Defending Against Drones: What Security Pros Need to Know

For security directors responsible for protecting people, venues and events, Bill Edwards has one message: Don’t ignore the “air domain.” Edwards, who is the president of federal and public safety for Building Intelligence Inc. and the chair of the newly formed Security Industry Association (SIA) Counter-Uncrewed Aircraft Systems (UAS) Working Group, shared his thoughts with SIA in this interview but said his biggest takeaway for the security industry is this:

“Drones, or the concept of drones, is not new,” said Edwards. “However, the evolution, maturity in capability, accessibility and innovative use cases are constantly and, most recently, consistently changing. Security professionals need to add the ‘air domain’ to their security, safety and emergency preparedness programs.”

SIA sat down with Edwards to dive deep into drone-based threats, counter-UAS solutions and the challenge of defending against drones in the United States today.

Q: What’s the risk today in the U.S. market in terms of drone-based threats?

Edwards: Over the past 13 years, commercial drone technology has continued to evolve, grow and mature at a rapid pace, and our security programs have not kept up. In fact, we are only now seeing a greater emphasis and interest in the private sector that shows a positive trend in understanding what we are up against. The wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and Ukraine have exposed what is possible when commercial drones converge with military-grade platforms in combat zones. Commercial drone platforms have an incredible capability and are readily available online.

As security professionals, we have a duty to understand the capabilities, observe use cases and thoughtfully think through how the technology could affect the business, venue or facility that we are charged to secure and what our security programs should consider within the results of a threat, vulnerability and risk assessment. This would include an additional assessment specifically focused on drone threats and risks to critical assets. We are most certainly in an age that should include a close look at the “air domain.” It is very important that we educate industry experts on how to address counter-UAS technologies and what tools they do have at the present time to set conditions for mitigating risk. The evolution and maturity of commercial drone technology demands this attention.

Q: Are the security practitioner leaders at companies, organizations and venues really considering their air domain authority, or is this risk not yet well recognized?

Edwards: I would say it has been slow to take on a firm position in security programs and how they are planned, programmed, developed and implemented. We are still educating, but unfortunately technology is not waiting for us to catch up, and as technology continues to advance it puts us in “catch-up mode.” The good news is that organizations like SIA are forming committees to bring more awareness and experts together. We are stronger together.

Q: Can you explain the difference between drone detection and counter-UAS and explain what you see as the role of drone detection?

Edwards: I think there is some confusion about the difference. Some will argue that detection and monitoring is a counter-UAS capability, but I would argue that it is more of an indications and warnings technology that, in some cases, can provide geolocation for the drone operator. True counter-UAS technologies disrupt or take a drone out of the airspace, which is normally done by kinetic, jamming or take-control technologies (this includes drone-on-drone or drone hunter platforms) and is currently not authorized for use outside of specific federal government approvals, which creates a gap for protecting public space and mass gathering venues.   

Q: How can practitioners best work with law enforcement for drone detection outcomes?

Edwards: There should always be coordination with local first responders. I believe this is a relationship that is nurtured over time and is built into the overall security, safety and emergency preparedness exercise program. The details of how to best work with local first responders depend on a myriad of factors and are most definitely different for every business, venue or facility. The adage “You shouldn’t meet your first responders during an emergency” couldn’t be more pertinent as it relates to drone threats to the security posture. I try to keep it simple, coordinate, plan, train, rehearse and exercise. This is a framework that can be customized to each environment.

Q: What are the different types of counter-drone solutions that can be seen in the market today?

Edwards: As I mentioned earlier, the options are easy to remember when it comes to true counter-UAS capabilities. Kinetic, jamming, take control (which includes a drone on a drone or drone hunter platform). Here are some general summaries:

Kinetic: A kinetic solution is intended to stop the drone from operating. This is done using a direct fire weapon system. The problem with this solution is the possibility of collateral damage and, of course, errant ordnance. I would include lasers, electromagnetic pulse and high-power microwave options in this category. All can provide some level of the possibility of collateral damage.

RF Jamming: Simply put, jamming disconnects the drone from its signal and causes it to either return to its base, land or remain stationary. There are many issues with this type of counter-UAS technology that may cause safety issues with the drone being disconnected from its pilot, specifically, concerning airspace safety.

GPS spoofing: This technology and technique is now in vogue in the Ukraine war and something well publicized in the media. Basically, it makes the commercial drone believe it’s entering a restricted area or no-fly zone that is preprogrammed in the drone’s firmware, often referred to as a geofence. In this case, the drone often crashes to the ground. This is not an authorized activity in the United States but is another example of what is in the realm of possible. 

Take Control: This is a technology that takes control of the drone’s signal and directs its next actions. In this case, the drone can be safely landed and inspected properly. In my opinion, “take control” is the best option to secure public space if drone operators are properly trained and certified and authorities are delegated to levels below federal and state, local, tribal and territorial control. The most vulnerable venues are local public-facing ones that host mass gatherings.

Additionally, I would also include a drone hunter in this “take control” category from a physical attack perspective if the drone hunter safety lands the captured platform. It could also be considered a kinetic option, in essence, operating in both categories.  

Lastly, drones that are operating in an autonomous mode cannot be detected by a radio frequency detection capability. These are drones not communicating with a controller, however the drone may be visible/detectable by a layered detection and monitoring capability package (radar, optical and acoustic). In this case, the overall security program should address the policy, procedure, and standard operation instructions the staff should follow. This highlights the complexity of this technology but more importantly the complexity with “detection.”

Regardless, all these options are complex and require expertise and the right environments to be effective. Even the detection and monitoring of drones are complex operations. Based on the pros and cons of each, the private-sector security and safety environment will need a sensor-fused detection capability and a counter-UAS option that negates collateral damage or affects airspace safety.

Keep in mind that this type of activity is not currently authorized in private-sector airspace (with some exceptions). The current SIA Counter-UAS Working Group has been working with industry experts to form and promulgate the top legislative issues surrounding authorities to operate in the counter-UAS space. This is a complex problem that includes uncrewed traffic management (UTM). I recently read that the Ohio State University is actively testing a system, and Forbes recently published a helpful article on where the industry is going. UTM is an important step in the overall counter-UAS process.

Q: What’s the challenge today from a regulatory and policy standpoint for the implementation of true counter-UAS solutions?

Edwards: Laws currently prohibit counter-UAS execution and implementation outside of specific/approved entities, facilities and special events. Some key actions that have taken place over the last several years include the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Remote ID or “Digital License Plate” rule, the current administration’s National Action Plan (NAP), the U.S. Chamber of Commerce letter in response to the NAP and a myriad of other federal and local initiatives. In the end, the technology falls under U.S. Code. 48 and 118. Most recently, Senate Bill 1631 was drafted and is going through the different levels of approval and authorization.  This bill extends the 2022 authorities and adds more “meat to the bones” as it pertains to mitigating the risk associated with drone technology.

Q: How does an organization get authorization to do counter-UAS operations?

Edwards: A great place to start is with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the FAA. DHS has created a fact sheet to promote better understanding of the process.  I’d also recommend reviewing all of the major documents I’ve spoken about in the interview.  The chronological order of each is important to understand to monitor progress.

Q: How can companies in counter-drone and drone detection get involved in SIA’s efforts?

Edwards: The best way is to contact me or SIA staff members Jake Parker or Colby Williams. We formed the Counter-UAS Working Group earlier this year and are engaging SIA members for interest and their significant legislative issues related to counter-UAS in the private sector. We have established a regular meeting schedule and will plan additional in-person meetings at key SIA events throughout the year.