Unusual clusters of drone and balloon incursions over several major European airports in recent months have forced temporary closures, diversions and cancellations affecting tens of thousands of travelers.

From Copenhagen and Oslo to Munich and Vilnius, what began as sporadic safety scares has evolved into a persistent operational and security challenge for civilian airfields, raising questions about hybrid threats, regulatory gaps and the resilience of Europe’s aviation system.

More News:

Wave of Drone Sightings Disrupts Nordic and German Hubs

The most striking incidents came in late September and early October 2025, when suspected drones repeatedly breached the airspace around major Nordic and German airports.

At Copenhagen Airport, Denmark’s busiest hub, authorities halted all takeoffs and landings over a two day period after multiple drone sightings, leading to hours of suspended operations, more than a hundred cancellations and scores of diversions. Police and security services were deployed around the perimeter while air traffic controllers effectively froze the airspace to protect arriving and departing aircraft.

Almost simultaneously, Oslo’s main airport in Norway reported an “unidentified drone-like object” near its runways, prompting a temporary shutdown of movements and a cascade of delays through the country’s domestic network.

Although closure times were shorter than in Copenhagen, the overlap of incidents at two major Scandinavian gateways in the same week intensified concern among aviation authorities that these were not isolated hobbyist mishaps but possibly coordinated incursions.

Further south, Germany’s Munich Airport, one of Europe’s largest hubs, suffered two shutdowns in less than 24 hours in early October after repeated drone sightings. Air traffic was first restricted and then fully suspended overnight, resulting in dozens of cancellations and diversions and leaving roughly 3,000 passengers sleeping on camp beds in the terminals as airlines scrambled to rebook them once operations resumed.

Local police and federal agencies responding to the Munich incidents deployed helicopters and ground patrols, but despite multiple visual reports they were unable to confirm the number or type of drones involved. Authorities later acknowledged that detection and identification capabilities around civilian airports remain limited when it comes to small, low-flying unmanned aircraft.

Vilnius Faces Repeated Balloon Intrusions from Across the Border

While much of the recent attention has focused on drones, Lithuania has been grappling with a related but distinct aerial threat. At Vilnius Airport, the country’s main international gateway, operations were suspended in early October after a cluster of helium balloons, believed to have been launched from neighboring Belarus, drifted into Lithuanian airspace.

Two were spotted directly over the airport area, leading aviation officials to halt all traffic until they could be safely tracked and recovered.

Border guards and crisis managers later reported that the balloons were being used as contraband carriers, loaded with tens of thousands of packs of illicit cigarettes. Several were recovered on Lithuanian territory, reinforcing suspicions that smuggling networks had adapted low-cost balloon technology to bypass land-based patrols in heavily monitored frontier zones.

The October suspension at Vilnius was not a one-off. Officials disclosed that in the preceding ten weeks the airport’s operations had been interrupted more than a dozen times due to similar balloon incursions. Each incident forced controllers to re-route flights or briefly close airspace, disrupting schedules and undermining confidence in the stability of the country’s air links.

By early December, the Lithuanian government declared a state of emergency over what it termed a pattern of hostile “hybrid” activity involving balloons along the Belarus border.

The measures expanded the role of the military in supporting police and border services and sought broader powers to restrict movement and detain suspects in areas where balloons were detected, underlining how an apparently simple contraband scheme had escalated into a national security issue with direct consequences for aviation.

Hybrid Warfare Fears and Allegations of Foreign Interference

The timing and clustering of drone and balloon incidents at airports across northern and eastern Europe has prompted security analysts and several governments to frame them as part of a broader pattern of hybrid warfare.

Officials in Denmark and Lithuania in particular have publicly raised the possibility that hostile state actors are using commercially available drones and balloons to probe defenses, test reactions and sow disruption in a way that falls short of open military confrontation.

After the September drone incursions that closed Aalborg Airport and disrupted operations at several other Danish fields, Copenhagen formally alerted both NATO and the European Union. Senior ministers described the episodes as “systematic” and “professional” in character and floated the possibility of invoking NATO’s Article 4, which calls for consultations when a member perceives a threat to its security or territorial integrity.

Although that step was ultimately not taken, authorities authorized security forces to shoot down drones near critical infrastructure in future incidents, a significant shift in policy.

In Lithuania, leaders have accused Belarus of tolerating or even enabling the cross-border balloon launches, casting them as part of an ongoing “hybrid attack” aimed at destabilizing the country and straining its emergency response capabilities.

Belarus has rejected those allegations and instead accuses Lithuania of staging provocations, underscoring how ambiguous aerial incidents can quickly become entangled in geopolitical narratives.

Experts in European security note that advances in cheap drone technology since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine have made it easier for both state and non-state actors to access small unmanned aircraft with extended range and payload capacity.

