalent in Spotlight headlines, followed by harassment, nuisance, near misses, collisions, and privacy violations. Urban areas, particularly airports, prisons, and stadiums & arenas, emerged as hotspots for drone incidents. These insights emphasize the diverse challenges presented by drones and the need for policy and safe, controlled technological solutions.
Consequences and Prevention
Drone incidents can result in various consequences, from injuries and property damage to delays and disruptions. To address these challenges, a multifaceted approach is essential:
Let’s look at headlines from a few of the Drone Incident Spotlights that showcased the diverse challenges posed by rogue drones:
Spotlight #20: Dublin Airport Grounded Again
Spotlight #27: High-Stakes Encounter over Gatwick
Spotlight #23: Two Men Charged for Using Ten Drones 
Spotlight #44: NJ Business Owner Faces Charges 
These spotlights offer insights into the diverse challenges posed by unauthorized drones including, for example, airport disruptions, safety risks, and criminal activities. They highlight the need for comprehensive counter-drone solutions to enhance safety and security measures.
The Way Forward: Collaborative Prevention
As we navigate the complexities of the evolving drone threat landscape, it’s clear that a collaborative effort is required to prevent and mitigate incidents. By staying informed, educating the public, and employing effective technological counter-drone solutions, we can collectively work toward safer and more secure airspace.
Follow D-Fend Solutions on LinkedIn for more Spotlights, educational content, and industry insights to stay at the forefront of everything C-UAS.
In the first half of 2023, the wave of significant drone incidents continued to capture headlines, pointing to the need for effective counter-drone solutions, sensible regulations, and safer and more responsible drone usage. These incidents ranged from drone-enabled smuggling and unauthorized intrusions to collisions and technical malfunctions, impacting across sectors. This blog post provides an overview of notable drone incidents during this period, examining the sectors most affected and the countries facing these challenges.
United States:
Drone incursions are increasingly being used by cartels to smuggle drugs and monitor border patrols along the southern border for vulnerable entry points for both drug deliveries and illegal immigration. In one such incident reported in the news on January 18, 2023, Texas troopers described how they were followed by drones operated from Mexico while trailing a group of migrants.
The magnitude of the problem was highlighted by Gloria Chavez, Chief Patrol Agent of the U.S. Border Patrol’s Rio Grande Valley Sector, who testified that Border Patrol in the Rio Grande Valley sector of Texas faced over 10,000 drone incursions and 25,000 drone sightings in just one year.
India:
Drone-enabled smuggling of narcotics and arms across the India-Pakistan border has been on the rise. In the first half of 2023, India reported thirty cross-border drone incidents, of which twenty-four were in the state of Punjab. These occurrences represent 45% of Punjab’s total 53 incidents detected over the past three years.
The most notable of these drone incidents carried significant payloads –
March 10: Pakistan-based smugglers attempted to transport arms into India using a drone but were stopped by Border Security Forces. The drone was carrying an AK series rifle, two magazines, and 40 bullets.
April 12: A drone was used to transport 37 kg of heroin across the border from Rajasthan to Punjab, where it was seized by local law enforcement.
May 17: BSF foiled a major smuggling attempt near Kakkar village, shooting down a Pakistani drone and seizing over 15 kg of drugs dropped from the UAV.
Addressing the growing problem, Union Minister of State for Home Nisith Pramanik said that the government has taken several measures including round-the-clock monitoring of the borders by Border Security Forces (BSF), collaboration with the police, and making the general public aware of the problem and implications. The Home Ministry has also established an Anti-Rogue Drone Technology Committee (ARDTC) tasked with evaluating available technology to counter rogue drones.
In her blog, Drones at Prisons: “Everything Everywhere All at Once,” Sandra Welfeld explained how contraband smuggling into correctional facilities by visitors or corrupt prison officials has always been a problem, but now, the increasing availability of low-cost, easy-to-fly commercial drones brings a whole new type of contraband smuggling activity into the sector, fueling contraband trade within prison walls, forcing governments to act.
Drones are now persistently used to smuggle illegal items into prisons worldwide, heightening the danger and risk in the facilities. While Canada and the United States have the most reported incidents this period, drone-enabled smuggling has also been reported at prisons in the UK, France, Spain, Italy, India, Trinidad & Tobago, and the Maldives.
Canada:
Prisons in Kingston, Ontario topped the charts in Canada, with the Correctional Services of Canada seizing contraband and cannabis from three drone deliveries at Collins Bay Institution (March 5, May 17, and June 22) and from two incidents at Joyceville federal multi-level security institution (January 17 and February 20).
United States:
In the U.S., South Carolina had many reported drone-smuggling incidents with drug and contraband deliveries at McCormick (January 24), Ridgeland (March 23), Lee (March 23 & April 29), and Lieber (June 29) Correctional Institutions. Also of note, on April 4th, federal prosecutors charged two men for using 10 drones to drop methamphetamine, heroin, cocaine, tobacco, and cell phones into seven California prisons.
Like Prisons, another sector where illegal drones wreaked havoc during the first half of 2023 was Airports. Ireland, the UK, and the U.S. all experienced serious drone incidents at airports.
Dublin Airport had drone incursions that captured headlines six times from January 24 through March 2. Flights were grounded, diverted, and suspended, delaying thousands of passengers traveling to and from Ireland. Ryanair was the airline most affected by the closures, and the
Irish government vowed to tackle the drone problem.
In the UK, rogue drones not only posed disruptive delays (Edinburgh February 21, Gatwick May 14 with 12 flights diverted during a 50-minute incident, and Manchester June 19) but also posed serious safety issues on four occasions, as drones were spotted dangerously close to planes.
In the United States, an airplane pilot reported spotting a drone on the side of his aircraft while approaching Florida’s Palm Beach International Airport (March 1), five incidents of unauthorized drones operating in the airspace around the Westfield-Barnes Regional Airport in Massachusetts were reported over three weeks (until March 16), and operations at Pittsburgh International Airport were suspended for half an hour due to reports of an unauthorized drone sighting (June 5).
Communities and neighborhoods have experienced the harsh impact of the criminal use of weaponized drones, in various violent incidents:
Mexico – On May 3, criminal groups dropped DIY bombs on seven strategically important towns located along drug trafficking routes to attack witnesses and obstacles, and on May 8, in a second wave of drone attacks, they dropped 11 bombs on the previously targeted community.
These events are separate from drone incidents from careless users like the drone that crashed into a bush at Frontierland Disneyland, CA (Feb. 27), or the mischief of an individual arrested in Quebec, Canada for launching fireworks from a drone (April 14).
In the first half of 2023, drone incidents occurred across sectors, with Borders, Prisons, Airports, and Communities and Neighborhoods accounting for a major portion of the reported cases, as tracked by the D-Fend Solutions Drone Attack and Incident Tracker. Other incidents spanned multiple additional sectors, including Landmarks and Government Buildings, Stadiums and Arenas, Law Enforcement Agencies and First Responders, Military & Special Forces, VIP Protection, Critical Infrastructure, National Security & Homeland Security, Enterprise, Media, and Nature Preservation. These types of incidents encompass harassment and nuisance, collisions or near collisions, privacy breaches, espionage, and attacks.
The prevalence of drone incidents across sectors underscores the urgency of a broad approach to address the challenges posed by rogue drones. To ensure public safety and security amidst evolving drone technology, it is imperative for governments, security agencies, and industries to collaborate and implement effective counter-drone measures, stronger regulations, and responsible drone usage guidelines.
By understanding and learning from these incidents, officials can cultivate a responsible and sustainable drone ecosystem that fully unlocks the potential of this groundbreaking technology while safeguarding public safety and privacy.
