Risto Talas and Tom Ellis, from the University of Portsmouth, write an article alongside Commander Suwaid Al Abkal, Kuwait Navy, discussing the application of UAVs in port security with a view to enhancing security and complimenting existing security regimes
Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), also known as drones, have proliferated due to improvements in the weight and power of batteries and electric motors. UAVs are now common among hobbyists, commercial organisations involved in survey work and film and photography. UAVs are now beginning to be deployed more in the monitoring of safety and security and this study aims to reveal the extent of this as applied to maritime ports.
Types of UAV
There are numerous types of UAVs and drones currently in operation. From nanodrones, microdrones and minidrones, which are widely available for purchase by civilians, to small range and long-range Medium Altitude and Long Endurance (MALE) and High Altitude and Long Endurance (HALE) drones, which are typically employed by military forces. All these vehicles have some similarities, such as the lack of humans aboard them and control via radio/infrared communication.
The ranges, weights, payloads and altitudes of these vehicles also vary. Their power units offer flight times of between 12 minutes and over 24 hours; their maximum take-off weight ranges between 0.4 kg and more than three tons; and they can fly between heights of 30 metres and over 10km. Talas (2016) states that the current regulations for the commercial flying of UAVs differ from nation to nation. In the UK, UAV regulation is governed by the Civil Aviation Authority’s (CAA) Unmanned Aircraft System Operations in UK Airspace: Guidance. This guidance, also known as CAP722, states that UAVs operating in the UK must meet at least the same safety and operational standards as manned aircraft. UAVs are classified into three categories: those which weigh up to 20kg; those which weigh between 20kg and 150kg; and those which weigh more than 150kg.
In the UK, drone hobbyists are not required to register their UAVs and nor do they need operating permission from the CAA or a pilot qualification. Furthermore, drones must not be flown within 50 metres of people or over or within 150 metres of any congested area or of an organised open-air assembly of more than 1000 persons. The drone must be flown in visual line of sight so that direct, unaided visual contact can be maintained with the aircraft, which is sufficient to monitor its flightpath in relation to other aircraft and persons on the ground. The drone must remain within 500 metres horizontally and no more than 400 feet vertically from the operator. If a drone operator, including commercial UAV flights, wishes to fly within 50 metres of people, or 150 metres of a congested area, then prior permission must be obtained from the CAA. Where UAVs are deployed for commercial purposes, it is also necessary for the pilot to have undergone training for at least the basic national UAS certificate for small unmanned aircraft.
In a port, a UAV could be deployed on regular perimeter checks to assess any fence-line breaches or to overfly buildings to check that roof access doors have not been left open. Furthermore, checks can be made from the air on any restricted areas in the event of the failure of another detection system, such as CCTV cameras.
Potential to be exploited by terrorist organisations
The constantly growing market in commercial UAVs raises concern among specialists who perceive the increased risk posed to security. The fact that UAVs are largely available for virtually anyone increases the possibilities for them to be misused for reconnaissance and surveillance for criminal purposes. The level of development which permits these devices to carry elaborate imaging equipment and consistent payloads generates additional reasons for concern. The price of this equipment is another feature which renders them highly accessible to the general public. Moreover, it is highly probable that the rapid expansion of the market will push the prices down even further.
Specialists in the field point out that there are already UAVs available for under €900 that can transport a payload of approximately 1kg, that can fly for at least 5km, and that have full GPS. If the UAVs are equipped with both GPS systems and autopilot, then they can be used to fly independently according to pre-established routes to deliver any type of payload.
The following categories represent some of the key security risks generated by UAVs:
Reconnaissance and surveillance – UAVs could be used to identify potential targets or to conduct surveillance missions to inform their operator of the actions undertaken by legitimate individuals from private, public or military establishments. The increased number of unregistered civil UAVs makes it difficult to rapidly establish whether such a device is operated for recreational use, in order to support news-gathering and other similar activities, or if it serves criminal intentions.
Smuggling – since some UAV models can carry significant payloads, one of the existing concerns is that these vehicles could be used for the transportation of illicit goods. There have been events which motivate these concerns; most of them intended to introduce different materials into prisons or to transport drugs across borders.
