DroneShield has published research highlighting major gaps in airport and critical infrastructure readiness for unauthorised drone activity. The survey found that 17% of respondents had no formal counter-drone plan.
The findings are based on responses from 23 operators across airports, aviation authorities, correctional facilities, ports and other critical infrastructure in North America, Europe, Africa, Asia-Pacific and the Middle East. Respondents included senior security managers, operations directors and aviation authority officials.
The report found that unauthorised drone activity had moved beyond a theoretical risk for many operators, yet basic preparedness remained uneven. More than one in 10 respondents fell into what it described as the exposed category, with undefined objectives, minimal capability and no formal framework for responding to an incident.
That leaves some organisations at risk of confronting a drone event for the first time as it unfolds, without established procedures, a clear escalation path or baseline situational awareness.
Detection gaps
Detection shortfalls emerged as the most common operational problem in the survey. Seven in 10 respondents said gaps in detection capability were a barrier to effective counter-drone operations.
Legal constraints were also widely cited, with six in 10 respondents saying they lacked the authority to take direct mitigation action against unauthorised drones even when the threat to safety was clear and immediate.
Other barriers included integration complexity, cited by 48% of respondents, and training and preparedness, cited by 35%. Together, the results suggest that even where awareness of the threat exists, many operators lack the systems, procedures or permissions needed to act quickly.
The survey also asked organisations to define their operational objectives. A full combination of awareness, detection, tracking and response was identified by 57% of respondents, while 13% were detection-focused and 13% said they were focused only on awareness.
Another 17% said they had no formal plan, pointing to a structural gap between what organisations intend to do and what they have actually built.
Readiness split
DroneShield grouped respondents into a readiness maturity framework based on operational objectives and existing capability. The largest group was labelled prepared, covering 13 organisations with defined objectives and moderate counter-drone measures in place.
Even within that category, important weaknesses remained. The report noted that the label reflected a relative position rather than indicating that those operators were fully equipped for the task.
Five organisations were placed in a partial category, meaning they had set objectives but lacked matching operational capability. Those operators risk having plans they cannot execute with their current tools or legal authority.
Three organisations were placed in the exposed category. The report said they faced the greatest risk of responding to a serious drone incident without an established process, with outcomes that would be difficult to predict or control.
The issue has drawn wider attention after several airport disruptions and safety incidents linked to reported drone activity. The report referred to recent high-profile cases involving Munich Airport, Newark and Brussels.
Those incidents have underlined the disruption that even a single sighting can cause, from halted flights to wider operational delays. They have also increased scrutiny of how airports and other sensitive sites detect, verify and respond to unauthorised aircraft in restricted airspace.
Drone activity has created a difficult policy problem for operators because responsibility is split between security teams, regulators, police and aviation authorities. In practice, that can leave frontline operators aware of a threat but uncertain who can act and under what rules.
The sample covered a mix of large international airports, a major port of entry, a multi-airport national authority, correctional system operators and oversight bodies for critical infrastructure. While limited in size, the survey offers a snapshot of how organisations in several regions assess their own readiness.
Tom Adams, Director of Public Safety at DroneShield, commented on the findings. "The primary Counter-UAS challenge in 2025 is not awareness of the threat; it is the capacity to convert awareness into authorised, coordinated, real-time action," Adams said.
He also pointed to the limits of equipment spending alone. "Technology investment alone will not close this gap. Regulatory reform and operational integration must advance simultaneously," Adams said.