In my last blog ‘Airport Drone Mitigation -Part 6: So, Is Jamming a Viable Solution for Airports?,’ we discussed how a hand-held jammer could be one of the best ‘conventional’ rogue drone mitigation solutions, but also determined that it’s probably not a truly viable solution as it comes with huge disadvantages with excessively high risks. We concluded that we must continue to scour the horizon for a viable solution from emerging technologies and when doing so, a new technology option arises – Cyber Technology.
With cyber technology, we know what information is available, which makes us ready to create a Cyber-C-UAS Mitigation Protection Plan. Essentially, such a plan determines when something happens, what will happen and what you desire as an outcome, to protect an airport and its airspace.
Specifically, this is what you should expect of a proper Cyber C-UAS Mitigation Protection Plan:
Only when a system is capable of all of this can we truly say we now have the next generation Cyber-C-UAS capable of protecting an airport.
Comparing Jamming to Cyber
In my next blog ‘Comparing Jammers to Cyber’ we will compare jamming against cyber, to determine which is the most suitable counter-drone technology for an airport.
Civil aviation provides the means of transporting millions of passengers and tons of goods to all corners of the globe. In the U.S. alone, more than 5,000 public-use airports support tens of thousands of flights each and every day. From vacations to business meetings, overnight delivery of goods to traffic monitoring — civil aviation is an essential part of everyday life and global commerce, and airports play a major role as communities rely on smooth airport operations.
Drones are becoming increasingly popular and affordable, and while authorized drones bring many benefits to society, they can also pose a serious threat to aviation safety and security. When drones fly near airports without authorization, they can interfere with air traffic control, collide with an aircraft, or even be used for malicious attacks. When drones disrupt airport operations, flights must be delayed or cancelled, affecting hundreds of thousands of passengers and airlines.
The 2018 drone disruption at London Gatwick airport disrupted about 1,000 flights, affecting more than 140,000 passengers. The economic loss of the 33-hour disruption was estimated at approximately €55.8 million, primarily to airlines. The list of airport operations being disrupted due to drone activity is growing every day, with Dublin Airport the latest in the headlines, where there were six incidents in the past six weeks, with flights suspended due to drone disruption.
Airports have become such large and central ecosystems that the impact of drone disruptions is felt not only by the airports and airlines themselves, but also by the communities they serve. Let’s stop for a minute and discuss how an airport drone disruption affects the local community.
In the U.S. alone, there are countless State, County, and City reports analyzing airports’ economic local impact. As stated in the Long Beach Airport Economic Impact Study, ‘airports facilitate various economic activities that bring new money into the local economy.’ This new money generates revenues for the local community while supporting local jobs and providing incomes to local households.
An interesting perspective on an airport’s economic impact on its local community was issued by the Virginia Department of Aviation. The statewide economic impact report analyzes various impacts, including those that are more difficult to quantify. The report notes that the ‘economic impact of an airport can be classified into three impact categories: direct, indirect, and induced.’ All these aspects can be affected by drone disruptions that reduce airport efficiency and reliability.
When a local airport is shut down due to a drone disruption, the burden won’t fall only on the passengers of those specific flights affected, nor the airline.
The directly affected airport will also lose revenue by losing fees paid by airlines associated to landing or departing flights at that airport. Moreover, some people may choose to fly from another airport with less delays and cancellations, or airlines may choose other airports as their destination to ensure smooth flight operations. The loss in passenger traffic then will have induced effects on local employees that may not be needed anymore to conduct various jobs at that specific airport AND will affect businesses and a variety of vendors that depend on the airport for their activities.
As for airlines, they will accrue increased costs of operating expenses for crew, fuel, maintenance, etc., which may potentially lead to increased ticket prices and other services they provide to customers.
When airlines raise prices, what can we expect to see? Loss in demand.
Did you ever avoid flying and just drove somewhere instead? I did.
And many Americans did the same, especially during the pandemic. We did it for a variety of reasons, not just costs or delays, but, to prove a point – most can choose to drive if they want to. Another option is just to stay home.
While many air travelers choose to ‘hang in there,’ others may switch to alternative transportation modes such as automobiles (like I did), buses, or trains. Now we are dealing with additional road traffic that generates congestion, additional toll costs on other road users, and don’t mind me adding even more environmental impacts on society at large. That’s an indirect impact at its best.
Increases in airline fares affect not just the demand for leisure travel but also lead to higher costs of production for industries that rely on air transportation to conduct businesses, while the demand for products and services of such industries may, in turn – you guessed it right! decrease.
Time is money, and flight delays leave business travelers with less time to do their work and experience a loss in productivity and motivation.
Drones are becoming more and more of a nuisance for airports in the U.S., as the number of drone incidents is increasing while effective countermeasures are still in their testing phase by FAA and TSA. The many drone incidents highlight the need for effective measures to prevent and respond to drone intrusions at airports. Some practical solutions include stricter regulations, enhanced detection and tracking systems, counter-drone technologies, and public awareness campaigns. By working together, airport operators, airlines, authorities, and drone users can ensure that drones are used safely and responsibly without compromising airport operations and their communities.
The ultimate question everyone should focus on is whether the investment in a C-UAS system at an airport is justifiable vis-à-vis the total costs experienced by airlines, airport operators, and local communities due to a complete shutdown.
The answer is quite simple: YES.
Traditional C-UAS solutions were NOT designed for airports. Some airports pay huge sums for systems that may not perform in such a sensitive environment, exposing themselves to a major threat – just like the incidents at Dublin airport.
Unlike traditional anti-drone solutions on the market, our counter-drone, cyber-detection flagship product, EnforceAir, seamlessly detects and tracks authorized and rogue drone threats, providing situational awareness along with a rich set of capabilities, including tracking drone location, home location, and drone operator location, accurately and in real-time. Airport personnel can then choose how to utilize the information to contend with the risk and achieve optimal operational continuity.
EnforceAir empowers airports to detect threats without excessive burden on human resources, disrupting communications systems or damaging existing infrastructure. EnforceAir can read unique identifiers per drone. Once a drone is tagged as ‘authorized,’ it is recorded on the authorized list and can fly undisturbed in defined areas of the airport. The system’s ability to distinguish between authorized and unauthorized drones ensures continuity for drones performing essential functions at the airport while providing preventative alerts for unauthorized drones, such as drone takeoff and pilot remote control locations, so authorities can deal with specific flights and dispatch appropriate personnel.
Air transportation relies on uninterrupted operations. EnforceAir’s proven capabilities help assure high likelihood that airport operations continue to run as usual. Continuity ensues as flights, communications, security, and everyday life in the area proceed smoothly.
As a reminder of why we’re looking at jamming in this series of blogs, it’s clear that many airports either have no C-UAS or believe they have one, when in reality what they really have is merely a drone ‘detection’ system, which does not ‘counter’ the drone at all. Traditionally, there have been 3 broadly defined ‘conventional’ solutions when it came to countering rogue drones: kill, capture, or jam. Kinetic “kill or soft capture” solutions are not an option, given the threat of collateral damage and the cessation in airport and airline operations until the cat-and-mouse game is over. This left just one traditional solution – jamming. But is jamming a viable solution for airports?
In previous blogs in this series, we’ve looked at what jamming is, how jammers operate, the consequences of jamming all four frequencies, the types of jammers available, how effective they are at airports and how a rogue drone will respond when a jammer is used against it. As I pointed out in my last blog (When a Drone is Jammed…) , authorised airport security and police must decide if jamming is the right solution for them and whether they should purchase a jamming system, or look at a new generation of emerging technologies to mitigate the threat from a rogue drone.
There are many questions airport security and aviation police should ask when considering if jamming is a viable solution for an airport. To summarise what we’ve talked about in this series of blogs, I’ve answered what I deem to be the five ‘key questions’:
Q1. Which jamming technique is best?
