Drone Detection for Airports: Lessons Learned from Years of Experience in Europe

The aviation sector is among the most demanding operational environments for CUAS (Counter-Uncrewed Aircraft Systems) solutions. With dense volumes of air traffic, stringent safety regulations, and a constant flow of passengers, airports are environments where even a single misstep can lead to significant consequences.

During a recent high-profile incident at Gatwick Airport, operations were brought to a standstill for 36 hours due to suspected drone activity. The disruption was so severe that easyJet alone reported losses of £15 million. Incidents like this highlight just how critical robust airport drone detection and response systems have become,  for safety as well as for economic resilience.

Over the past six years, OSL has worked alongside some of the busiest and highest-stakes airports in Europe, including Heathrow, Gatwick, and Venice, to deliver reliable drone detection and response capabilities in these layered and complex settings. These years of live airport drone surveillance have not only built experience, but also a deep operational understanding of what truly makes a difference in protecting these critical spaces.

This article reflects on that journey not through features or specifications, but through the strategic and operational lessons we’ve learned on the tarmac. Whether you're involved in airport drone safety, regulation, or implementation, we hope these insights help shape your approach.

Lesson 1: Verifying Clear Airspace Is Just as Crucial as Identifying the Threat

Incident Example: Drone Discovered Beneath Aircraft at Major European Airport

CUAS solutions often focus on detecting incoming threats, but confirming that the airspace is genuinely clear is equally vital, especially in the high-stakes environment of an airport.

In one real-world case, a drone was discovered beneath a stationary aircraft by ground patrol after initial detection systems failed to register it. The drone had remained too small and too low to be picked up by radar, revealing a critical coverage gap. Had the aircraft begun taxiing, the consequences could have been severe.

This incident highlights a key lesson for airport drone detection: situational awareness isn't just about tracking visible threats. It’s about ensuring that both airspace and groundspace are free of hazards before operations resume. It also underlines the potential value of RF sensors, which might have flagged the drone earlier.

Lesson 2: A Single False Positive Can Cost Millions

Incident Example: RF Alert Triggered by Drone Packed in Luggage

In an airport context, the cost of a false positive extends far beyond technical inconvenience; it can have economic, reputational, and regulatory consequences. A single misclassification that grounds a flight or halts runway operations can trigger delays that ripple for hours.

In one instance, an RF sensor accurately detected a powered-on drone, but without radar or camera confirmation. The source? A passenger’s drone, unintentionally activated inside their luggage while moving through the baggage-handling system. The alert prompted a 15-minute operational pause while the situation was investigated and resolved.

This example illustrates that even when sensor readings are correct, without proper validation, they can lead to unnecessary disruption. It underscores the importance of multi-sensor correlation in drone detection for airports, ensuring that alerts are not only fast but also accurate enough to distinguish between genuine threats and benign signals.

Lesson 3: Layered, Tech-Agnostic Defence Is Essential

Incident Example: Helium Balloons Mistaken for Metallic Drone

Airports are among the most complex environments for any surveillance technology. Relying on a single sensor type introduces blind spots from infrastructure interference to visual misidentifications.

In one real deployment, a cluster of helium balloons released into the sky was misclassified by optical sensors as a drone. Their reflective surfaces and erratic movements mimicked the visual profile of a UAV. However, when cross-checked with RF and radar systems, no genuine threat was confirmed.

This incident reinforces the necessity of a layered, technology-agnostic approach to airport drone surveillance. Only by fusing multiple, independent sensor inputs can operators accurately differentiate between harmless objects and actionable threats, avoiding unnecessary responses and maintaining operational confidence.

Lesson 4: Every Airport Needs Its Own Playbook

While the principles of good CUAS design are universal, real-world execution must be tailored to each individual site. Gatwick’s open layout creates different detection challenges compared to Heathrow’s dense, infrastructure-heavy environment. Meanwhile, Venice presents a unique mix of complications, such as water-based access points, urban proximity, and seasonal tourism surges.

Each airport drone detection deployment must be customised not just in sensor placement and network integration, but also in operational workflows, stakeholder coordination, and escalation procedures. Off-the-shelf solutions rarely succeed in aviation. Flexibility, adaptability, and site-specific insight are what make the difference.

Lesson 5: Stakeholder Management Is Operational Infrastructure

CUAS deployments at airports don’t operate in isolation; they must integrate seamlessly with a wide range of stakeholders: airport operations teams, air traffic control, safety officers, police units, and aviation regulators. Each group brings its own set of concerns, responsibilities, and timelines.

Much of our success has come not just from the technology, but from building trust-based relationships with these key stakeholders. From deployment through to daily operations, we prioritise open communication, clear role definitions, and shared understanding.

