The shutdown of London's Gatwick Airport highlights the weakness of existing measures to protect vital infrastructure against drone attacks, according to designers and experts. Five years after drones become main stream and affordable we are running around trying to figure out how to regulate them. We fear that the lesson from the Gatwick drone fiasco is not that we need more counter-drone deployment, but rather that current counter-drone products don't work where the drone is bespoke, thousands of feet away and moving fast. It called on aviation authorities to adopt stronger measures to counter the disruptive threat of drones.

We believe that the Avibird can offer a lot of potential in collaboration with existing detection methods. A major problem is eliminating an unwanted drone or tracing the operator.

Some existing techniques:

• Jamming, disturbing the signal from the drone. Limited range and drones that fall outside the frequencies will not be disabled.
• Laser, shuts off the drone with a very heavy laser beam. Typically prohibited and can be dangerous for air traffic.
• Anti (live) drone birds, birds of prey trained on the very limited capture of drones. This method is no longer used.
• Shotguns, rifles & nets with very limited scope.

Drone manufacturers still try to obtain the hold on the operator location by software. Unfortunately, a drone operator can easily bypass these functions.

What can the Avibird mean for unwanted drones?

• The Avibird has a very large effective range of several kilometers. Avibirds are fast and agile; a drone is a slow object for an Avibird where it can easily and efficiently carry out a controlled dive (above a safe area). A drone is not able to cope with this.
• The Avibird is seen as an average bird, a drone will not flee. Bystanders are not made aware.
• The Avibird can just as well follow the drone on his way back to the operator without being aware of it.
• The Avibird works outside the frequencies of drones and can therefore not be jammed.

The shutdown of London's Gatwick Airport highlights the weakness of existing measures to protect vital infrastructure against drone attacks, according to designers and experts. Five years after drones become main stream and affordable we are running around trying to figure out how to regulate them. We fear that the lesson from the Gatwick drone fiasco is not that we need more counter-drone deployment, but rather that current counter-drone products don't work where the drone is bespoke, thousands of feet away and moving fast. It called on aviation authorities to adopt stronger measures to counter the disruptive threat of drones.

We believe that the Avibird can offer a lot of potential in collaboration with existing detection methods. A major problem is eliminating an unwanted drone or tracing the operator.

Some existing techniques:

• Jamming, disturbing the signal from the drone. Limited range and drones that fall outside the frequencies will not be disabled.
• Laser, shuts off the drone with a very heavy laser beam. Typically prohibited and can be dangerous for air traffic.
• Anti (live) drone birds, birds of prey trained on the very limited capture of drones. This method is no longer used.
• Shotguns, rifles & nets with very limited scope.

Drone manufacturers still try to obtain the hold on the operator location by software. Unfortunately, a drone operator can easily bypass these functions.

What can the Avibird mean for unwanted drones?

• The Avibird has a very large effective range of several kilometers. Avibirds are fast and agile; a drone is a slow object for an Avibird where it can easily and efficiently carry out a controlled dive (above a safe area). A drone is not able to cope with this.
• The Avibird is seen as an average bird, a drone will not flee. Bystanders are not made aware.
• The Avibird can just as well follow the drone on his way back to the operator without being aware of it.
• The Avibird works outside the frequencies of drones and can therefore not be jammed.