For jamming to be truly effective, it is necessary to employ noise jamming, with three possible techniques: spot, sweep and barrage. Spot jamming can’t deal with drones which are frequency agile, as it focusses on a single frequency. Sweeping jamming only focusses the energy on one frequency at a time, so is unable to follow the pattern of a frequency agile drone. Barrage jamming is less powerful on each frequency, decreasing its effective range, but it does target all four frequencies used by drones and therefore is the most effective at jamming most drones.
Q2. That’s great! So, is jamming all four frequencies an option?
Jamming all four frequencies (or even only one frequency) will likely have a detrimental effect on aircraft and airport operations while the jammer is being used. It may also lead to major collateral effects on businesses and homes around the airport. Jamming all 4 frequencies is an option, but it will probably result in grounding all aircraft and diverting flights. The airport must bear in mind the cost to airports and airlines for suspending operations – not to mention the negative publicity from such an incident!
Q3. Understanding the risk, what type of jammer is best suited to an airport?
Each type of jammer – omnidirectional, directional or targeting – will have a different impact on airport operations, aircraft, local businesses and communities. Omnidirectional jammers don’t need cueing onto the drone, but they jam everything in a 360° arc, causing the most disruption to an airport. Directional jammers do need cueing onto the drone, but limit the disruption as they only jam in one direction. Both are generally expensive because of the number of jammers needed, the raw power required and the cost of additional sensors to cue the jammers. Targeting jammers are best suited for airports as they cause the least amount of disruption, they’re simple to use – point and shoot – and relatively cheap.
Q4. Okay, so targeting jammers are the best option?
Of all the jamming solutions, yes, this seems to be the least problematic. However, the jammer operator must have direct and unobstructed line of sight with the drone, which is difficult on an airfield with slab sided hangers, terminals, and control towers. Passengers and public will see what looks like a gun being pointed into the air as the jammer operator attempts to get a shot at a fast-moving drone – alarming and likely to attract unwanted attention. Targeting jammers have limited range on a sprawling airfield and don’t protect the air corridors leading to and from the airport where an aircraft is most vulnerable. So, yes, targeting jammers are an option, but using them will still result in the grounding of all aircraft and diverting flights until the potentially lengthy chase is brought to an end.
Q5. If targeting jammers are the best option, what risks are associated with how drones respond to them?
No matter which jamming technique or type of jammer is used and no matter what model of drone is targeted – including commercial, DIY and hacked drones – if the jamming is effective the impact on the drone is the same: the drone pilot’s signals and/or the GPS signal are drowned out. Targeting jammers can be effective against drones but they do not take control of the drone or the pilot. When jammed, the drone will attempt to respond in the way it has been programmed, but in reality, that outcome is unpredictable and completely out of the control of the jammer operator; they can only watch and report on the drone’s response. It may fly back to the take-off point safely, it may fly partway home and land in an unknown location or crash, it may attempt to return home by the most direct route across runways, or fly into infrastructure. The drone may have been programmed to land in the middle of the runway or fly into a terminal, aircraft apron or ATC tower, it may immediately descend and land on whatever is directly under it, it may hover for as long as the battery will last then land or crash, it may have been programmed to fly away and return from another direction, or it may become immediately unstable and crash. If the GPS jamming is effective, it may fly off in an unpredictable direction across runways, until it crashes or lands in an unknown location. Finally, if the drone is functioning correctly, it will eventually move out of the effective jammer range and control, will revert back to the drone pilot, who will be able to continue harassing or attacking the airport.
Having spent over 40 years operating in a security environment and being responsible for operating against (for real and by Red Teaming[1]) and protecting airport facilities, including providing security consultancy to some of the most prestigious locations one could imagine, and with a deep level of technical knowledge and understanding of drones, drone detection systems, drone mitigation systems like jammers, and human behaviour, I’ve come to the following conclusion… In the absence of any other C-UAS technology, I could not justify the use of a kinetic or capture solution and that would leave me with no option other than to use a jamming solution. Of all the types of jamming and jammers, I’d probably choose a hand-held targeting jammer, but I’d still have to stop airport operations by grounding and diverting all aircraft until the situation was under control.
I’d advise owners and directors of airports and airlines, as well as airport operational and security professionals, that there are 2 main issues they must be prepared for as a result of choosing a jammer as a solution:
I’d conclude that that a hand-held jammer is the best ‘conventional’ rogue drone mitigation solution, but all things considered, it is not a truly viable solution as it comes with huge drawbacks and the risks are unacceptably high. Therefore, we must continue to scour the horizon for a viable solution from emerging technologies.
In my next blog we’ll look at emerging technologies for the next generation of C-UAS in a search for one which takes full control of the rogue drone before it reaches the airport or controlled airspace, so airport and airline operations can continue to function unhindered …
[1] Red Teaming – Using terrorist and criminal techniques to conduct simulated attacks using real weapons and equipment, in real time when the operation is fully functioning, to holistically assess security plans, policies, protocols, systems, equipment and personnel, in which to advise and make recommendations for change.
In the previous post – Drone Jamming Effectiveness at Airports – we discussed the effectiveness, features, and limitations of jammers. Specifically, we looked at what happens to a drone when it’s jammed, and how that can affect airport activities.
Let’s go a bit further to understand what a drone recovery program is and its fundamental issues. What a drone will do when it’s jammed depends on who programmed it, and how it was done.
When a drone is effectively jammed, the drone pilot’s signal commands and/or the GPS signal cannot be received and understood by the drone because of the intense noise interference created by the RF jammer – it’s blocked out. Essentially, the drone is now flying ‘deaf’ because the communications link between the drone pilot’s transmitter and the drone’s receiver has been temporarily severed, or the drone is flying ‘blind’ because the GPS signal is not received as it is blocked out.
For most commercial drones, when it loses communication with the pilot, the drone is pre-programmed by the manufacturer to immediately enter hover mode, so it doesn’t hit anything. It will then climb vertically to a safe altitude so it’s clear of any obstacles, then execute a return to home – either where it originally took off from or an updated home location. Some drones will simply land where they are if the programming deems it to be safer to do so (for example, if GPS isn’t available to them and navigation can’t be trusted). If the drone is low on battery power and is unable to make it to the home location, or the return track is deemed too risky, it is usually programmed to go into hover mode and land, or begin its journey home before descending vertically with only sufficient battery power to complete a controlled ‘soft’ landing. All this is without any input from the pilot.
Among the different manufacturers and different models, there are variations of this programmed flight, but it’s essentially a program to return the drone, or to keep the drone safe.
Most DIY drone enthusiasts will also want to keep their drone safe from harm and be able to return them home, so the process above is likely to be the same. They may have a more complex program, with multiple safe landing points along a route, especially when working near the edge of the flight endurance envelope. However, a sinister pilot who may want to hit a planned target like a crowd, building or aircraft on the ground, or has attached an Improvised Explosive Device (IED) or chemical aerosol spray to the drone, could reprogram their commercial or DIY drone with a ‘home location’ which is exactly the same location as the ‘target location’!
Even if you can positively identify the exact make and model of the drone, it’s still not possible to know exactly what it will do when it’s jammed due to many factors:
When a drone responds to jamming in a way that the operator doesn’t expect, there is little that the jammer operator can do, other than to stop jamming. Having spoken to many jammer operators, I understand that they expect one of these four things to happen:
Given all the issues regarding jamming operations near airports, airport security and police must decide if jamming is the right solution for them, and whether they should purchase a jamming system or look at alternatives to mitigate the threat from a rogue drone.
In my next blog post, we will look at key questions on whether Jamming is a Viable Solution for Airports.
Not a simple issue.
As discussed in my previous post (Types of Jammers), each type of jammer brings drawbacks and limitations to airport operations.
