ROUND TABLE
Dual technology for aerial security: from current innovations for civil purposes and law enforcement authorities, to potential applications in military defense
The Round Table titled “Dual technology for aerial security: from current innovations for civil purposes and law enforcement authorities, to potential applications in military defense” at MetroAeroSpace 2026 conference is aimed at civil research, law enforcement authorities (LEAs), military defense, and the associated industrial companies. The three pillars of the round table will be (i) the Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS), (ii) the Counter-UAS (C-UAS), and (iii) the Specific Operations Risk Assessment (SORA), the Whitepaper on the Automation of the Airspace Environment, and the JARUS Methodology for Evaluation of Automation for UAS Operations from Joint Authorities for Rulemaking of Unmanned Systems (JARUS).
The first pillar of the round table will focus on the current technologies related to UAS (civil and military) that have advanced technologically and surged exponentially over recent years. Currently, due to safety concerns, most civil operations of UAS are conducted in low-level uncontrolled area or in segregated controlled airspace. However, as the industry progresses, both operational and technological capabilities have matured to the point where UASs are expected to gain greater levels of automation. The round table will discuss the status of the UAS in civilian airspace from very low level to very high level of altitude. The first category that will be deeply analyzed will be the small UAS, where the characteristics are the small size, the light weight, and the short endurance due to the battery capacity. The scenario to be discussed belongs to the low-level uncontrolled airspace and the operation mode BVLOS (beyond 500 m range), considering uses cases like powerline inspection, land and maritime border surveillance, agriculture tasks, among others. The second category is VTOL UAS characterized by vertical take-off and landing, where the varying altitudes depend on mission profile but predominantly in low altitude. The typical uses cases will be passenger and cargo delivering within urban, considering important uses cases like VTOL emergency hospital transport for organ transplants between hospitals in the same city. The third category to be discussed in the round table will be the MALE UAS, which flight at medium altitude (up to ca.9000 m), have long endurance, and are capable of flight in controlled airspace on an Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) flight plan. The uses cases are scientific use, earth observations, military and defense operations, security and homeland defense, and search and rescue (SAR) and disaster response.
The second pillar of the round table will be the current Counter-UAS (C-UAS) measures to avoid safety risks posed by illegal UASs that violate a geofencing area (e.g., close encounters with manned aircraft in approach zones) or C-UAS to avoid security risks posed by unauthorized UASs that pose security threats to critical infrastructures, public venues, and sensitive land and maritime borders, among others. C-UAS are crucial in preventing malicious surveillance, smuggling, or kinetic attacks from UAS, which have become increasingly accessible and sophisticated. C-UAS technology contains two primary parts, a detection component and an interdiction component for defense actions. Main techniques for detecting and intercepting together with their pros and cons are the following. First, the C-UAS detection techniques will be discussed, such as: (i) Radar, that is independent of visual conditions, however the detection of small, low-flying UAS is not ideal; (ii) Radio Frequency (RF) monitoring is low cost, however these systems have heavy weight and elevate power consumption; (iii) Electro-Optical (EO) has advantages that provides long range visual detection on the UAS, however it is only available for daytime operations; (iv) Infrared has low power consumption nevertheless intruding UAS should be in direct line of sight; (v) Acoustic technology presents medium cost but poor performance in the noisy environment; (vi) Lidar technology is accurate to measure distances and angles of intruding UAS, however the length of the detections is in a short range; (vii) Sensor fusion has the advantage of using the best measure of each sensor and provides more robust detection, nevertheless, requires high cost of the on-board computer due to the real-time processing data. Secondly, the C-UAS interdiction techniques will be discussed, such as: (i) Physically destroying that uses systems like nets or projectile, but increases the ground and aerial risk of collateral damage; (ii) Jamming technique is based on RF jamming or GNSS jamming, however may interrupt other air traffic operations or non-intruder UAS; (iii) Taking control of UAS by Spoofing technique, such as GNSS spoofing, but this is a complex technique to build and implement; (iv) Fusion of interdiction techniques, such as RF and GNSS jamming in conjunction, however the fusion still needs further development.
The third pillar will be related to the Specific Operations Risk Assessment (SORA), the Whitepaper on the Automation of the Airspace Environment, and the JARUS Methodology for Evaluation of Automation for UAS Operations from Joint Authorities for Rulemaking of Unmanned Systems (JARUS). (i) The Specific Operations Risk Assessment (SORA) process is intended to provide a risk-proportionate method to determine the required evidence and assurances needed for an Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) to be acceptably safe within the “Specific” category of UAS Operations. This risk assessment methodology establishes a sufficient level of confidence that a specific operation can be conducted safely. It allows the evaluation of the intended concept of operation and a categorization into 6 different Specific Assurance and Integrity Levels (SAIL). It then recommends operational safety objectives to be met for each SAIL; (ii) The Whitepaper on the Automation of the Airspace Environment intended to provide an outline for considering the impact of automation across all aspects of aviation safety, while providing considerations for further developing the future of automation roll-out across the airspace. The scope is limited to safety aspects and does not specifically address broader issues related to liability, cost, or legal authority as these must be interpreted through local customs including the legal system, history, cultural practices, and public acceptance of risk and liability. This Whitepaper highlights the complex nature of automation in aircraft, airspace and air traffic service provisions within the airspace environment. This whitepaper does not redefine the existing three-category JARUS Operational Concept (A, B and C), but it does offer new considerations for operations in each category as the airspace environment becomes more and more automated. Increasing automation of the airspace environment may occur in each operational category and recommendations for the technical, safety and operational requirements for the safe integration of UAS into airspace and at aerodromes are useful for all operations.; and (iii) the JARUS Methodology for Evaluation of Automation for UAS Operations defines a framework for assessing the impact of automation on an concept of operations and developing a framework for evaluating automation in proposed UAS operations. The framework includes definitions, assumptions, levels of automation, and the safety impact assessment methodology. The roles of the manufacturer, operator, pilot, service providers, and regulators are also assessed for each level of automation. Moreover, the methodology proposes a classification and impact analysis scheme to help support discussions and regulatory development for automated UAS operations centered on the role of the human in performing operational functions. It also introduces the Operational Design Domain (ODD) concept as a mechanism to scope automated functions to help manage a complex multi-dimensional operational environment. This allows for a functional evaluation of automation as it relates to the human-machine interactions, recognizing that, in a particular operation, different aircraft functions may be automated to different levels.