Kinetic attack – this type of threat is also related to UAVs’ ability to carry a payload. The nature of the payload correlated with the intentions of those operating the vehicles determines the nature of the risk they pose. If the payload consists of guns or explosives which are flown into people or structures, then such an attack may result in loss of life or material loss. The list of potential targets is virtually unlimited, but, importantly, these could include important and strategic infrastructure.
Results and discussion
A total of 66 respondents participated in the survey for our study. The data were collected from Kuwaiti port security staff using online tools, while taking into account relevant ethical considerations. The first question was about the field of expertise of the respondents and the results are summarised in Table 1.
As Table 1 shows, the majority of the respondents were governmental organisation officials. Only 12 per cent of the respondents were UAV experts, while six per cent were suppliers of UAV equipment. 14 per cent of the respondents were port security experts, which increases the reliability of the data they provided. The next question referred to the respondents’ familiarity with UAVs, with the results shown in Table 2.
As the results show, only 28.6 per cent of respondents indicated that they were very familiar with the devices in question, although a further 44 per cent of respondents declared that there were fairly familiar with the device. Under a quarter (22 per cent) said they were slightly familiar with UAVs, while only two respondents (three per cent) claimed they knew nothing about UAVs. The third question of the survey was ‘how serious do you consider the threat from UAVs to port security?’ As shown in Table 3, 74.6 per cent of the respondents considered that the threat UAVs posed to port security was either serious (38 per cent) or very serious (36.5 per cent).
As observed in the literature before 9/11, the most significant threats to port security were drug smuggling and organised crime. However, after those attacks, terrorism became a significant threat. One of the most significant current threats to port security comes from cyber attacks, which could be conducted by terrorist groups using UAVs.
The fourth question was ‘please rank accordingly the risk of UAVs in terms of a security threat where 1=highest risk and 5=lowest risk’. The results are shown in Table 4. The majority of the respondents indicated that the highest risk is that of an act of terrorism: 40 per cent of the respondents indicated the highest risk. Furthermore, 20.6 per cent of the respondents also indicated that there was a higher risk of illegal surveillance using UAVs.
It is also important to observe from Table 4 that the respondents considered that there was a limited risk to using UAVs to smuggle weapons into the secure areas of the port, considering the fact that the UAVs would be able to transport a small explosive device (approximately 1kg) into secure locations.
The fifth question was ‘In your opinion how effective could the deployment of UAVs in a port facility complement existing security measures?’ The deployment refers directly to the monitoring requirements as prescribed in the ISPS Code, namely the monitoring of the ship-port interface; port areas; and ships stores (see Table 5).
Despite the security risks that the respondents identified in relation to the use of UAVs by others, Table 5 demonstrates their confidence that UAVs can also be used legitimately to increase port security. Sixty-six per cent of the respondents believed that UAVs could be effective in monitoring port areas that do not benefit from standard surveillance methods. Furthermore, 57 per cent of the respondents also considered that UAVs could be very effective in monitoring ship-to-port interfaces.
The sixth question was ‘In your opinion should it be mandatory for UAV ownership to be registered with local or state authority?’ (see Table 6).
As we can see from Table 6, nearly three-quarters of respondents (73 per cent) strongly agreed with the registration of ownership with the local or state authorities. This reflects that the number of civilian users of UAV devices is increasing and the authorities have no possibility of determining the purpose for which the UAVs are being purchased. This increases the risks associated with the use of UAVs by civilian users. However, the authorities could not breach the right to privacy of a person, only their right to use a device that can potentially be employed with criminal intent. Nevertheless, the registration of such a device would associate the owner with a specific device identified by a unique serial number. This can both increase the likely legitimacy of the device user and make it easier for the authorities to identify the owner of a device who intended to use it to commit a criminal act. Only one respondent expressed a strong disagreement with the registration of UAV ownership.
The study has revealed some interesting findings regarding the application of UAVs in port security with a view to enhancing security and complimenting existing security regimes. It is also noted that the presence of UAVs controlled with criminal intent can be perceived as a threat to port operations, hence the high proportion of respondents looking for UAVs to be registered with a local or state authority. There is scope for the study to be extended to include a wider geographic area and also to address other nodes in the supply chain beyond ports.