Let’s dive into these issues:
When it comes to jamming, the most crucial factor is power. Quite simply, if the signal from the pilot and the GPS is strong enough so that the drone can demodulate and decode them despite the noise from the jammer, jamming will be ineffective. Any fixed omnidirectional and directional jammer will presumably be positioned on the airfield, and the rogue drone pilot will likely be outside the airfield boundary. If the drone is flown within the airfield perimeter, the signal strength from the pilot will degrade with increasing distance and conversely, the effect of the jamming signal on the drone will increase as the drone gets closer. As such, in theory, how well jamming will work depends on the location of the jammer with the real estate of the covered area, assuming a clear line of sight. But as we’ve discussed, any equipment operating on those four relevant frequencies will suffer interference.
Real Estate Airports can be sprawling with large and often oddly shaped boundaries. Therefore, when using fixed jammers (omnidirectional and directional), you may need multiple jammers to cover the airport’s real estate. (This is true of all solutions, as they have a specific range, but some are more effective as they can use other means. Most airports – particularly large ones – may need more than one system to cover the protected area properly.)
Another option is to use targeting jammers to complement fixed jammers and cover dead spots, or, alternatively, have them as the only jamming option and employ a qualified and authorized security or police quick reaction force (QRF). This poses problems due to the configuration of an airport with its runways, taxiways, aprons, peritracks and access roads. Given the power required to successfully jam a drone, combined with the sheer size of the airport, it’s likely that the security/police QRF will have to crisscross the airport as they attempt to get into position to fire the jammer. What complicates this is that the drone flightpath will be unpredictable, and therefore the jammer operator will have to point and shoot at the drone (once they get close enough), regardless of the angle. Handheld targeting jammers are not like lasers with a pinpoint beam. They emit a cone of RF energy, which can range from approximately 40° to 90°, and will affect other equipment within that cone. An airport will generally not be able to keep operations running when a human with a jammer gun is pointing high-power RF energy wherever needed to mitigate the threat.
One aspect which is often overlooked is the approach and departure flightpaths to and from an airport. Some reports indicate there are more Airprox Reports submitted by pilots for near misses with drones than there are drone breaches of the airport boundary. Given that commercial aircraft fly at heights and speeds where rogue drones are ineffective, many near misses would occur at the most dangerous point of an aircraft’s entire flight profile, the take-off and climb and the approach to land. While airport security staff may determine they are only responsible for what is inside the airport boundary, the reality is that air traffic control is responsible for the approach flightpath, the departure flight path, and the airspace leading to and from them. However, the nefarious or careless drone pilot may actually be inclined to position a drone directly underneath or just to one side of the flightpath, to take a picture, video, or worse, a hostile interception, and that could be many kilometers from the airport boundary. When an airport is allowed to use a directional jammer, it may jam communications and other operations in a public area with businesses and homes underneath the flightpath. A better and safer option would be to deploy a police QRF with a targeting jammer. However, the coordination and logistics of negotiating streets, private land and the public while attempting to track a drone and get into position to stop it, make this tougher than it is on an airfield.
Jamming does not take over control of the drone. It merely negates the control of the pilot. A drone that loses its remote controller’s signal will generally commence an “emergency back-up plan,” which in most cases will be either returning home, hovering in place, or landing on the spot. In amateur drones, it may be programmed to do other types of actions. Either way, if the pilot loses control, and the jammer does not control the drone, the result is a drone that is controlled by nobody, which acts the way it was programmed to do (and not known by the jammer operator) and may pose a risk to air traffic or ground operations. In this situation, even if the pilot did not mean to cause any damage, and was going to withdraw from the protected area, it is out of control.
As we highlighted in the previous blog post, as effective as jammers can be, their operations are not so simple and straightforward at airports, particularly busy ones.
So, what happens When a Drone is Jammed? We’ll investigate it in my next blog.
In my last post – The Issues with Jamming Drone Frequencies – we started to dig into why jammers may not be the ideal solution to protect airports from rogue drone activity, particularly as jamming the frequencies used by drones could have a detrimental effect on airport operations and nearby businesses and residences.
In this blog, let’s look at the different types of jammers available today and how effective they are.
Radio Frequency (RF) jammers come in many guises and vary from large military-grade multi-sensor jamming systems (costing tens of millions of pounds or dollars) to small, handheld, point-and-shoot jamming guns (costing a few thousand). The characteristics of each vary hugely but, to put into context how they operate, they’re either omnidirectional, directional, or targeted RF energy transmitters:
As highlighted above, each jammer has its own merits and drawbacks. Now we’ll evaluate just how effective jammers are on drones.
There are four main drawbacks to these jammers:
In essence, RF jammers can be effective, and may be suitable for a remote location with plenty of land surrounding the facility and nothing to damage. But for a busy airport, it’s not so simple. They could possibly work if they’re positioned well and there’s a well-trained and responsive QRF. However, the impact to airport operations could last for hours or days, and that’s unpalatable to an airport with time-critical airline schedules.
In the next blog post – Drone Jamming Effectiveness at Airports – we will go deeper into jammer drawbacks.
In my previous blog post– What is Jamming and How does it Work?, we reviewed “Jamming 101” topics – what are jammers, and how they operate. In this blog post, we will look at the frequency bands that drones operate on, and how jammers deal with them.
Commercial drones operate on four frequency bands: 2.4GHz, 5.8GHz, 433MHz and 915MHz.
Most of the more expensive commercial drones operate on 2.4GHz and 5.8GHz and use GPS L1, enabling the pilot to fly the fixed wing or quadcopter up to approximately 5km away, with some as far as 12km. Some of them automatically frequency hop between these bands or allow the pilot to configure it, and some can use one of these bands for flying and the other to send imagery back to the pilot. Amateur-built drones tend to use 433MHz or 915MHz, which may considerably extend their range, but will limit the rate and quality of the video feed from the drone, and at times will reduce the quality of communication with the drone.
The issue with jamming these four frequencies is that they’re not dedicated for use by drones only. These frequencies are also used by hobbyists for controlling models like cars, boats, aircraft, etc., and each frequency also plays a vital role in maintaining normal operations:
While the above list is not exhaustive, it’s enough to establish that jamming any of these four frequencies could have a detrimental effect on an airport’s operations, as well as possibly a major collateral effect on the businesses and homes which surround an airport. But if you must use a jammer because nothing else is available, you must select a type capable of jamming drones using all four frequencies.
Not easy …
In my next blog – Types of Jammers – we’ll go a bit further on the different types available today.
In my previous blog – Why Mitigating the Increase in Rogue Drone Activity in the Vicinity of Airports Has Been Such a Hard Nut to Crack – Until Now? – we looked at the proliferation of drones and why they’re fast becoming a real nuisance to airports and air travel. Using the “VULNERABILITY x THREAT = RISK” model, we were able to establish that drones were not only a ‘Security’ risk, but also a major ‘Flight Safety’ risk too. While we know they pose a credible THREAT to airports and aircrafts in flight, the RISK is real, due to VULNERABILITY. Until the advent of new generation C-UAS technologies such as RF cyber-takeover as represented in D-Fend’s EnforceAir, the only options available to airports were jammers or other effectors, which capture or kill the drone. These were dismissed as unsuitable for airports due to several factors, which I’ll present to you in a new series of airport-related blog posts.
In this first piece, we’ll start with jammers, a security equipment claimed to be effective against drones. In the upcoming posts, we’ll dig a little deeper and look under the bonnet (hood!), before analysing and comparing them to an effective cyber-C-UAS solution.
In my last blog, I made a statement that drone incidents in controlled airspace were on the increase. I don’t have a crystal ball, but the data we looked at indicated they would continue to persist. But did they?
The short answer? Yes.
As we posted in the D-Fend Solutions’ Drone Incident Tracker, there were more than 70 additional incidents reported in the public domain since my last blog (many of those in the airport space) of which more than 20 were extremely serious. In one, a Delta Airlines pilot reported that a drone narrowly missed the windshield by 8 feet at the Orlando International Airport!