They warn that while some airport intrusions may be the work of reckless hobbyists, the clustering of incidents around strategic sites and sensitive moments suggests that at least some may be deliberate probes orchestrated to unsettle populations and force costly defensive measures.

Operational Impact on Airlines and Travelers

For passengers, the disruptive consequences of these incursions are immediate and tangible. At Copenhagen, Munich and Vilnius, travelers found themselves stranded overnight, diverted to unfamiliar airports or stuck in long queues for rebooking as airlines scrambled to reconstruct their schedules.

In some cases, carriers set up makeshift sleeping areas with cots and blankets inside terminal buildings while they waited for clearance to resume movements.

Airlines operating through the affected hubs report that the impact of such closures extends well beyond the local airfield. A shutdown of even a few hours at a major connecting airport can ripple through their entire network, generating knock-on delays and missed connections across different countries and time zones.

Crews may time out under strict duty limits before they can operate their planned return sectors, aircraft end up out of position, and recovery can take days even once airspace is reopened.

The financial costs are harder to quantify but significant. Each cancelled or diverted flight carries direct expenses for fuel, landing and handling fees at alternative airports, as well as hotel and meal vouchers for displaced passengers. There are also indirect consequences, from reputational damage and increased call center loads to higher insurance premiums.

Some low-cost carriers with tight margins and quick turnarounds may be especially vulnerable to the cumulative effect of repeated short-notice closures.

Travel planners warn that as long as drone and balloon incursions remain relatively rare, they are unlikely to change booking patterns at a systemic level.

However, they note that for frequent fliers and corporate travel managers, the perception of rising security-related disruptions at particular hubs can influence decisions about preferred routings, especially when viable alternatives exist within a dense European airport network.

The recent incidents have also exposed the difficulty of reliably detecting and neutralizing small threats near busy civilian airfields. Traditional air traffic surveillance systems are optimized for large, transponder-equipped aircraft, not for palm-sized quadcopters or unpowered balloons drifting at low altitude.

Visual sightings by pilots, ground staff or nearby residents often remain the first indicator that something is wrong, and by the time police helicopters or specialized teams arrive, the object may have vanished.

Some European airports and national authorities have begun deploying dedicated counter-drone technologies, including radar tailored for micro targets, radio-frequency scanners that can pick up control links, and jamming equipment capable of disrupting signals to force a drone to land.

Yet these tools are expensive, their effectiveness is still being evaluated in complex real-world environments, and legal frameworks for their use remain patchy across jurisdictions.

In Denmark, the recent wave of incursions has triggered debate about whether private infrastructure operators such as airport companies and energy firms should be granted greater powers to take down drones that pose a threat, rather than relying solely on state police or armed forces.

Justice and defense officials have indicated they will explore legislative changes that would allow critical infrastructure owners to deploy defensive measures under tightly regulated conditions.

Airport operators themselves emphasize that their primary responsibility is to maintain safety by suspending operations whenever an unidentified object is suspected near flight paths.

While such closures inevitably frustrate passengers, they argue that the risk of a drone or balloon being ingested into an engine or colliding with an aircraft during takeoff or landing is too serious to ignore, particularly in congested airspace where pilots have little room or time to maneuver.

European Debate over a “Drone Wall” and Shared Defenses

The rapid spread of aerial incursions has propelled the concept of a European “drone wall” from a niche proposal into a recurring topic at high-level meetings.

Advocates, particularly from states bordering Russia and Belarus, envision a layered network of sensors, jammers and rapid-response assets stretching along the continent’s eastern flank, integrated with NATO systems and national air-defense networks to provide early warning and coordinated action against rogue drones and other small aerial threats.

Supporters argue that just as Europe invests in traditional air defense against missiles and fighter jets, it must now develop equivalent capabilities tailored to the new reality of autonomous or remotely piloted systems.

They suggest that shared procurement and interoperable standards would help spread costs and ensure that smaller countries are not left with gaps that adversaries could exploit.

However, several western and southern European governments have expressed caution about the scale, cost and scope of any such initiative. Defense ministers and finance officials question whether a continent-spanning “wall” is the best use of limited resources, pointing instead to targeted investments at critical nodes such as major airports, energy facilities and border crossings.

They also stress that civil aviation safety rules, data protection concerns and national sovereignty issues complicate the integration of military-style defenses into civilian airspace management.

Despite these divisions, there is broad consensus that the sharing of operational data, best practices and incident analyses needs to improve. Coordinated drills, joint investigations and common standards for how quickly airports must respond to confirmed or suspected drone sightings are among the measures now under discussion in European aviation and security forums.

What Travelers Should Know About the Emerging Risk

For travelers planning trips through Europe’s busy hubs, the recent spate of incidents can be unsettling. Industry groups emphasize that the overall risk of a drone or balloon collision with a passenger aircraft remains very low, and that there are still relatively few cases each year in which airports have to suspend operations.

When they do, it is a precautionary decision taken precisely to maintain the high safety margins that have made modern air travel statistically one of the safest modes of transportation.

