Resources

AirHub has announced a strategic partnership with Joost Tuinman of Gardener Consultancy. Joost brings 27 years of experience as an officer in the Dutch Army, including senior roles at the Korps Commandotroepen (KCT) and SOCOM (the headquarters for special operations), followed by years at the Ministry of Defence in The Hague. Today he operates at the intersection of defence, security, industry, and innovation. We spoke with him about the market, the role of technology, and what this partnership means for the future of AirHub.

A career built at the intersection of strategy and operations

After nearly three decades in the military, Joost made the transition to the private sector about a year ago. Through Gardener Consultancy, he now supports organisations and leaders in making sharp strategic choices and turning them into real results.

"My approach is what I call 'from strategy to tactics'," he explains. "It is not just about thinking, but about doing. Actually building capabilities, services, and products."

His focus areas include unmanned systems, sensor-to-shooter chains, data-driven operations, and public-private collaboration. "My role is often that of a connector and accelerator: making sure government, industry, and technology find each other and arrive at concrete solutions, with real momentum in decision-making."

From experimentation to operationalisation

The drone sector is changing fast, and Joost sees a clear shift in how security organisations are approaching the technology.

"What you see is a move from experimenting to operationalising. Drones are no longer an innovation project. They are becoming an essential part of operational deployment, business operations, and intelligence gathering."

Conflicts like the one in Ukraine have sharpened that awareness considerably, he says. "They make it painfully clear that speed, scale, mass, and technology working together are decisive. Drones play a key role in that."

But technology on its own is not enough. "The real insight is that technology only works when it is integrated, not just technically, but also organisationally and doctrinally, and compatible with other systems and platforms. Organisations that get that right have a strategic advantage."

Why AirHub and Gardener Consultancy are a natural fit

The partnership between AirHub and Gardener Consultancy grew out of a shared understanding of where the market is heading.

"AirHub has built a platform that directly addresses the need to integrate control, compliance, and scalability of drone operations into daily practice," Joost says. "And it also serves as a planning tool for future operations, which is often overlooked."

What makes the collaboration work, according to Joost, is the complementarity between the two parties. "AirHub brings a strong technological foundation. I bring the context of defence, security, and decision-making. Together we make sure technology is not just functional, but actually applied where it matters."

The biggest opportunities: Europe and strategic autonomy

Looking at the market, Joost sees significant potential for AirHub both in the Netherlands and internationally.

"Within the Netherlands, there are opportunities to further professionalise drone deployment within defence and security services. Internationally, and initially within Europe, I see the same possibilities, but with an additional dimension: strategic autonomy."

Organisations are increasingly looking for European solutions that are reliable, secure, and interoperable. "That is where AirHub can position itself strongly."

His broader vision goes further. "The real growth lies in developing AirHub as part of a wider drone ecosystem in which data, sensors, and command and control come together. Not as a standalone application, but as a valuable platform within an operational system."

Bridging the gap between public and private

One of the recurring challenges in the security sector is the collaboration between public authorities and private technology companies. Joost knows the terrain well.

"Public-private collaboration is essential, but in practice it is often complex, slow, and bureaucratic. The public sector operates from compliance and risk management, while the private sector brings speed, innovation, and decisiveness. Those two worlds need to find each other, and that does not happen automatically."

A significant part of his work involves bridging that gap, which is sometimes referred to as the Valley of Death. "Making sure collaboration becomes concrete, with clear goals, governance, and mutual understanding. Only then can you bring technology to operations much faster and more effectively. And ultimately, that is what it is all about."

Software as the critical layer

When it comes to why drone software specifically is so relevant to the challenges security organisations face today, Joost is direct.

"The real value of the AirHub platform is not in the flying itself. It is in the ability to plan, direct, and understand operations, in real time and at scale."

Software, he argues, is the critical layer that brings planning, execution, monitoring, and analysis together in one integrated environment. "That creates overview and control over operations that are becoming increasingly complex."

Scalability is another key factor. "Defence and security organisations are no longer working with a single drone. They are working with multiple systems simultaneously, often in dynamic and high-risk environments around the world. Without robust software, that becomes uncontrollable."