‘Interference’ is the unintended disruption of wireless communications, whereas ‘jamming’ describes the deliberate act of interfering with the purpose of blocking communications. In lay terms, it means directing a very strong signal at a drone, blocking out the drone pilot’s signal commands so they can no longer control it and/or the GPS signal. Technically speaking, it’s much more complex than that and, to understand why it’s not suited to airports, we need to know how jamming and jammers operate.
There are two types of jamming: repeater jamming and noise jamming. The most common form of repeater jamming is digital frequency radio memory (DFRM). However, I’ll not cover it in this blog as it’s not applicable to drones, unlike noise jamming which is used against drones.
When it comes to drones, noise jamming is the main type of jamming. It involves three main techniques:
As you can see, pumping out massive amounts of energy may have an adverse effect on airport systems…
In the next blog post – The Issues with Jamming Drone Frequencies – we’ll look at the problems with jamming frequencies and its effects.
On July 21, 2022, a drone incident at Ronald Reagan National Airport in Washington, DC, halted flights for about 45 minutes.
While this is by far not good news, it drew attention to the risk of drone incidents at or near airports – especially at such a high-visibility airport located less than two miles from the Pentagon, and three miles from the White House. In fact, even before this incident, the US government has been leaning forward to battling rogue drones from different angles. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) have the same, common goal of preventing these incidents in the country, and have been collaborating and sharing information.
Drone incidents around airports are happening worldwide: from Germany, UK, Turkey, Chile, UAE, Australia, Mexico, to the U.S. and more. The ‘patient zero’ of incidents was London’s Gatwick Airport, which led to the cancellation or diversion of over 1,000 flights over 33 hours, costing the airlines over $60 million in damages! Following this UK incident, in the US the TSA was designated as the lead federal agency to address this issue, and tasked with drafting local tactical response plans (TRPs) for each Part 139 airport in the country.
The TRPs outline TSA’s airport-specific preparation and response measures to address malicious UAS activity at or near airports. However, the U.S. jurisdictional and regulatory complexities associated with responding to unauthorized UAS operations place airport operators and TSA itself in a tricky spot. While federal law enforcement’s authority to counter malicious drones expires in October, federal agencies have been asking lawmakers to extend AND broaden the authority to state, local, territorial, and tribal (SLTT) law enforcement to support the counter UAS effort.
The United States has, for the most part, been able to avoid prolonged airport shutdowns due to unauthorized drone activity, and yet, there have been more than 2,000 drone sightings near airports in the country since last year, as stated by Samantha Vinograd, Senior Counselor for National Security at Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Acting Assistant Secretary for Counterterrorism and Threat Prevention, in a Congress hearing. In addition, she pointed out that “of all the things that keep me awake at night, one that is foremost on my mind is the potential for a major tragedy at an airport.”
A recent article in Bloomberg Government highlights how the DC Airport “disruption is a prime example of why Congress needs to extend and expand federal counter-drone authorities,” as indicated by a senior official at the TSA. In addition, during the August 3, 2022, White House Advanced Air Mobility Symposium, Mr. Lucian Sikorskyj, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Counterterrorism, Threat Prevention, and Law Enforcement for DHS, said the TSA still lacks the needed authority to fully protect airports from an increasing number of threats from UASs. Mr. Sikorskyj added that the new Bill would authorize TSA to detect and mitigate UAS threats in close collaboration with the FAA to ensure there is no danger to aviation safety. He said there is room in that conversation for collaboration with local law enforcement located near airports.
There have been some positive executive and legislative developments in the past few months that will contribute to safer airspace near and at airports, including:
The National Action Plan, released in April, comprises several elements to advance and expand detection and mitigation around the country, including state, local, airport (TSA/FAA), and critical infrastructure levels. It proposes authorization of more advanced, appropriate C-UAS solutions, which are non-disruptive of airspace, while recognizing and allowing friendly authorized drones. The Action Plan also pushes for an incident tracking database, for further airspace protection.
The bipartisan bill, recently proposed, would provide federal agencies with broader authorities to take down menacing drones, and expand the authorities allowed to take actions against drones that threaten airports and the airspace in general.
The U.S. aviation industry depends on smooth, uninterrupted aircraft operations. Sensitive environments require high performance, safe and predictive anti-drone defense.
Unlike traditional technology-based anti-drone solutions on the market, new technologies such as RF-cyber takeover, employed by D-Fend Solutions’ EnforceAir, use non-jamming and non-kinetic methods to keep airspace safe, without any disruption to the regular operation of the airport, its radio communications and navigation systems, while enabling airports to detect, and, once regulations permit, mitigate rogue drone threats safely and efficiently, preserving operational continuity.
In 2020, the total number of consumer drone shipments worldwide was around five million units. This number is expected to increase over the next decade, reaching 9.6 million consumer drone unit shipments by 2030. We can’t stop drones from being used for pleasure or business, and we shouldn’t attempt to discourage this either. They have their place in society and they’re improving the efficiency of operations and speed of response to incidents. We must learn to live with drones and to accept that the vast majority are being flown correctly and their pilots comply with the law. However, some people won’t abide by the law, and with such exponential sales, it’s no wonder they’re becoming a real nuisance to airports and air travel. Drone proliferation means the threat from drone misuse – whether intentional or not – can only increase.
Some nefarious individuals could acquire drones for malicious reasons, such as intentional collision with an aircraft in flight, deliberately attacking an airport’s infrastructure like the control tower, fuel farm, etc., or intentionally disrupting and halting airport operations by simply flying into their controlled airspace. To deal with these threats, an airport’s Risk Advisory Group (RAG) conducts risk assessments. In its simplest form, we can calculate the risk using this formula:
“VULNERABILITY x THREAT = RISK”
VULNERABILITY– Airports are vulnerable to deliberate attacks because they may not have deployed a Counter-Unmanned Aircraft System (C-UAS) solution yet, or one capable of ‘automatically’ detecting, tracking, identifying friend or foe drones accurately, then mitigating the drone (removing it) before it’s too late.
THREAT – With incidents and sightings on the rise, the threat is clearly increasing. However, one could argue an airport doesn’t urgently need C-UAS, as the immediate threat may not be readily apparent. For example, a given airport’s RAG may deem it to be low because airports are generally not being actively attacked (e.g., in the UK) – since if they were being attacked it would obviously be headline news.
RISK – Using our formula to deduce the risk, we find that while there is vulnerability, the threat may not be fully apparent or mature and as such, a given airport’s RAG may identify the drone risk as low when reporting to the airport’s Security Executive Group (SEG). The SEG has the responsibility for making decisions on what security equipment is required and, based on the ‘Security’ risk alone, they may choose not to acquire anything. But consider that it’s not only a ‘Security’ risk, but that it’s a Flight Safety risk as well, and this changes everything…
We’ve discussed the security risk which deals with deliberate acts, but we must also look at the flight safety risk, which deals with accidents and incidents. The threat isn’t just from those wishing to use a drone to cause a ‘deliberate’ act resulting in a security risk to an aircraft or airport. Most drone incursions which occur in controlled airspace and pose a risk to air travel are not deliberate acts of terrorism, protest, or disruption. Whether the drone pilot has made a ‘genuine mistake’ in their choice of airspace to fly, or they’re ‘flouting the law’ to get cool imagery because they believe they won’t be caught, or they’re deliberately ‘breaking the law’ and really don’t care, the flight safety risk they pose to aircrew and passengers is high and on the increase. It is no longer just a low-security risk, but a high safety risk.
Flight safety is sacrosanct and to put flight crews and passengers at risk when there’s a clear threat (and a solution!) is not palatable.
