Author: Aleksandar Dimov
“The sky above the city, once an endless and invisible world, is now filled with silent sentinels—drones that observe, deliver, and threaten. They are a symbol of a new era, where the freedom of flight collides with the vulnerability of human existence. Just as ancient philosophers pondered the boundaries of the air, today we must ask ourselves: who controls the sky when the state looks down?”
From the rooftops of panel-block buildings to the central walkways, from public squares to industrial zones—the sky above Bulgarian cities is no longer empty. Drones circle quietly, almost imperceptibly, like a new species of birds in the digital age. They film, deliver, monitor, measure, and map. But along with the convenience and curiosity they bring, drones introduce a new dimension of insecurity. While society still views them as toys, technology has long since turned them into tools with military potential—capable of observing, disrupting, intimidating, or even attacking. The paradox is that in a country where even the sale of fireworks is strictly regulated, anyone can launch a drone above a government institution without any real control.
The Bulgarian vacuum: rules without an actual mechanism.
Yes, we have regulations. The European Regulation (EU) 2019/947 formally governs the use of unmanned aircraft systems. There are national ordinances requiring registration, licenses, and restrictions on flights over people and buildings. But this is only a legal framework on paper. In real urban environments, there is no monitoring of low-altitude airspace; no effective system for tracking and identifying operators; no clear plan for reaction in case of an incident or threat; no trained teams for neutralization and analysis. In other words, the rules exist, but the protocol does not—the practical step-by-step system that turns theory into action. This is what is missing: the “real instruction” that defines who acts, when, and how in case of a violation.
The invisible risk hides in the everyday.
The citizen filming a rooftop with a drone is not the problem. The problem is an unidentified object hovering motionlessly over a square, a school, or a hospital. The problem is a drone carrying an unknown payload with no detectable signal. The problem is a drone used to observe a diplomatic mission or a strategic site. In an urban environment, a drone can film people without their knowledge, violating personal rights; collect data on security systems and entry points; carry small packages—including prohibited substances; or be used to destabilize large gatherings. This is an asymmetric threat because it requires no army, no organization. One person with equipment worth 1000 leva can compromise the security of an institution worth millions.
When the sky becomes no-man’s land.
Security services in Bulgaria still lack a unified operational protocol for urban drone incidents. Even in the case of an obvious threat, the response would be administrative rather than operational: a report to the Ministry of Interior; a delayed inspection; a possible citation under Ordinance No. 20 of the Civil Aviation Administration. By the time the paperwork moves, the drone has already landed and its operator has disappeared. This is the paradox of modern security: the state controls what you post on Facebook, but not what flies above your head.
“Just as there are rules for road traffic, there must be rules for air traffic—not because someone wants to restrict you, but because everyone wants to feel protected.”
Here arises the philosophical question: where does the freedom of technology end and human security begin? The freedom to fly cannot outweigh people’s right to live without fear. This is why society must demand not just penalties but a clear and human-centric logic of prevention.
What does a real security protocol look like?
The strategic framework begins with establishing a National Program for Countering Unauthorized Drones, coordinated between the Ministry of Interior, State Agency for National Security, Ministry of Defense, and the Civil Aviation Administration. It includes defining “red zones”—airspaces with automatic flight bans: the government district, hospitals, airports, schools, religious sites, major events. It requires deploying a monitoring system—a low-altitude urban air radar based on radio-frequency sensors.
The operational procedure includes:
- Detection: automatic identification of a drone via radio or optical systems
- Classification: determining the model, altitude, speed, and type
- Locating the operator: via GPS or RF direction finding
- Reaction: issuing a warning or blocking the signal, using anti-drone technology (jamming or net capture)
- Reporting: centralized notification to an analysis service
- Investigation: checking registration, purpose, and origin
Technological solutions: from theory to practice.
Many countries are already testing integrated low-radius air control systems. In Paris and Madrid, radar and infrared sensors track drones up to 400 meters altitude. In the U.S., the “Sky Fence” model is used—a virtual barrier that automatically blocks unauthorized aircraft. Israel has developed “Drone Dome”—a protective dome capable of detecting and neutralizing small drones within kilometers. Bulgaria can adapt these solutions to the local context through regional monitoring systems connected to video surveillance and crisis control centers.
Prevention through knowledge and culture.
Security is not built by technology alone. It starts with citizens’ awareness. Education must be introduced: in schools and technical high schools (basics of drone safety); in the training of journalists, photographers, and architects who use drones; through public campaigns such as “Know Before You Fly.” Only when society understands the rules can it defend them.
The state must look up.
Bulgarian institutions often respond only after events have occurred. But drones require preventive, not reactive, thinking. Today they film weddings and sports events. Tomorrow they may film military facilities or carry messages that divide people. The state must look not only at the ground and the paperwork but also at the sky above. Because security is no longer just horizontal—it has a vertical dimension.
Conclusion: the era of aerial responsibility.
Drones are a symbol of our time—standing between freedom and control, between toy and weapon. But if society does not build a culture and a protocol for their use, the sky may become a new zone of chaos. The real question is not whether someone is flying, but who is observing and why. And if that answer is missing—then the state is missing. A security protocol is not bureaucratic formality. It is the modern shield of the urban citizen—standing between the freedom of technology and their right to live in safety. A 14-year-old can fulfill a “task” to deliver a pyrotechnic device even inside the service yard of the National Assembly. Think about that.