You talk about creating a “pathway for airports to act.” What are the concrete first steps an airport should take to move from being worried about drones to having an active protection plan?
Tom: The first step is understanding the threat landscape unique to that airport. Every location has different environmental factors, flight paths, and infrastructure layouts that influence risk. That’s why we start with a comprehensive threat and vulnerability assessment — identifying where drones are likely to appear, how quickly they can disrupt operations, and what detection blind spots exist. From there, we help airports develop a step-by-step roadmap that aligns technology, policy, and personnel. It’s about moving from awareness to action — turning concern into an executable plan supported by data. What’s often missing is a structured framework for decision-making.
John: Our assessments provide that framework, giving airports a prioritized list of risks, mitigation options, and implementation phases. That allows leadership teams to make informed, compliant, and budget-sensible choices.
Your partner, SRI Group, is “vendor-neutral.” Why was it so important for you to partner with an independent advisor rather than doing the risk assessments yourselves?
Tom: Having SRI Group conduct independent assessments ensures airports get objective recommendations — not a sales pitch. We recognize that credibility and neutrality are essential when advising critical infrastructure. Once the assessment identifies gaps and recommends potential solutions, DroneShield can demonstrate how its technology can fill those gaps, but the findings come from an impartial expert with deep aviation and regulatory experience.
John: Our neutrality is vital because airports operate under intense regulatory oversight. They need to trust that the data and recommendations are unbiased and focused purely on operational safety and compliance. Partnering this way gives airports confidence that what’s being proposed truly fits their environment, not just a particular product catalogue.
Incidents like the one at Copenhagen Airport are costly. How do you help an airport’s financial team understand the return on investment in counter-drone technology? What are the key costs you highlight?
John: We quantify the cost of disruption. A single drone incursion can delay dozens of flights, costing hundreds of thousands of dollars per hour in diversions, gate holds, and passenger accommodations. When we compare that against the investment in detection and mitigation systems, the ROI becomes clear — prevention is significantly cheaper than recovery.
Tom: We also highlight that effective CUAS systems protect not only revenue but reputation and safety. A credible protection plan can lower insurance risk, reassure regulators, and strengthen public trust — all of which carry tangible financial benefits over time.
The rules for using anti-drone tech at airports are very strict. How does your approach help airports work within these complex regulations to actually deploy effective Systems?
John: Our assessments are designed with compliance at their core. We ensure every recommendation aligns with national aviation regulations and local authorities’ requirements. The goal isn’t to break rules — it’s to operate confidently within them. That’s why the advisory process includes coordination with government stakeholders from day one.
Tom: DroneShield technologies are modular and scalable, meaning airports can start with passive detection that’s fully compliant and later integrate mitigation once authorized. We focus on giving operators the right data to make coordinated decisions with law enforcement, rather than acting independently in a grey area.
Are you only preparing for the casual drone user, or is your system also designed to handle more serious threats, like a coordinated group using multiple drones or advanced technology?
Tom: The technology is designed for layered defense — from hobbyist drones to sophisticated, coordinated attacks. Our systems leverage AI and sensor fusion to detect, identify, and track multiple simultaneous threats, including autonomous swarms. Airports can’t assume every incident is accidental; we design for the full spectrum of risk.
John: Threat actors evolve, so protection strategies must too. Our combined approach keeps airports ahead of that curve — evaluating readiness against not just today’s incidents, but tomorrow’s.
Airports are complex environments with layered security. How does your counter drone solution integrate with existing systems like radar, air traffic control, and physical security to avoid adding more complexity?
Tom: Integration is one of DroneShield’s key strengths. Our command-and-control software, DroneSentry-C2, acts as the connective tissue between radar, optical, and RF sensors, feeding data into existing airport security or operations systems. It’s designed to complement, not complicate — giving operators one unified picture rather than separate screens or tools. DroneSentry-C2 is built with open architecture for compatibility with third-party systems and integration into broader security networks.
John: From the advisory side, we assess how those integrations will perform operationally — who will see the alerts, how they’ll escalate, and how it ties into standard operating procedures. That ensures technology doesn’t outpace policy or people. Our core business is a deep understanding of aviation security and we approach our assessments from an ICAO, TSA and ECAC compliance standpoint meaning our assessments are integrated into the overall airport security program at each airport which allows all stakeholders understanding and deconfliction of our assessment.
Your solution involves advanced technology, but who at the airport is ultimately responsible for acting on a drone alert? How do you design your system for the human operators to ensure a fast and effective response?
Tom: Ultimately, it’s the airport’s security operations team — often in coordination with law enforcement or air traffic control — who acts on alerts- with notification to air traffic control. Our systems are designed to simplify their workload: clear visualizations, automated threat classification, and defined escalation pathways ensure they can make fast, informed decisions under pressure.
John: Human factors are at the heart of our assessments. We make sure the people receiving alerts understand what action to take, when to take it, and who to notify. Technology is only effective when it’s matched with trained, empowered operators — and that’s exactly the bridge this partnership provides.