D-Fend Solutions’ Drone Incident Tracker lists many openly reported drone incidents around the world. It’s now possible for airport security and safety executives to look at their country or region to establish the facts and understand why a C-UAS solution is essential for a safer airspace. For example, from January to July 2022, there has been over 50 publicly reported near misses between drones and aircraft in flight around the world. What we should also bear in mind is that for every openly reported incident there will be many more that go unreported.
Most drone incidents occurring all over the world and recorded ‘at airports’ are seldom within the airport boundary. An airport has an airport boundary with controlled airspace extending directly above it, but with several aircraft flying in and out of the airport at once, there are different altitudes of controlled airspace extending several miles away from the airport, all within drone altitude reach. An airport’s Air Traffic Control (ATC) is responsible for controlling aircraft in this airspace, but their radar systems are only designed to detect large airborne objects. Due to the small size of the commercial drones purchased off-the-shelf and DIY drones built at home, they only need to be a couple of kilometers away to render the airport helpless in positively detecting, tracking, and identifying the drone, and more importantly, leaving them with nothing they can do to effectively mitigate it.
To defeat a drone, you first must detect and track the drone. ATC and military radar systems rely on a typical ‘ping pong’ radar return to detect an aircraft-type object. Due to the tiny size of most drones, traditional systems fail to detect the drone at any reasonable range. If they were to dial the sensitivity down to detect smaller objects, it would create a whole host of issues; imagine the false alarm rate if every passing pigeon was detected as a potential threat! One way to overcome the false positives is to integrate an optical camera with the radar, which can enable identification of the drone. Again, even with some of the most sophisticated cameras, the minuscule size of a drone makes visual acuity at range extremely difficult. In addition, the camera is blind when there is poor visibility due to weather or low light. Another option to support radar is a thermal camera such as ‘forward-looking infrared’ (FLIR) but small drones don’t use an engine and emit little heat, so they are largely undetectable at any range. There are other methods of detection, such as acoustics and Radio Frequency (RF) detectors, but they too have severe limitations with background noise. While they may be able to tell you a drone is out there, even with multiple detectors and smart algorithms to direction find, identifying exactly where the drone is can be difficult at best. DJI (the world’s leading drone manufacturer) have a drone fence system called Aeroscope, but it’s only able to detect DJI drones and does not conduct any mitigation whatsoever.
Let’s say, for argument’s sake, that an airport has a really smart layered C-UAS detection solution, active during daylight hours, with no adverse weather and good visibility – the radar detects something it believes is a drone and employs the optical camera which identifies a drone operating 3 km away on the approach flight path. What now? There are a few ways to address the risk, but some of these anti-drone technologies impose restrictions on the airport’s ability to operate:
To add to all of this, now consider the size of an airport and the airspace above it, and the size of the airspace required when you calculate the departure and approach flight paths – it’s huge! Sheer size is one of the serious issues facing those who plan to mitigate the drone threat quickly and effectively without disruption to air operations.
Hopefully, you’ll now appreciate why it’s so difficult to reduce the risk – detection and tracking is difficult, identification can be extremely difficult, and mitigating the risk by removing the drone has been almost impossible so far.
Imagine owning and running an airport with so much real estate and airspace. How on earth does the SEG even manage to get approval to procure a C-UAS system when a traditional counter-drone solution costs multi-million pounds/dollars and, as we’ve just seen, it’s not even guaranteed to work?! Every spend must be justified, and not being able to remove the drone threat automatically will result in the decision-makers refusing the purchase as it’s cost prohibitive. This is one reason why airports have not been buying C-UAS solutions – until now …
Forget radars and jammers, forget cameras and kinetic solutions, forget basic direction finding and triangulation through RF and acoustic detectors. Yes, they play a part in a layered C-UAS solution for airports, but they’re expensive and they’re not great when it comes to countering small, commercially available drones.
The next-generation of C-UAS belongs to the cyber age. Cyber Detect, Track and Identify is now possible – Imagine if you had a cyber-C-UAS solution that passively listens to the drone’s RF signal, and is able to interpret it so you know exactly what type of drone it is, whether it’s your drone or a rogue drone, where it took off from, where the pilot is with accuracy, where the drone is (also with accuracy!), what height it’s at, which way it’s pointing, where it’s been and where it’s heading.
Now stretch your imagination further to embrace cyber take-over, approved, compliant, and performed by authorized personnel. Imagine having a cyber-C-UAS solution that’s so smart, it’s able to send a small transmission into the rogue drone to disconnect it from the pilot, take complete control, put the drone into hover to prevent it from crashing into anything, then automatically re-route the drone at a safe altitude, along a safe corridor, to a safe landing point of your choice. At the same time, the system permits all friendly drones to continue operating freely.
Dare to imagine being able to continue flight operations without interference, because you’ve taken control of the threat, or multiple threats, within seconds, rendering it a ‘No-Threat.’ EnforceAir by D-Fend is exactly that cyber-C-UAS solution. It’s here, it’s operational, it’s trusted to protect airports, it’s affordable and it works.
To Take Control of the Drone is to Control the Threat
Having explained why mitigating a drone in the vicinity of an airport is such a hard nut to crack and the only real solution is a cyber solution, in the next few months I will focus on the trilogy of mitigation solutions discussed and dismissed in this blog – jamming, effectors, and hard kill and capture. The first part of this trilogy is a series of blog that digs into jamming. Check the first part, which explains “What is Jamming and How Does it Work?”
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) recently released a Part 139 CertAlert informing Part 139 airport operators that airport emergency plans (AEP) should include instructions for responding to unauthorized unmanned aircraft system (UAS) operations in the airport environment. In addition, the FAA stated that airports must coordinate with their assigned inspectors to develop these response plans, with a deadline of no later than September 30, 2022.
It seems the Administration’s counter-UAS efforts are in full force as this CertAlert release comes shortly after the announcement that five airports were selected to test and evaluate unmanned aircraft detection and mitigation systems during 2023. Additionally, in parallel to FAA’s efforts, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) publicized its own testing of counter-drone technologies at MIA and LAX airports.
Following the Gatwick incident (the first time a major airport was shut down by drones), TSA was designated as the lead federal agency and tasked with drafting local tactical response plans (TRPs) for each Part 139 airport. These response plans outline TSA’s airport-specific preparation and response measures to address malicious UAS activity at airports. However, the U.S. jurisdictional and regulatory complexities associated with responding to unauthorized UAS operations place airport operators in a tricky spot.
Where does the FAA come into play? FAA’s latest CertAlert does not include a template or provide any guidelines on what should be included in the response plans. Is this the Administration’s way of asking airports for guidelines, instead of giving them? Maybe this is an opportunity for airport operators to be innovative by including the required response procedures AND identifying technologies that can help them mitigate the risk.
Will the FAA be receptive to your attempts at compliance? We will find out exactly a year from now, but you don’t have to work alone. D-Fend Solutions possesses extensive experience advising airports on how to cope with a multitude of rogue drone scenarios. Our multi-disciplinary team is closely studying this alert to anticipate its potential effects on U.S. airports and act as a trusted advisor to our clients. We continuously upgrade and improve our end-to-end anti-drone technology to benefit customers and comply with applicable rules and regulations.
Stay tuned for more updates to come, and until then – always keep in mind:
“Wherever there is change, and wherever there is uncertainty, there is opportunity!”
– Mark Cuban, billionaire entrepreneur, television personality and media proprietor
An EasyJet plane traveling at 320 miles per hour just after leaving the Manchester, UK airport, nearly collided with a recklessly piloted drone, according to MSN.
The Daily Mail offers details on the flight that took off in September of 2020 and carried 186 passengers:
“A report by the UK Airprox Board which investigates near misses rated it as the most dangerous Category A incident meaning there was a serious risk of collision…
The number of near misses between aircraft and drones has soared dramatically in recent years as the devices have become more popular, leading to fears of a catastrophic accident.