In high-stakes environments, airport drone safety is as much about people and processes as it is about sensors and systems.

Lesson 6: C2 Should Aid Judgement, Not Hinder It

In the high-pressure setting of an airport, the gap between detection and response often comes down to how information is presented. A cluttered interface or poorly fused data feed can slow decision-making at precisely the moment speed matters most.

That’s why our command-and-control (C2) platform is designed with the operator in mind. It brings together multiple sensor inputs into a single, real-time, validated track delivering clear context for every alert.

In environments where airport drone surveillance must support rapid, confident action, good C2 design isn’t just a nice-to-have. It’s mission-critical.

Lesson 7: Automation Isn’t Enough Without Trained Operators

At our airport sites, the typical time from detection to escalation is under 30 seconds. That speed isn’t achieved by automation alone; it’s the result of trained operators, well-rehearsed workflows, and clearly defined escalation protocols.

Once a threat is confirmed, our operators maintain continuous tracking, sharing real-time data with airport authorities and law enforcement. But at the core of every decision is human judgement shaped by experience, supported by technology.

Effective airport drone detection relies not only on systems that work, but on people who know how to use them under pressure.

Lesson 8: Remote Monitoring Can Be Just as Effective

Not every airport requires an embedded, on-site CUAS team. That’s why we offer 24/7 remote monitoring from our own dedicated control centre. But make no mistake, this isn’t a scaled-back service. It’s the same highly trained operators, the same systems, and the same high standard of delivery.

Remote operations provide flexibility without compromise, especially valuable for smaller or geographically constrained airports seeking robust airport drone safety without the footprint of a full on-site team.

Lesson 9: Operators Are the Difference-Makers

Even the most advanced anti-drone solution is only as effective as the people operating it. While detection and tracking technologies, including radar, radio frequency, acoustic sensors, and optical systems form the foundation, it’s the trained operators who turn data into decisive action.

Our teams undergo rigorous training, including airport-specific familiarisation, pattern-of-life analysis, and scenario-based exercises. Over time, they learn the nuances of each site, what’s normal, what’s not, and how to detect drone activity that might otherwise blend into background noise.

These human insights are invaluable. They enable faster, more accurate responses to rogue drones while also helping the airport security team maintain trust in their broader security solutions.

When it comes to evolving threats, it’s not just about having the right tech, it’s about having the right people to interpret and act on it.

Lesson 10: Integration with Law Enforcement and Regulators Is Built-In

Protecting restricted airspace demands more than technology; it requires close coordination with those responsible for enforcing it. At every airport we support, integration with law enforcement and aviation regulators is built into the operational fabric from day one.

Escalation protocols should be structured, tested, and compliant. Automated alerts could be routed directly to relevant teams, enabling swift, informed responses. Whether it's intercepting a live threat or investigating suspicious activity, full solutions can ensure the safety of airport operations without delay.

Some solutions we have imlemented even supported coordinated trials involving physical countermeasures such as net gun capture systems, demonstrating not just how to detect drone intrusions but how to act on them effectively within legal and operational frameworks.

This level of integration means drone detection solutions become part of a broader ecosystem of airport security, not an add-on, but a fully embedded capability.

Lesson 11: Staying Ahead Requires Continuous Improvement

The threat landscape doesn’t stand still, and neither do we. As drone technologies evolve, so too must the systems designed to counter them. Our approach is based on continuous improvement, where lessons from one site are applied to strengthen the next.

Insights from Heathrow inform enhancements at Gatwick. Operational tweaks in Gatwick refine how we support Venice. Whether it’s tuning AI-driven detection algorithms, adjusting alert thresholds, or testing new integrations, every airport benefits from a shared learning loop.

By continuously evolving our drone detection solutions, we ensure our clients stay ahead of emerging tactics and maintain robust perimeter security in even the most dynamic conditions.

CUAS isn’t a product to be installed and forgotten. It’s a living solution that grows stronger through experience and collaboration.

Closing Reflection: Discipline Is the Differentiator

Working in some of Europe’s busiest airports has shown us that success in CUAS deployment doesn’t come from flashy tech or generic checklists; it comes from discipline.

Discipline in solution design, in multi-sensor integration, in training, and in communication. From decision-ready C2 interfaces to flexible, site-specific strategies, every detail matters. But perhaps most of all, it’s the people behind the systems who make the difference: operators, airport partners, regulators, and law enforcement working together with shared purpose.

The goal isn’t to eliminate every risk that’s not realistic. The goal is to ensure the safety of airport operations by giving security teams the tools, insights, and confidence to make the right call every time.

That’s what OSL delivers. And that’s what we’ll keep building,  one airport, one lesson, and one decision at a time.