Safer skies and the future of airspace security

As drone activity grows more complex across public events, critical infrastructure and correctional facilities state and local agencies are under increasing pressure to build a more mature airspace security strategy. What was once treated as a narrow aviation issue is now a broader public safety concern — one tied to situational awareness, operational readiness, and the ability to manage a more crowded low-altitude environment.

That is what makes the Safer Skies Act significant. Included in the U.S. National Defense Authorization Act, the legislation has accelerated the national conversation around counter-UAS preparedness and the role state and local agencies may play in it.

But the law’s importance goes beyond expanded authority. It has also sharpened the need for agencies to think more strategically about compliance, training, investment, and architecture. In Axon’s recent webinar The Safer Skies Act Explained: What State and Local Agencies need to know, industry experts returned to one core idea throughout the discussion: this is not simply a mitigation story. It is an opportunity to build a stronger, more layered airspace security foundation.

From federal responsibility to shared readiness

The most important change in federal law is that the counter-UAS conversation is no longer confined almost entirely to federal agencies. State and local stakeholders now have a clearer path into the broader airspace security mission, particularly as major national events increase the urgency around preparedness. Even so, the path forward is not fully settled. The current landscape still includes unanswered questions around implementation, deputization, training capacity, and the pace at which new authorities will scale. That uncertainty was a recurring theme in the webinar, where Jason Day of the Texas Department of Public Safety described the current environment as “still kind of a gray area that’s not clearly defined.” That ambiguity should not be read as a reason to wait. It should be read as a reason to prepare deliberately.

Why compliance has to come first

If the legal environment is still taking shape, then compliance must be treated as a leadership issue — not a downstream technical consideration. Agencies should not assume that interest, equipment, or even access to training automatically translates into operational authority. Airspace security programs need to be grounded in policy, legal review, and a clear understanding of what personnel can and cannot do. That includes a clear understanding of where federal, state, and local authorities begin and end—an area that remains nuanced as the regulatory framework evolves.

That is why one of the most practical recommendations from the webinar was also one of the simplest: “Every agency should talk to their general counsel and get them involved in this process.” For agencies building or expanding these programs, that is more than good advice. It is a reminder that legal defensibility and operational effectiveness have to develop together. The same principle applies beyond general counsel. Prosecutors, command staff, emergency managers, and regional partners all need to be part of the conversation early. The strongest programs will not be the ones that move fastest in procurement alone, but the ones that build the clearest internal alignment around how authority, policy, and operations intersect.

Readiness will depend on more than access to training

Training and certification are the next critical piece and one of the clearest constraints in the current environment. Access to formal pathways remains limited, while questions around scale and long-term implementation are still being worked through. That makes training a much broader issue than simply getting a seat in a course. Agencies need personnel who can interpret detection data, distinguish between nuisance activity and credible threats, and make sound decisions in the field without creating legal or operational risk. In the webinar, that broader emphasis on education came up repeatedly, especially around the need to ensure people understand not just what technology can show them, but what they are permitted to do with that information. In that sense, readiness is not just about certification. It is about judgment.

Agencies should not wait passively for clarity or access. Strengthening relationships with federal partners, documenting local risk, and actively participating in the broader conversation will be critical to staying ahead of both policy and operational developments.

Funding will reward collaboration, not isolation

Building meaningful airspace security capability remains a challenge for many agencies, particularly when budgets and resources are limited. While federal funding is beginning to open new doors, grants alone will not create mature programs everywhere. That is why regional collaboration stood out as one of the most practical themes in the discussion. Shared equipment, multi-agency deployments, mutual-aid models, and coordinated funding strategies may be the most realistic way for many jurisdictions to develop meaningful coverage. Deputy Chief Michael Lighthiser of George Mason University captured that reality directly: “No agency really has the deep enough pockets.”

That observation is less a limitation than a strategic insight. Airspace threats do not stop at jurisdictional borders, and airspace security programs may be strongest when agencies plan and invest accordingly.

Detection is the foundation of any real strategy

Mitigation may receive the most attention, but situational awareness is what makes every other decision possible.

That is why Charles Werner, Director of DRONERESPONDERS emphasized that “what’s really most important is to be focusing on the detection piece.” The point is not merely technical. Detection gives agencies time, context, and options. It helps determine whether an aircraft is compliant, careless, curious, or criminal. Beyond immediate situational awareness, detection also plays a critical role in shaping funding decisions, informing training needs, and guiding long-term program development.

Just as important, the discussion pushed back on the idea that one technology alone can solve the problem. “There is no one single silver bullet,” Werner noted, reinforcing the need for a layered approach that matches technology to mission. Depending on the environment, that may include Remote ID, RF-based awareness, radar, cameras, or shared regional coverage models.

Too often, mitigation is discussed only as disruption — as the final act of taking a drone out of the sky. In reality, it is a broader concept that begins well before any enforcement action is required. “Every agency has mitigation authority, because mitigation starts with education” states Jason Day. Public outreach, operator awareness, school engagement, and community messaging may not look like traditional counter-UAS capabilities, but they can reduce risk before an incident ever begins.

The next chapter will demand more flexibility

The challenge ahead is not only to respond to current drone activity, but to prepare for a low-altitude ecosystem that is about to become significantly more congested. Commercial operations, delivery platforms, public safety flights, and more autonomous systems will all place new demands on agencies tasked with maintaining safe airspace.

That is why the next phase of readiness is not about waiting for perfect clarity or searching for a single answer. It is about building a disciplined, adaptable strategy now—one that can evolve as regulations, technologies, and threats continue to change. The agencies best positioned for the future will be the ones that move now to improve awareness, strengthen compliance, invest in training, collaborate regionally, and build layered programs that can grow with the mission.