Experts fear that an impact with a heavy drone could disable a jet engine or cause serious injury to pilots by smashing a jet’s windscreen.”
Our flagship counter-drone takeover solution, EnforceAir, uses non-jamming and non-kinetic technologies to keep airspace safe, including takeoff and landing runways and airstrips.
Flight schedules proceed as planned, backed by an autonomous system that asserts control over rogue drones and lands them safely in a designated zone. The solution co-exists with airport wireless communications.
EnforceAir can extract a unique identifier (known as a tail number) per drone, sourced from the drone’s communication. Authorized drones can then be tagged as “authorized” to fly in certain areas of the airport, even while mitigation of rogue drones is occurring. This classification capability is absent from radars and other traditional detection systems.
EnforceAir also provides airport authorities with preventive notifications while extracting crucial data – such as the drone take-off position and pilot remote control location, so authorities can alert specific at-risk flights and emergency personnel.
We can help keep your airport free from rogue drones. Find out how:
A scary collision between a Chilean Navy helicopter and an unmanned aerial system (UAS) has once again highlighted the tremendous risk to aircraft posed by drones.
According to DroneXL, the navy helicopter collided with a DJI Mavic Air 2 drone. “Based on the photos, it appears that the drone and helicopter must have hit each other at a relatively high speed, with the unmanned aircraft going straight through the windshield of the Bell UH-57B (Bell 206B) JetRanger III helicopter.”
The article adds: “Photos show that the drone crashed through the windshield…seemingly hitting (a passenger) in the face.”
Aviation International News (AIN) reports that the helicopter made an emergency landing and the injured crew member was transported to the hospital with “moderately serious” injuries. A photo of the incident depicts a bloody mask. It is unclear who piloted the rogue drone.
Experts have long warned about the dangers that can result from drones colliding with aircraft.
A study from the Canada National Research Council’s Aerospace Research Center that concentrated largely on planes found that mid- and large-size drones with heavy payload capabilities can do significant damage to aircraft, including shattered windshields, penetration and inhalation hazards, lost optics and the need for emergency landings after impact.
At low speeds of around 140 knots, aircraft that collided with drones showed plastic damage and extensive deformation to the skin, as well as damage to the vessel’s underlying honeycomb structure. At higher speeds of 250 knots, severe deformation of slat curvature, secondary damage to the leading edge, and even penetration of drone debris into the aircraft’s fractured area were observed.
Unfortunately, the mere sighting of a drone in the vicinity of an airport or aircraft is enough to spark fear, often causing costly delays. Ninety-two (92) drone-related incidents were recorded in German airspace in 2020, according to a recent article in Homeland Security Today, with one-third of those incidents leading to severely restricted air traffic:
Such restrictions have consequences. The spacing between arriving and departing aircraft may have to be increased, or it can mean that specific areas, such as individual runways, cannot be used. In extreme cases, no take-off or landing clearances can be issued, which is tantamount to an airport closure. At the beginning of 2020, Frankfurt Airport was out of service for four and a half hours in total, following two occurrences with drones.
Airports require a robust counter-UAS system that will detect and mitigate rogue drones, while preserving continuity and preventing delays.
In today’s world, where technology evolves at a breakneck pace, unmanned aerial systems (UAS), or drones have become both a marvel and a menace. While ...
The Growing Threat of Drones in Complex Environments In the rugged terrain of a conflict zone, a covert military mission is underway. Suddenly, the ...
The rapid evolution of drone technology has brought about significant benefits across various industries, from agriculture to entertainment. However, it ...
The proliferation of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) in cross-border illicit activities is a growing concern for border security agencies, ...
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has ramped up its enforcement of drone safety violations, proposing over $341,000 in civil fines between ...
In a recent episode of the Irregular Warfare Initiative (IWI) podcast, titled "Drones Are Here to Stay: The Proliferation of Unmanned Aerial Systems ...
The booming popularity of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) or drones, has introduced a new layer of complexity for stadium security, especially during ...
In the ever-evolving landscape of security threats, critical infrastructure sites like nuclear facilities face an increasingly complex challenge: ...
Miniature unmanned aerial vehicles (sUAVs), categorized by the Department of Defense as Types 1 and 2, encompass a wide array of aerial systems ...
The soaring popularity of drones has ushered in a new era of convenience and innovation. However, their increasing presence has not come without its ...
Enhancing Modern Naval Defense Against the Ever-Present Drone Threat: The proliferation of commercially available drones, or Unmanned Aerial Systems ...
The commercial drone industry has revolutionized efficiency and safety across numerous sectors. However, this versatility also presents a growing concern: ...
The rapid proliferation of cheap commercial drones, particularly those manufactured by Chinese companies, is creating a significant security challenge for ...
Drones, with their rapidly advancing design and functionality, could potentially become the weapon of choice for terrorists seeking to conduct ...
The rapid advancement of drone technology has fundamentally reshaped airspace dynamics, with UAVs finding applications across a myriad of sectors. This ...
The drone threat landscape is constantly evolving. From the battlefield all the way to our own neighborhoods, keeping the skies safe and confronting ...
The swift evolution of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) has ushered in a wave of significant changes across numerous fields, from delivery logistics to ...
Drone technology has advanced dramatically since its inception, and the proliferation of drones buzzing around urban environments is surging. From ...
Weaponized drones may dominate war zone headlines, but a different aerial threat looms over the American homeland. The increasing availability of cheap, ...
As drone-related disruptions surge globally, it’s evident that traditional security measures are inadequate against the evolving threat posed by ...
When you think of drone incidents and airports what comes to mind? The Dublin Airport incidents? Or what about the Reagan Airport incident? While years ...
From airspace intrusions to surveillance to smuggling contraband, drones have become the tool of choice for different degrees of malicious activities. ...
This year was the 25 th edition of Intersec , a leading business event for safety and security, and it was a great opportunity for our team to ...
Conquer, Soar, and Roar! What an epic week in Athens, Greece, at D-Fend Solutions ’ SKO! Our 2024 Sales Kick-Off was a massive success, filled ...
Five years have passed since the infamous incident at Gatwick Airport. Since then, some airports around the world started to ‘arm’ themselves with ...
As part of my role at D-Fend Solutions, I track open-source drone incidents in the public domain, which makes for a revealing journey into the world of ...
When D-Fend announced the launch of EnforceAir2 a few months ago, the many benefits that the new system offers became very clear, including enhanced, ...
We recently had the opportunity to attend the AUSA 2023 Annual Meeting & Exposition , in Washington, DC. AUSA is an annual gathering that serves as ...
D-Fend Solutions has recently taken a transformative step, concurrent with the introduction of EnforceAir2 , in offering new Multiuse Deployment Bundles ...
In the ever-evolving landscape of technology and security, my journey has taken a compelling turn with my recent foray into the world of counter-drone at ...
In a display of solidarity and support, I had the opportunity to participate in the Border Patrol Protection Foundation’s Honoring the Green 2023 charity ...
D-Fend Solutions is proud to introduce EnforceAir2 – a next generation, counter-drone solution that delivers more power, performance, portability, ...
Remote ID (RID) refers to a drone’s transmission of its location and certain identification data in a standardized, public, and non-encrypted format. ...
Artificial Intelligence (AI) has emerged as a game-changer across many industries, revolutionising the way we conduct our lives, and the drone industry is ...
In the first half of 2023, the wave of significant drone incidents continued to capture headlines, pointing to the need for effective counter-drone ...
In June 2023, we had the privilege of participating in the National Sheriffs Association (NSA) Conference. This influential gathering brought together ...
Attending the 2023 AUVSI XPONENTIAL show in Denver last month was an unforgettable experience for me, as a Presales Engineer at D-Fend Solutions. The ...