Passenger advocates nonetheless urge travelers to be prepared for the possibility of sudden disruptions that are beyond airlines’ control. They recommend allowing more time for connections in periods of heightened tension, keeping travel insurance details accessible, and using airline apps for rapid rebooking notifications when flights are delayed or diverted.

Given that drone and balloon incursions can happen at any time of day or night, booking earlier flights rather than last departures can sometimes provide more flexibility if rescheduling is needed.

Airlines and airports, for their part, are investing in better communication tools to keep passengers informed in real time when closures occur. Some hubs now push automatic alerts to smartphones when airspace restrictions are imposed, while carriers increasingly rely on digital channels to issue vouchers and rebooking options instead of forcing customers into long queues at help desks.

Security analysts stress that public awareness also plays a role. Members of the public who fly recreational drones near cities are being repeatedly reminded of strict no-fly zones around airports and other sensitive sites.

Violations, even without malicious intent, can trigger the same chain reaction of closures and delays as a deliberate attack, and penalties are rising across Europe as governments seek to deter reckless behavior.

FAQ

Q1: Why do airports shut down completely when a single drone or balloon is spotted?
Airports suspend operations because aircraft are most vulnerable during takeoff and landing, when they fly at low altitude and high power near populated areas. Even a small drone or balloon ingested into an engine or striking a cockpit could have serious consequences, so regulators require a wide safety margin that often means halting all movements until the object is clearly located or confirmed to have left the area.

Q2: How often are European airports disrupted by drones or balloons?
While media coverage may make the problem feel constant, only a small fraction of reported drone or balloon sightings lead to full airport closures. However, in 2025 several high-profile incidents in Copenhagen, Oslo, Munich and Vilnius clustered in a short period, which amplified the perception of an emerging pattern and prompted closer tracking by aviation and security agencies.

Q3: Are these incidents believed to be accidents or deliberate attacks?
Authorities treat each case individually. Some intrusions are likely caused by careless recreational drone users who ignore no-fly zones. Others, particularly when multiple airports are affected in a coordinated timeframe or when balloons appear to originate from across tense borders, are increasingly viewed by governments and analysts as potential elements of hybrid campaigns intended to disrupt and probe defenses.

Q4: What is meant by “hybrid warfare” in this context?
Hybrid warfare refers to a blend of conventional military pressure with non-traditional tactics such as cyberattacks, disinformation, sabotage and deniable operations like drone incursions. In the aviation sphere, hybrid tactics might aim to undermine public confidence, force costly security measures, or test the response times and coordination of civilian and military authorities without crossing the threshold into open armed conflict.

Q5: How are drones near airports detected?
Detection typically relies on a mix of radar tuned for small targets, acoustic and optical sensors, and radio-frequency scanners that can pick up control signals, supplemented by visual reports from pilots and ground staff. Many airports are still in the early stages of deploying these systems, and their performance can be affected by urban clutter, weather and the small size and low altitude of most consumer drones.

Q6: Can airports or airlines shoot down drones that threaten flights?
In most European countries, the authority to use force against objects in the sky rests with the state through police or military units, not with private airport or airline staff. Some governments are now revisiting their laws to consider allowing critical infrastructure operators limited powers to neutralize drones under strict conditions, but this remains a sensitive legal and political issue because of safety, liability and airspace control concerns.

Q7: Do airlines compensate passengers when closures are caused by drones or balloons?
Compensation rules vary by jurisdiction and the specific circumstances, but airlines generally argue that drone and balloon incursions are “extraordinary circumstances” beyond their control, similar to sudden airspace closures due to security threats. In such cases, they usually offer rebooking, refunds and basic care such as meals and accommodation, but may not be liable for additional compensation that would apply for technical faults or crew shortages.

Q8: Are particular airports or regions more at risk from these incidents?
Airports close to sensitive borders, major military installations or key political centers appear to face higher levels of scrutiny and potentially greater risk, simply because they may be more attractive targets for those seeking to test defenses or send political messages. However, any busy airport in Europe could be affected if local drone activity gets out of control or smuggling groups turn to balloons along nearby frontiers.

Q9: What measures are being discussed at the European level to address the problem?
European Union and NATO forums are debating options that range from better information sharing and common incident protocols to joint investment in detection technology and the idea of a “drone wall” along the eastern frontier. Officials are also working on harmonizing rules about who can deploy jamming or interception tools and under what circumstances, so that responses are consistent across borders.

Q10: What can individual travelers do to reduce the risk of being stranded by such incidents?
Travelers cannot prevent drone or balloon incursions, but they can improve their resilience by building extra time into tight connections, registering contact details with airlines, using mobile apps for live updates, and considering travel insurance that covers delays and diversions. Choosing earlier flights in the day, especially for long-haul connections, may also provide more options for same-day rebooking if an airport is temporarily shut down.