Worries mount over drone incursions on sensitive sites

Unauthorized drones and other unmanned aircraft systems pose a major threat to the nation’s airspace and national security, according to a recent letter from governors and speakers at a House committee hearing.

In a letter to Congressional leadership earlier this month, a bipartisan group of governors called on the federal government to take “robust legislative action” to address vulnerabilities and enhance security due to the number of drone intrusions over “sensitive sites and high-profile events.”

The most high-profile of those drone incursions came last year over various airports and military sites, with some commanders suggesting later that they may have been spying, although it was unclear for whom. In response, the group of 31 governors called on Congress to pass legislation to strengthen and clarify when federal and state authorities can coordinate to combat drones; and enhance states’ capacity to detect and mitigate threats while recognizing they must protect residents and critical infrastructure.

They also want states to have “explicit legal authority” to mitigate drones, like the federal government has. And while the governors said President Donald Trump’s recent executive orders on airspace and drones are a strong first step, more must be done, especially given how systems have evolved and been used as weapons of war abroad.

“The growing sophistication of these systems and devices highlights the urgency of addressing certain vulnerabilities within our own borders,” the letter says. “While counter-drone capabilities are advancing, the technology lags behind the rapid evolution of UAS technology. This gap necessitates immediate legislative and financial support to ensure states can effectively protect against these threats. In our states, we have witnessed numerous drone intrusions over critical infrastructure, public events, prisons, and military bases.”

Lawmakers on a subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee heard more about some of those threats and challenges at a hearing last week, and were urged to legislate against those threats by representatives of government agencies, academia and the private sector.

Multiple witnesses warned of the various nefarious ways drones are being used. Those uses include smuggling drugs, weapons and other contraband across borders or into prisons; surveillance; weaponization; harassment; interference with public safety; and terrorist attacks, including on critical infrastructure. Given how easy drones are to operate, witnesses said it has leveled the playing field for bad actors.

“The misuse of unmanned aircraft is not fundamentally a technology problem, but rather a people problem,” Ryan Wallace, a professor of aeronautical science at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, said in his written testimony. “What makes this problem particularly challenging is the unique aerial capabilities that UAS provide to operators — capabilities previously limited only to those with the resources and training to operate manned aircraft. The accessibility, affordability, and automation have now placed these capabilities within reach of anyone with a few hundred dollars. This creates a disproportionate force multiplier for bad actors.”

Governments want to mitigate those threats, either by shooting them down or by deploying some sort of counter-drone technology. But the law is not that straightforward. Catherine F. Cahill, director of the Alaska Center for Unmanned Aircraft Systems Integration at the University of Alaska Fairbanks, noted in written testimony that federal law says shooting down a drone or UAS comes with jail time and fines.

Only five federal agencies — the Departments of Defense, Energy, Homeland Security and Justice, as well as the Federal Aviation Administration — are exempt from that statute, and so can down drones with no fear of legal reprisals.

Some states have tried to step in with their own regulations. Louisiana earlier this year passed a first-in-the-nation law to explicitly grant state and local law enforcement the authority to actively intercept and disable drones that pose a credible threat to public safety.

But shooting them down remains risky, Cahill said. She noted the safety concerns associated with being hit by drone debris on the ground after it has been shot down, the safety concerns with a bullet missing its target and hitting something else, the potential to confuse a drone target with a manned aircraft. There is also the potential that a drone is actually authorized to fly in that area. She said it means that shooting at a drone, especially as a private citizen, is a “very bad idea.”

Failing that, states are exploring other, more technologically driven methods to mitigate unauthorized drones, while also pursuing changes to the law to give them more authority.

Speakers urged Congress to pass comprehensive counter-UAS legislation that would clarify states’ and localities’ legal authority to deal with unauthorized drones in their airspace. They also called on Congress to expand a drone mitigation pilot program to include all federal agencies as well as state, local, tribal and territorial law enforcement and trained security professionals.

They also requested better information sharing and cross-agency collaboration, as well as a more robust public awareness campaign to educate the public on the dangers of flying drones carelessly or maliciously.

“By taking decisive action now to modernize our laws, enhance our technological capabilities, and strengthen the partnerships between all levels of government, we can ensure that our skies and citizens on the ground remain safe and that the promise of unmanned technology is never subverted by those who seek to do us harm,” Brett Feddersen, vice president for strategy and government affairs at counter-drone company D-Fend Solutions, said in written testimony.