Port operations are crucial for global trade, with ports serving as gateways for billions of dollars' worth of cargo. However, the increase in unauthorized ...
In my last blog ‘ Airpor t Drone Mitigation -Part 6: So, Is Jamming a Viable Solution for Airports? , ’ we discussed how a hand-held jammer ...
Drone safety is the law, as the Federal Aviation Administration explains. Before flying a drone in the US, many rules must be considered, particularly ...
In a series of recent blog posts focused on airport drone mitigation , Mark Rutherford , our Sales Director in the UK, explained what is jamming, its ...
Civil aviation provides the means of transporting millions of passengers and tons of goods to all corners of the globe. In the U.S. alone, more than 5,000 ...
My previous blog examined the current state of the rogue drone threat in the context of notable incidents perpetrated by criminals across various ...
The commercial drone market experienced major growth in 2022, and this trend is expected to continue as drones become more affordable, accessible, and ...
The start of 2023 has seen drone incidents at prisons happening everywhere, which brings to mind the title of the current movie “ Everything Everywhere ...
Why Study Jammers? As a reminder of why we’re looking at jamming in this series of blogs, it’s clear that many airports either have no C-UAS or ...
The Intersec Expo has been around for more than 20 years, addressing issues facing world-leading emergency services, security, and safety. This year, the ...
In the previous post - Drone Jamming Effectiveness at Airports - we discussed the effectiveness, features, and limitations of jammers. Specifically, we ...
As we get older, it seems that we celebrate the New Year more frequently, doesn’t it? I mean, it feels like the year gets shorter and shorter, even ...
Not a simple issue. As discussed in my previous post ( Types of Jammers ), each type of jammer brings drawbacks and limitations to airport ...
In my last post - The Issues with Jamming Drone Frequencies - we started to dig into why jammers may not be the ideal solution to protect airports from ...
Delivering service is a privilege. As a global professional service team leader, with years of experience, I can say that delivering service is not only ...
In my previous blog post– What is Jamming and How does it Work? , we reviewed “Jamming 101” topics – what are jammers, and how they operate. In ...
In my previous blog – Why Mitigating the Increase in Rogue Drone Activity in the Vicinity of Airports Has Been Such a Hard Nut to Crack – Until Now? ...
There are thousands of drone companies today, some focused on specific vertical industry fields or sectors, others on more horizontal general commercial, ...
A few years ago, it became clear that the coordination and management of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) – or drones – was an important and critical ...
D-Fend Solutions was proud to attend and exhibit at this year’s Association of the United States Army (AUSA) convention! AUSA is a well-established and ...
Drone delivery-driven consumer commerce, from giant retailers such as Amazon and Walmart , is becoming a reality. In the US, California, Texas, Ohio and ...
I am a technology guy. I love all aspects of technology and its innovative capabilities. More than ten years ago, I started working with the US Marine ...
Last month, I had the pleasure of attending the IDGA Counter-UAS USA Summit in Alexandria, VA. The event featured many impressive speakers, including US ...
The constantly broadening range of Counter-Drone (C-UAS) Detection and Mitigation Technologies available today makes an efficient assessment incredibly ...
I was born and grew up in Brazil. Back then, there was so much hope, and Brazil was often called “The Country of the Future.” (Even though this hopeful ...
While drone incidents at airports have garnered headlines recently, see Ilana Brodesky’s blog The Challenge of Drone Incidents at Airports , there is ...
On July 21, 2022, a drone incident at Ronald Reagan National Airport in Washington, DC, halted flights for about 45 minutes. While this is by far ...
Drone Proliferation: The Good, the Bad, and the Dangerous In 2020, the total number of consumer drone shipments worldwide was around five million ...
Military forces, airports, borders, and prisons all saw notable dangerous drone incidents While 2022 has seen drones continue to become integrated ...
As drones increasingly become a significant threat around the world, security and safety are imperative. In fact, the Russia-Ukraine war has brought ...
In a previous blog post , I explained the importance of operational flexibility when handling drone threats in today’s society, given different ...
The threat from rogue or nefarious drones is not going anywhere. In fact, as drones continue to evolve, the risks will increase and add further dangers and ...
An entire book can be written about drone accidents and incidents that occur worldwide, either due to careless, inexperienced drone operators, or ...
Last week, I joined some of my colleagues at D-Fend Solutions and attended the Special Operations Forces Industry Conference – SOFIC . It counts as one ...
As drone usage continues to thrive offering a variety of benefits to different sectors around the world, the potential threats caused by rogue drone ...
Although it sounds like a weird question, truth is, there is some logic to it… There are drones, and there are rogue drones. Commercial and DIY drone ...
The BBC reports that last month there were days’ worth of mysterious drones sightings over key sites in Sweden, including three nuclear sites and the ...
Rogue drones smuggling contraband – weapons, drugs, cellphones, etc. – has been an issue for years, but it seems to have significantly spiked in the ...
America’s stalled supply chain has become a problem and U.S. Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg offered a partial ...
There seems to be some confusion in the counter-drone space about the definitions of “cyber-takeover” and “spoofing.” I have even heard top ...
After blogging about the attempted drone attack on electrical infrastructure in Pennsylvania, I want to turn my attention to another major incident that ...
CNN obtained a U.S. federal law enforcement bulletin that details an attempted drone attack on energy infrastructure in the U.S. in 2020. A drone ...
Drone tracking methods and the associated technology are constantly evolving, but there is an important capability that many security teams are currently ...
The issue of cybersecurity is expanding and evolving in the drone and counter-drone spaces. Traditional cyber concerns in the drone world referred either ...
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) recently released a Part 139 CertAlert informing Part 139 airport operators that airport emergency plans ...
Drones smuggling contraband into correctional facilities is still a major problem. An Associated Press story notes that following a deadly prison riot at ...
Effectively keeping borders safe from rogue drones has long been a challenging mission . Rogue or unauthorized drones are increasingly used to smuggle ...
Drones pose a major threat, according to a relatively recent article by Major Thomas G. Pledger, an Infantry officer in the U.S. Army National Guard, ...
D-Fend Solutions often leads discussions that encompass both detection and mitigation, due to our end-to-end full incident lifecycle capabilities. ...
Many of the traditional counter-small, unmanned aerial systems (C-sUASs) were designed for the battlefield. It seemed natural for military personnel to ...
My previous blog post was intended to help clarify some of the industry confusion around the term “remote ID ready” following the announcement of the ...
A Confusing Conversation There have been many industry discussions recently about remote ID for small, unmanned aerial systems (sUASs), following the ...
Four core concepts are at the heart of D-Fend Solutions’ product development, execution and roadmap: control , safety , focus and ...
Law enforcement personnel in California arrested a man this week that they allege was operating a small, unmanned aerial system (sUAS), or drone, with a ...
An EasyJet plane traveling at 320 miles per hour just after leaving the Manchester, UK airport, nearly collided with a recklessly piloted drone, according ...
As a child, I was fascinated by the poster in science class that showed zoological lifecycles. Seeing how an egg became a tadpole and then a tadpole ...
Misleading claims about the counter-drone space continue to proliferate, particularly regarding radio frequency (RF)-based, takeover technology. There are ...
A scary collision between a Chilean Navy helicopter and an unmanned aerial system (UAS) has once again highlighted the tremendous risk to aircraft posed by ...
I love the song “Jamming” by Bob Marley and the Wailers . It instantly relaxes me and puts a smile on my face, and gets me thinking about a ...
The Counter-Drone Drill blog has officially launched, and the sky is the limit. D-Fend Solutions’ talented team of bloggers is comprised of experts ...
Subscribe to email updatesMost popular publications
This year was the 25 th edition of Intersec , a ...
Conquer, Soar, and Roar! What an epic week in ...
Five years have passed since the infamous incident at ...
Our Bloggers
Tags
