Closing the Gap: Why Airports Need Authority to Act Against Drone Threats

A Growing Challenge for Airports 

Airports operate as some of the most complex logistical hubs in the world. On any given day, tens of thousands of flights, millions of passengers, and critical cargo depend on tightly choreographed movements of aircraft, ground crews, and security teams. 

This precision is fragile. A single unauthorised drone in controlled airspace can shut down runways, divert traffic, and ripple disruption across global networks. Gatwick and Frankfurt proved the costs are not theoretical, they are measured in millions of dollars, stranded passengers, and reputational harm. 

Looking ahead, global events like the Olympics, World Expos, and major international summits will only increase the pressure on airports to maintain uninterrupted operations under intense public and regulatory scrutiny. 

The threat is not new. What is new is the frequency and the lack of authority airports have to respond. 

Image: DroneShield’s SentryCiv

Where the Gap Lies 

Airports today are investing heavily in safety and security, from perimeter intrusion detection to baggage screening and airside operations. Yet when it comes to drones, operators are restricted by outdated regulations that leave them unable to act, even as the threat grows. 

Detection tools are legal, but in many jurisdictions, active counter-drone measures, particularly radio frequency (RF) disruption, remain prohibited. This regulatory lag leaves airports in the untenable position of seeing the threat but being unable to stop it. 

Operational Realities  

For airport executives, this isn’t just about security, it’s about operational continuity. 

• Runway closures disrupt not only departures and arrivals but create knock-on effects for gate management, fuel scheduling, crew rotations, and cargo handling. 

• Passenger disruption compounds rapidly, leading to terminal crowding, missed connections, and lost confidence in reliability. 

• Financial exposure is borne by airlines, airports, and surrounding businesses, with costs escalating into the tens of millions after just hours of downtime. 

Counter-drone systems need to fit within this operational reality. They must integrate with existing command-and-control platforms, align with airside security protocols, and provide real-time situational awareness to decision-makers already juggling multiple demands. 

Image: DroneShield’s DroneSentry-X Mk2

Seamless Integration, Not Additional Burden 

This is where Counter-Unmanned Aerial Systems (CUAS) technology, when empowered by regulation, fits naturally into airport workflows. 

• Detection and monitoring: Solutions such as DroneShield’s DroneSentry-X Mk2 feed into airside operations just like radar or surface movement guidance, giving security teams clear visibility of unauthorised drones. 

• Command-and-control integration: With DroneSentry-C2, detections are mapped in real time, providing actionable intelligence within familiar operational dashboards. 

• Scalable coverage: For regional airports or specific zones, SentryCiv offers compact detection, deployable on rooftops or perimeters without disrupting other systems. 

These tools are designed to complement, not complicate, airport security ecosystems. The barrier is not their functionality — it is the authority to use them fully. 

A Call to Aviation Authorities 

Airports are already accountable for the safety and efficiency of their operations. Yet when it comes to drones, they are being asked to carry that accountability without the authority to act. That imbalance cannot hold. 

Updating aviation security regulations to allow for controlled, judicious use of CUAS disruption at critical infrastructure is not just a matter of compliance — it is a matter of operational necessity. The upcoming cycle of global events, combined with record-high commercial traffic, leaves no room for regulatory inertia. 

Airports know how to manage risk. They do it every day with weather, mechanical issues, and passenger flow. The drone threat is another operational challenge — but one that requires regulators to align frameworks with reality. 

The technology exists, the operational workflows exist, and the urgency is clear. What is missing is the authority to act. 

As aviation leaders, we must press for that authority now — before the next major disruption forces the issue.