(BELGIUM) Britain’s aviation regulator warned that airports face ongoing, organised drone attacks that could trigger fresh airspace disruption this winter, after a string of recent incursions across Europe.
The alert follows a week of repeated drone sightings in Belgium that affected civilian airports and military bases in November 2025, prompting the United Kingdom to send military counter-drone teams and equipment. Officials say the pattern of activity points to coordinated attempts to disrupt low-altitude airspace, and that airports remain high‑value targets because even brief suspensions can ground flights, delay crews, and ripple across airline networks.
UK military support and government response
UK military support to Belgium was confirmed by Chief of Defence Staff Sir Richard Knighton, who framed the deployment as part of a wider push by NATO partners to respond faster to hybrid threats at short notice. British units worked alongside Belgian authorities at Brussels and Liège airports, where repeated drone incursions forced temporary pauses to operations.
In London, ministers set out plans for:
- a National Air Safety Center, and
- interim electronic countermeasures,
with an initial operating capability targeted for January 1, 2026, a date officials highlighted to show urgency. These moves signal that counter-drone defense is now treated as core critical‑infrastructure protection.
“The deployment was part of a wider push by NATO partners to respond faster to hybrid threats.” — Sir Richard Knighton (context provided by reporting)
Regulatory roadmap and integration goals
The Civil Aviation Authority has published a roadmap for drone regulation and safe integration aimed at allowing routine Beyond Visual Line of Sight (BVLOS) operations by 2027 while keeping airports safe.
Key aims and principles:
- Enable economic gains from drones (inspections, deliveries, emergency aid) without compromising safety or public confidence.
- Use layered detection, clear reporting lines between airport operations and law enforcement, and improved data‑sharing so threats can be spotted and stopped earlier.
- Align with European practice: the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) urges standardized protocols for detection, reporting, and response.
Historical context: Gatwick 2018
The risks are far from theoretical. In 2018, drone sightings near Gatwick Airport led to a 36‑hour shutdown that:
- cancelled about 1,000 flights, and
- stranded roughly 140,000 passengers at the height of the holiday season.
Airlines absorbed heavy costs; easyJet alone cited a hit of about £15 million. That disruption triggered military involvement on British soil and spurred investment in counter-drone systems, but it also exposed the limits of technology and procedure when drones operate close to runways.
Since then, airport policing units and national security teams have pushed for faster detection tools and clearer authority to act when pilots report drones in the approach path.
Current UK drone rules and upcoming changes
Britain has tightened drone rules in stages. Current guidance includes:
- 50 m minimum distance from people and buildings.
- Strict no‑fly zones near airports and airfields.
New measures coming into force on January 1, 2026:
- Registration and class‑marking rules to improve traceability and compliance, making it easier to identify non‑compliant aircraft.
- Stronger expectations for hobbyists and operators to keep licences current and check local restrictions.
Official information is available from the UK Civil Aviation Authority: https://www.caa.co.uk/consumers/unmanned-aircraft-and-drones/
Recent European incidents and regional impact
Airports across Europe have faced short, sharp interruptions as drone reports spiked in recent months. Examples:
- Oslo and Copenhagen both suspended operations in September 2025 due to drone activity.
These incidents show how small, low‑cost aircraft can force costly responses. Each sighting forces a trade-off between safety and continuity:
- If runway approaches are at risk, flights must stop.
- Extended delays quickly strain gate space, crew hours, and slot allocations — effects that cascade beyond the initial airport.
That is why officials now treat airspace disruption as a regional issue and push for common response playbooks.
Mitigation options and operational risks
Mitigation choices are complex and carry their own hazards. Options include:
- Electronic jamming — risk: could interfere with critical airport systems.
- Drone capture systems — risk: debris could land on taxiways or terminals.
- Kinetic options — risk: requires pinpoint control to protect people and property.
Because of these dangers, airport security teams follow EASA‑backed playbooks built around a three-step operational sequence:
- Early detection.
- Rapid classification.
- Carefully sequenced responses coordinated with air traffic control and police.
The UK’s growing inventory of counter-drone tools is intended to fit into that framework so frontline teams can act faster without raising new hazards.
NATO interest and cross‑border cooperation
The cross‑border nature of recent incidents has drawn NATO interest in low‑altitude defence, especially around major hubs and military airfields. British support to Belgium in November 2025 was pitched as a test of rapid cooperation with goals to:
- share sensor feeds,
- align response thresholds, and
- practise handovers between civilian and military units.
Officials say a joint posture helps deter repeat probes when patterns suggest organised attacks rather than isolated hobbyist errors. It also shortens the time from report to response, reducing the window in which a drone operator can force a runway closure.
Practical effects on passengers, crews and airlines
For passengers and crews, the practical effect is erratic and disruptive:
- A drone sighting can pause arrivals for minutes or trigger a wider ground stop lasting hours.
- Continued incursions lead to diversions, aircraft out of position, and lengthy recovery into the night.
- Families miss connections; seasonal workers lose days; airlines struggle to re‑crew flights within legal limits.
Operators say clear, regular updates help manage expectations, but they stress that safety comes first when an approach path is in doubt.
Conditions for scaled BVLOS services
Airport authorities argue that routine BVLOS services by 2027 will only be acceptable if surveillance and enforcement scale in parallel.
Expectations include:
- New registration and class‑marking rules from January 1, 2026 to improve traceability and help investigators build patterns of behaviour near sensitive sites.
- Recognition that technology alone cannot stop deliberate incursions; better identification tools can speed prosecutions and deter repeat offenders.
Analysis by VisaVerge.com notes that large‑scale flight suspensions at major hubs can upend travel for people on time‑sensitive schedules, adding pressure when airport operations pause because of drones.
National Air Safety Center: purpose and timeline
The UK’s plan for a National Air Safety Center is designed to coordinate the strands of detection, response and enforcement. Officials want a single hub that can:
- watch trends,
- coordinate quick responses, and
- judge when to surge counter‑drone assets to vulnerable airports at short notice.
With an initial capability due on January 1, 2026, the center is expected to work closely with the Civil Aviation Authority and European partners. While deployment details remain undisclosed, the intent is clear: make detection faster, decisions simpler, and responses more precise.
Outlook and limits of mitigation
Despite tougher rules and new equipment, officials caution that airspace disruption will not disappear. The combination of cheap drones, crowded skies, and complex airport layouts means short, targeted incidents can still force outsized responses.
The stated goals are to:
- shrink the impact zone,
- keep runways open when safe,
- close them quickly when not, and
- reopen with confidence once the threat fades.
Britain’s experience at Gatwick in 2018 and Belgium’s recent scare have set the tone for a more muscular posture, backed by shared European practice and a pragmatic blend of regulation, technology, and readiness.