"The strength lies in bringing planning, execution, data processing, and management together in one system. Then drone deployment is no longer a standalone activity, but an integral part of operational conduct."

Want to see how AirHub supports operational drone deployments for defence and security organisations? Book a demo with one of our experts.

When organisations start thinking about drone threats, the conversation almost always gravitates toward hardware. Which radar? Which RF sensor? How many cameras? It is a natural instinct. Technology is visible, tangible, and relatively straightforward to procure.

But a sensor is not a solution. And that distinction matters far more than most organisations realise.

The gap between a C-UAS system and a C-UAS solution

A C-UAS system is a set of technologies designed to detect, track, or neutralise unmanned aircraft. A C-UAS solution is something broader: it is the combination of technology, processes, trained personnel, legal frameworks, and stakeholder coordination that allows an organisation to actually manage drone-related risks in a sustainable and proportionate way.

The European Commission's Joint Research Centre (JRC) made this distinction explicit in its 2023 Handbook on UAS Protection of Critical Infrastructure and Public Space. The conclusion is clear: organisations that focus on technology procurement while neglecting the operational and procedural layer will have gaps in their capability, regardless of how sophisticated their sensors are.

The JRC identifies a set of foundational minimum measures that every C-UAS solution should have in place before any detection technology is deployed. These are not optional extras. They are the foundation.

What the foundational minimum measures actually cover

The foundational minimum measures span six areas:

UAS geographical zone management. The organisation must understand the regulatory and operational airspace environment around its site. This means knowing which flights are authorised, which are restricted, and how those boundaries are communicated and enforced in practice.

Event logging. Every detected incident, every alert, every operational decision must be recorded systematically. Without structured logging, there is no baseline to work from, no way to assess whether the threat picture is changing, and no audit trail for regulators, insurers, or incident investigators.

Physical protection. Perimeter measures, access controls, and physical hardening remain relevant even in a drone threat context. A drone can be a vector for physical intrusion, not just surveillance. Physical and digital layers must be designed together, not independently.

RF monitoring. Radio frequency awareness allows organisations to understand the electromagnetic environment around their site. This is both a detection input and a baseline calibration tool. Without it, distinguishing normal activity from anomalies becomes guesswork.

Stakeholder interaction. No organisation manages drone threats in isolation. Law enforcement, aviation authorities, neighbouring operators, and emergency services all have a role to play. Defining those relationships, communication channels, and escalation pathways in advance is what makes a response proportionate and coordinated when something actually happens.

Cybersecurity. C-UAS systems are themselves digital infrastructure. Command and control links, sensor feeds, and data storage are all potential attack surfaces. An adversary who understands your detection architecture can attempt to exploit or blind it. Cybersecurity must therefore be embedded in the solution design from the start, not treated as a separate workstream.

Why technology feels like the solution but usually is not

Detection hardware is the most visible part of a C-UAS deployment, which is why it tends to dominate procurement discussions. Radar specifications, detection range, probability of identification: these are measurable, comparable, and easy to present in a tender document.

The operational layer is harder to quantify. How do you measure the quality of your escalation procedures before you need them? How do you demonstrate the maturity of your stakeholder relationships in a proposal? These questions do not lend themselves to a feature comparison table, but they determine whether a C-UAS capability actually works under real conditions.

The JRC handbook is explicit on this point. Event logging and stakeholder interaction are consistently identified as the two elements most frequently underestimated during implementation. Organisations invest in sensors, run a successful proof of concept, and then discover during an actual incident that they have no agreed procedure for notifying law enforcement, no log that supports a criminal investigation, and no clear ownership of the response.

Technology without process is situational awareness without the ability to act on it.

What a complete solution looks like in practice

A well-designed C-UAS solution integrates five layers:

Detection. Multi-sensor architectures combining radar, RF analysis, electro-optical and infrared cameras, and acoustic sensors give organisations a fused picture of airspace activity. No single sensor is sufficient across all environments and threat profiles.

Classification. Knowing that something is flying is not enough. Understanding whether it is a compliant operator, an unaware recreational flyer, or a deliberate threat determines the appropriate response. Classification capability is what separates actionable intelligence from noise.

