Multiple drones are seen over Bernardsville, N.J., on Dec. 5. Officials say they have no evidence of any threatening activity and that the objects being spotted likely include drones being operated lawfully and ordinary aircraft.The Associated Press
In the skies over the United States, a $500-million Boeing-777 is afforded the same status as a $500 drone flown by a hobbyist – or someone more nefarious. Both are considered aircraft, making it a federal crime to interfere with either. If a problem arises, there is little local law enforcement can do to respond.
It is a reality that has left the world’s pre-eminent economic and technological superpower in an unusual position amid numerous reports of unexplained drone sightings, particularly on the Atlantic seaboard, that have proliferated in the past month.
Officials say they have no evidence of any threatening activity and that the objects being spotted likely include drones being operated lawfully, ordinary aircraft and stars. Nevertheless, most of the U.S. is technologically unequipped to counter a drone-based threat. And most of the country’s law enforcement is barred from responding.
The limited nature of drone monitoring means it is difficult to assess the overall scale of the threat.
“North America as a whole is incredibly unprepared for a drone attack of any type,” said L.R. Fox, the founder and chief executive officer of WhiteFox Defense Technologies, Inc., a California company that provides anti-drone technology.
“And that’s true for the U.S. It’s true for Canada. The lack of counter-drone technology deployed and the proper authorizations to use it has put us in this position where simply detecting and tracking these drones has perplexed the highest levels of government.”
Even airports aren’t always certain how to respond to drones; many aren’t able to perceive their presence. The sophisticated radar systems designed to monitor passenger aviation are intentionally programmed not to see small, slow-moving objects like drones.
“Most airports are blind to drones that are flying in their airspace,” Mr. Fox said. “And partly that’s due to the fact that there’s been a lack of guidance given to airports on what they should do if a drone is operating in the airspace.”
His company forms part of a nascent defence-industrial complex that is now made up of dozens of companies offering ways of countering unwanted drones. They use an array of technologies that include small radar systems, computer-controlled long-range cameras, handheld radio jammers and even drones designed to deploy nets that can tangle up an aerial intruder.
For them, there is profit to be made in boosting drone defences.
Legal experts also say the U.S. has been slow to respond to a technology that has been embraced by the commercial sector – with Amazon, UPS, Walmart and others testing drone delivery – and by military actors. In the war in Ukraine, drones have become a potent weapon and surveillance tool.
In Canada, some airports have tested anti-drone technology, and the RCMP has been authorized to use jamming technology in certain circumstances.
In the U.S., meanwhile, at least part of the current legal regime governing where drones can fly over privately held land is based on a Supreme Court decision rendered after a North Carolina chicken farmer complained that military aircraft were disturbing his flock during the Second World War. The court found “that you have the right to enjoy and use your property,” said Manny Psihountas, a lawyer based in Washington, D.C., who has studied drone law.
“But obviously, that’s incredibly subjective and who knows what that means.”
More difficult questions arise over who can serve as drone police. U.S. statutes give the government exclusive sovereignty over the country’s airspace. Should that task remain in federal hands alone? Or should local communities be allowed to set and enforce their own laws?
“We’re in this tug of war in terms of figuring out who really is in charge. And that’s something we need to figure out,” said Michelle Hanlon, a University of Missouri professor who leads the sole drone law policy centre in the U.S.
Any response will require wrestling with hard questions. Take jamming devices, which can prompt a drone to land by interrupting the radio communication with its pilot. But jamming involves interfering with a radio frequency, which is considered wiretapping, Prof. Hanlon said.
“We have wiretapping laws because we don’t want the government breathing down our necks all the time,” she said. “If you permit that, what else are you going to permit?”
Prof. Hanlon is skeptical of the recent raft of U.S. drone reports, which have prompted a deployment of federal resources – and calls for more government transparency from president-elect Donald Trump. (President Joe Biden dismissed worries, saying there is “nothing nefarious apparently.” A joint statement from four federal agencies said “we have not identified anything anomalous” in an analysis of more than 5,000 reported sightings.)
“I think it’s mass hysteria,” Prof. Hanlon said.
But “one benefit of what’s going on in the East Coast is that it’s raising awareness.”
The U.S. military has already begun to pay attention like never before.
Earlier this month, the U.S. Defence Secretary Lloyd Austin signed a new military strategy to counter drones. The Pentagon warned that “the relatively low-cost, widely available nature of these systems has, in effect, democratized precision strike.”
The Federal Aviation Administration has spent years studying drones. It commissioned a rulemaking committee to make recommendations, which were completed in January.
“We are reviewing their final report,” said Jillian Angeline, an FAA spokeswoman.
A series of high-profile incidents has already underscored the potential for risk. In 2018, Gatwick Airport in Britain cancelled more than 1,000 flights just before Christmas after repeated drone sightings; no one has been held responsible. Drones have been detected delivering contraband to inmates and smuggling drugs across the border from Mexico. A week before this year’s presidential election, federal agents arrested a 24-year-old man in Tennessee. They charged him with planning to attack an electrical substation with an explosive-laden drone for political purposes.
Dedrone by Axon, a company whose technology monitors more than 50 U.S. cities, maintains a database that has counted more than 1.1 million airspace violations so far this year.
While the bulk were drones that exceeded altitude restrictions, Dedrone also counted many incursions into controlled airspace, and more than 25,000 violations around power plants and correctional facilities.
“This is a problem,” said Mary-Lou Smulders, Dedrone’s chief marketing officer. “We need to act.”
For weeks, residents of New Jersey and other U.S. states have reported seeing thousands of unidentified lighted drones flying overhead, a phenomenon that has sparked conspiracy theories and prompted lawmakers to demand a full investigation and explanation.
Reuters