Drone Sightings Disrupt Europe Flights: Brussels, Copenhagen, Oslo

(BRUSSELS, BELGIUM) Drone sightings forced Brussels Airport to shut down overnight on November 4–5, 2025, triggering widespread flight disruptions across Belgium and deepening a wave of closures seen across European airports since September. The incident at Brussels led to the cancellation of 54 flights and the diversion of 24, leaving hundreds of passengers to sleep on camp beds in the terminal and pushing authorities to frame the activity as a serious security threat rather than isolated mischief.

The airport operator said 400–500 travelers spent the night at the airport after 41 flights were canceled and 24 diverted, with staff handing out beds, water, and snacks to stranded passengers. The discrepancy between early counts and the final tally of 54 cancellations underscored the rolling uncertainty as drones were reportedly sighted at multiple points on Tuesday evening. For many travelers, the chaos stretched into a second day.

“I’ve been waiting like close to 5 hours… my first flight was at 7:00 a.m. Then it was postponed to 11:00 a.m. and now to 1:00 p.m. So, I’m still waiting and my connections are also delayed. … The second flight got cancelled and we’re booked on the third flight, but we don’t want to fly anymore. So, we’re trying to reclaim our luggage, but also that’s a slow process. I just want to go home to be honest.”

Belgian Defence Minister Theo Francken said “this is not the work of amateurs,” describing the activity as a professional attempt to destabilize the country. He later said drones near the Kleine‑Brogel air base, where U.S. nuclear weapons are stored, appeared to be “a spying operation” aimed at “destabilizing” people. Prime Minister Bart De Wever convened an urgent meeting with senior ministers and the National Security Council to discuss the threat and the gaps it exposed in Belgium’s ability to detect and deter drone incursions around critical infrastructure.

Interior Minister Bernard Quintin warned that the pattern of drone activity represented more than a nuisance.

“The repetition of incidents linked to drones directly affects the security of our country. … We must take action in a calm, serious and coordinated manner.”

Belgian officials have not identified the operator or operators and have not confirmed any foreign link, but the suggestion of surveillance around the Kleine‑Brogel facility set nerves on edge and prompted questions about whether the incidents were part of a broader campaign to test European air defenses and disrupt civilian life.

The turmoil in Belgium follows a sharp escalation of drone-related interruptions to commercial aviation since late September. Between September 22–28, 2025, drone sightings near major hubs in Denmark and Norway forced closures for up to four hours, disrupting travel for over 20,000 people as flight disruptions rippled through schedules for days. At Copenhagen Airport, 109 flights were cancelled and 51 rerouted; at Oslo Airport, 11 flights were diverted and 19 cancelled. Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen called the Copenhagen incident “the most severe attack on Danish infrastructure so far.”

Police in Copenhagen detailed the scale and sophistication they believed they were facing.

“Several large drones had flown over Copenhagen airport Monday evening, forcing a shutdown. … The number, size, flight patterns, time over the airport. All this together… indicates that it is a capable actor. Which capable actor, I do not know. It was an actor that had the capacity, the will and the tools to make their presence known,” said Copenhagen police chief Jens Jespersen.

The Danish National Police lifted nationwide preparedness to heightened readiness, a status not used since the 2015 Copenhagen terrorist attacks, while the Defence Command supported police with undisclosed counter‑UAS measures. Additional closures hit Aalborg Airport — which shares its site with a military air base — along with Esbjerg, Sønderborg, and Skrydstrup airports.

Norway’s government said Russia had violated Norwegian airspace at least three times in 2025, but did not confirm any link to the unmanned aircraft that prompted the Oslo closure. NATO announced an increased presence in the Baltic Sea region, deploying intelligence assets and the air‑defence frigate FGS Hamburg to strengthen regional surveillance as capitals shared data on drone sightings. The pattern of incidents in the Nordic countries set the tone for a tense autumn across European airspace, blending civil aviation disruption with national security concerns.

In Germany, flights were suspended for almost two hours at Berlin Brandenburg Airport on October 31 following drone sightings, and operations at Bremen Airport were temporarily halted on November 2 for the same reason. While the German events were shorter and less disruptive than in Copenhagen or Brussels, they added to a sense of attrition — repeated interruptions that complicate air traffic control, strain airport security teams, and test public patience as airlines scramble to recover aircraft and crew rotations.

The human impact has been immediate and personal. Passengers at Brussels described missed connections, hours on the floor of the terminal, and the frustration of trying to retrieve bags from an overburdened system that kept resetting as departures were cancelled. A Ukrainian traveler voiced the unease that has grown with each new incident:

“I’m very much concerned that now in the heart of Europe, we can see drones flying out of nowhere and we have no means to prevent that or to fight that battle for now. … I just want to go home to be honest.”

The remarks captured the mix of anxiety and exhaustion that has accompanied drone sightings from Copenhagen to Brussels Airport, as families, business travelers, and airline crews were caught in stop‑start operations and last‑minute diversions.

For airlines, the wave of drone sightings has driven higher insurance premiums, complicated flight planning, and added costs that are harder to quantify in advance. Reroutes to avoid low‑altitude operating zones and holding patterns during closures push up fuel burn, and overnight disruptions strand aircraft out of position, forcing cancellations that cascade into the next day. For Brussels carriers, the overnight shutdown on November 4–5 required a scramble to find hotel rooms, arrange buses, and rebook passengers onto limited seats in a network still adjusting to unplanned diversions. Airport restaurants and shops saw a surge in demand for basics as beds were rolled out on concourses and staff handed out water and snacks to hundreds stuck in limbo.