Coordination with authorised operations. Critical infrastructure and public space operators often have legitimate drone activity around their sites: inspection flights, delivery operations, authorised surveillance. A C-UAS solution must integrate with drone traffic management data to distinguish cooperative from non-cooperative traffic. Without this, every detection looks like a potential threat.

Defined response procedures. The detection of a drone should trigger a structured workflow: who is notified, what information is communicated, which authority has decision-making power, and what actions are permissible under national law. In most European jurisdictions, active countermeasures such as jamming are restricted to specific state actors. Knowing this in advance prevents organisations from designing response procedures that are either illegal or unenforceable.

Continuous evaluation. Drone technology, threat actor behaviour, and regulatory frameworks all change. A C-UAS solution is not a one-time deployment. It requires regular review of its performance against a defined set of indicators, updates to procedures when the threat picture shifts, and the organisational discipline to treat counter-drone capability as a living function rather than a completed project.

Site specificity is not a complication. It is the starting point.

One of the strongest conclusions from the JRC methodology is that there is no universal C-UAS solution. A solution designed for an airport will not map directly onto a chemical plant, a port, or a public event. Population density, airspace classification, the regulatory environment, the nature of potential threats, and the stakeholder landscape all vary. Each deployment requires its own analysis.

Rather than complicating the process, this site specificity is exactly what makes upfront risk and threat analysis so important before any technology is selected. Organisations that reverse this sequence, choosing sensors first and then attempting to justify the decision through a risk assessment, typically end up with capability that does not match the actual threat profile of their site.

The JRC's five-phase methodology addresses this directly. Phase one is about establishing the business mandate and legal framework. Phase two is dedicated entirely to risk and threat analysis. Technology selection does not begin until phase three, once the threat profile has been defined.

How AirHub fits into this picture

AirHub supports organisations in building C-UAS capability that goes beyond sensor procurement. Our platform integrates drone operations management, airspace awareness, and detection system inputs into a single operational environment. This means that authorised drone traffic, regulatory airspace data, and detection alerts can be viewed together, giving operators the context they need to make informed decisions quickly.

From a consultancy perspective, we help organisations work through the foundational layer: defining stakeholder relationships, structuring event logging, aligning operational procedures with legal frameworks, and embedding C-UAS considerations into broader security governance.

If you are assessing your organisation's drone security posture or planning a C-UAS deployment, we are happy to support both the strategic and operational dimensions.

Book a demo to see how AirHub can support your airspace awareness and drone security operations.

When an unknown drone appears above a port, a power station, or a public event, the instinctive response is often to treat it as a threat. That instinct is understandable, but it is also operationally problematic.

The reality is that most drones appearing in sensitive airspace are not there for malicious reasons. A recreational flyer unaware of the restricted zone, a commercial operator who misread the boundaries of his authorisation, or a hobbyist who simply did not check the rules before launching: these situations are far more common than deliberate intrusion. Treating all of them as criminal acts leads to disproportionate responses, strained relationships with aviation authorities, and a system that generates so many false alarms it loses operational credibility.

The European Commission's Joint Research Centre addresses this directly in its Handbook on UAS Protection of Critical Infrastructure and Public Space. It proposes a classification of four drone pilot types, each requiring a fundamentally different response. Understanding these types shapes every layer of an airspace security solution, from the sensors you deploy to the escalation procedures you define and the legal framework you operate within.

The four pilot types

Compliant. This pilot knows the rules and follows them. They have checked the airspace, registered their drone, and are operating within their authorisation. If they appear near your site, it is likely because they have permission to be there, or because the boundary of a geographical zone is unclear. The appropriate response is verification, not escalation.

Clueless. This pilot is unaware that they are doing anything wrong. They bought a drone, launched it, and had no idea there were restrictions in the area. They present a safety risk through ignorance rather than intent. The appropriate response involves detection and, where possible, communication or education. In some cases, coordination with aviation authorities to improve zone awareness in the area is more effective than any technical countermeasure.

Careless. This pilot knows the rules but chooses to ignore them. They may have seen the restriction warning in their app and dismissed it, or they may have decided that the risk of enforcement is low. They present a higher risk than the clueless pilot because the behaviour is deliberate, even if the intent is not malicious. The appropriate response involves detection, classification, and reporting to the competent authority.