Tourism and hospitality businesses in affected regions have reported cancellations and lost bookings as travelers ditch short‑break itineraries in favor of less volatile options or postpone trips altogether. For airports, the incidents have exposed gaps in early warning and counter‑drone coverage, especially at night and in bad weather, when visual detection is limited and low‑cost drones can slip under radar thresholds designed for crewed aircraft. In parallel, several incidents coincided with cyberattacks at major airports and disruptions in other conflict zones, adding to concerns that unmanned aircraft could be used alongside digital probes to stretch security teams and create confusion.

Officials across Europe are racing to tighten procedures in the short term while acknowledging that deployment of advanced anti‑drone systems will take time. Immediate actions include rapid NOTAMs — notices to airmen alerting pilots to hazards — and temporary low‑altitude restrictions around airports during peak periods or when suspicious activity is reported. Police forces and air navigation service providers are refining hand‑offs so that reports move quickly from control towers to national coordination centers, even as investigations into specific incidents continue with little public detail. The European Union Aviation Safety Agency has urged consistent application of unmanned aircraft rules across member states, and airports are comparing notes on detection equipment as they weigh cost, coverage, and legal constraints on jamming or other active counter‑measures. Guidance and rules for unmanned aircraft are available from the European Union Aviation Safety Agency.

Longer‑term ideas on the table range from hardening airport perimeters with integrated sensor suites to broader cross‑border cooperation. NATO countries, including Denmark, have discussed a “drone wall” involving Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, and Finland to fortify eastern borders and share intelligence on low‑flying objects approaching critical infrastructure. While advocates say such a network could deter intrusions and speed interdictions, officials caution that multi‑state deployments of advanced systems and data links will take two to three years, leaving airports to rely on layered vigilance for now.

The legal backdrop remains complex. Air traffic managers and police are empowered to suspend operations when there is a safety risk, but rules governing the use of electronic countermeasures are tight, and the line between defense and interference is thin in dense urban environments near airports. Even where equipment is available, authorities must weigh the risk of knocking a drone out of the sky over populated areas or inadvertently disrupting communications. The result has often been a conservative approach: shut down, clear the airspace, and wait for the hazard to pass.

Belgium’s response is being shaped by the sensitivity of sites like Kleine‑Brogel and the symbolic importance of Brussels Airport as a European hub. The sighting of drones near a facility associated with U.S. nuclear weapons widened the frame from aviation nuisance to national security. In that context, Francken’s assertion that the activity was “a spying operation” aimed at “destabilizing” people resonated beyond the airport perimeter. But without public identification of the operators, Belgium faces a familiar dilemma: how to prepare for a threat that reveals itself intermittently, leaves few traces, and creates maximum disruption at minimal cost.

Denmark’s experience offers a cautionary parallel. When Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen called the Copenhagen incident “the most severe attack on Danish infrastructure so far,” it reflected both the scale — 109 cancelled flights and 51 reroutes — and the perception that the operation was designed to be noticed. Jespersen’s description —

“Several large drones had flown over Copenhagen airport Monday evening, forcing a shutdown. … The number, size, flight patterns, time over the airport. All this together… indicates that it is a capable actor. Which capable actor, I do not know. It was an actor that had the capacity, the will and the tools to make their presence known” —
was echoed privately by aviation officials elsewhere who said they were seeing more drones that could loiter and maneuver in ways that suggest planning rather than casual hobby flights gone wrong.

In the Baltic and Eastern Europe, drone sightings have folded into a broader picture of contested airspace. Polish airports were temporarily closed on September 10 due to suspected Russian drone intrusions, while Estonia, Romania, and Latvia reported similar airspace violations that national authorities largely attributed to Russia. While Danish and Norwegian officials have not confirmed any direct link between Russian activity and the late‑September airport incidents, they have not ruled it out, and NATO’s stepped‑up presence reflects a worry that the line between military and civilian targets is being tested.

For now, airlines and airports are working case by case. When a drone is sighted, operational teams must determine quickly whether to halt approaches and departures, how long to hold aircraft, and whether to divert to alternates that can handle a sudden influx. At Brussels, 24 diversions on November 4–5 sent passengers and planes to other hubs, but the knock‑on effects returned in the morning as the airport reopened with planes and crews out of position. On the ground, baggage systems bogged down as flights were retimed, cancelled, or reinstated hours later, leaving staff to manually process claims while travelers queued to rebook and watched fresh delays appear on departure boards.

As the busy holiday travel season approaches, airports are warning of further turbulence if organized drone activity continues. The combination of strained security resources, longer nights, and tight schedules offers a tempting window for actors intent on creating outsized disruption. In Belgium, the pledge to act “in a calm, serious and coordinated manner” will be tested by the need to reassure passengers that Brussels Airport is safe and resilient after overnight closures and a second day of delays. In Scandinavia, airports are still working through the after‑effects of the late September shutdowns, and Nordic capitals are coordinating with NATO partners on surveillance and response.

What started as a spate of scattered drone sightings has turned into a pan‑European test of how civilian aviation copes with small, agile threats that blur the lines between security and safety. In Brussels, the overnight shutdown on November 4–5, 2025 was a stark reminder of how quickly an airport can go dark when drones enter controlled airspace. Across Denmark and Norway in late September, closures up to four hours showed that even brief incursions can affect tens of thousands. In Germany, shorter suspensions in Berlin and Bremen added more evidence that the problem is persistent. The people stuck in terminals, the crews working through backlogs, and the officials weighing words like “attack” and “spying operation” are now part of a story likely to continue into winter: drone sightings, sudden closures, and the scramble to keep Europe’s airports open amid a new kind of test.