Criminal or terrorist. This pilot has a specific hostile intent. They may be using a drone for surveillance, smuggling, disruption, or as a direct weapon. They are likely to use non-cooperative platforms, modified firmware, or encrypted control links specifically to avoid detection. The appropriate response requires pre-defined escalation procedures involving law enforcement and, in some jurisdictions, specific state authorities with legal authority to act.

Why the pilot type determines the response

The reason this classification matters is that each pilot type requires a different response chain. A one-size-fits-all approach either over-escalates routine incidents or under-responds to genuine threats. Both outcomes carry costs.

Over-escalation creates operational fatigue. If every recreational flyer triggers a full security response, teams become desensitised, procedures become harder to maintain, and the credibility of the system erodes. It also creates legal and reputational risk if responses are disproportionate.

Under-escalation leaves genuine threats unaddressed. If a criminal actor with hostile intent is treated as a clueless recreational flyer, the window for an effective response closes before it can be acted upon.

The classification also has direct implications for what your detection and classification systems need to do. Identifying that something is flying is only the first step. Understanding what type of operator is likely behind it, based on platform type, flight behaviour, signal characteristics, and context, is what enables a proportionate and timely response.

How pilot type shapes your solution architecture

Detection layer. For compliant and clueless pilots, correlation with drone traffic management data and Remote ID is often sufficient to classify the situation quickly. For careless and criminal actors, you need sensors capable of detecting non-cooperative platforms, including those without active control links or Remote ID signals.

Classification layer. Behaviour analysis matters here. A compliant pilot flies predictable, authorised routes. A careless pilot may approach a restricted boundary and then hover, testing the response. A criminal actor may fly low, fast, and without the patterns associated with recreational or commercial use. Combining radio frequency (RF) analysis, radar tracking, and optical confirmation gives operators the inputs needed to make a reasonable classification under time pressure.

Escalation procedures. Each pilot type should map to a defined escalation pathway. Compliant pilots require verification only. Clueless pilots may require notification to aviation authorities. Careless pilots require documentation and formal reporting. Criminal actors require immediate escalation to law enforcement, with pre-agreed communication protocols and, where applicable, activation of state counter-drone authorities.

Without these pathways defined in advance, operators are forced to make judgement calls under pressure, often with incomplete information and without clarity on what they are legally permitted to do.

How this plays out across sectors

Ports. Port environments attract all four pilot types simultaneously. Recreational flyers are drawn to the visual interest of large vessels and industrial infrastructure. Commercial operators conduct legitimate inspections of cranes, hulls, and loading equipment. And ports are high-value targets for smuggling operations using drones to move contraband across secure perimeters. A port security solution needs classification capability sophisticated enough to distinguish between these use cases in real time.

Energy infrastructure. Power stations, substations, and pipeline corridors frequently appear in restricted zone maps, but zone awareness among recreational flyers remains inconsistent. The clueless pilot is a common occurrence here. At the same time, intelligence-gathering overflights of critical energy assets represent a genuine security concern. The response to each is entirely different, and the system must be capable of telling them apart.

Public events. Large gatherings present a concentration of people, media attention, and symbolic value that can attract all four pilot types. Event organisers increasingly need to coordinate with aviation authorities, law enforcement, and drone operators to establish temporary restrictions, enforce them proportionately, and escalate credible threats without disrupting the event or panicking attendees.

Building a threat-informed solution

The practical implication of this framework is that threat analysis must come before technology selection. Before deciding which sensors to deploy, organisations need to understand which pilot types are most likely to appear in their specific context, what their motivations and capabilities are, and what response is both appropriate and legally permissible.

This is the approach set out in the JRC methodology, and it is one that directly informed how we built AirHub. Our platform integrates drone traffic management data, airspace information, and sensor inputs into a single operational picture, allowing operators to move from raw detection to informed classification quickly and trigger the right response for the right situation.

Knowing who is flying above your site is what makes a security response proportionate, defensible, and actually effective.

If you want to see how AirHub supports threat-informed airspace security, book a demo with one of our experts.