Drones in the Tactical Paradigm Part 1 - Overwatch

I want to chat about #drones, #tactics and maximizing benefit for deployment of systems. I started writing this as a post and it quickly spiraled out of control to an article then as I finished with the first of three points I wanted to make, I found myself ready to take a break. Rather than saving up all the juicy bits, I'll put this out there as it stands and see if I can be called out on all my errors before I move into part two.

As introduction, I am a former deputy sheriff who left the sheriff's office because of my motivation to be active in the development of the public safety drone world. I was a deputy for 15 years and started messing around with drones at work about 10 years in, eventually working with the department SWAT team and fleshing out our training and operations for tactical deployments. Besides my time with the sheriff's office, I have flown drones in operational support of regional narcotics task forces, SF FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force and Search and Rescue groups in the State of California. I've provided tactical drone instruction to about a dozen agencies across the United States and in Europe I've worked with a handful of agencies including Swiss special forces, Italy's organized crime task force, France's national police, USAR teams in Italy, Portugal, Hungary , Brazil, Mexico and Germany. My focus on operational tactics has been sharpened heavily over the past year and a half as I have learned from drone operators in the Armed Forces of Ukraine.

When it comes to drones (like any specialized tool) core competencies are the main thing that cops must focus on. You can't employ good tactics if you can't fly, maintain battery awareness and manage your sensor output. That said, anyone can learn core competencies with drones, especially if you've ever played a video game. Our most common commercial off the shelf drones (DJI/Autel/etc) are as easy to use as a video game controller -- and without tactics, an operator may as well be playing a video game. The value of the tool is in the tactics. Tactics can make or break an operation, in war or when faced with life-safety emergencies like our public safety professionals deal with every day.

Tactical drone operators should be spending a ton of time developing an intuitive workflow hand in hand with their tactical team. If you've ever seen SWAT teams continuously practicing dry runs using "stick house" or other scenario based training, you will see how there is (or should be) a flow to the movement. There will be verbal communication but it is minimal, brief and contextual. Each operator knows what the guy behind him is going to do when he button-hooks into a room. SWAT operators should not be wondering what the drone attached to their operation is going to do. Even patrol level responders should be comfortable with what the drone can do in the unavoidably tragic next "active shooter" situation.

I see three primary roles for drones in a high risk situation: overwatch, chase and entry. A secondary stand by drone is a luxury to strive for, it can be a safeguard for when a primary drone is disabled, needs to refit or requires secondary sensor coverage.

Let's first look at the overwatch function. What I've seen most commonly is a drone staying up high, working to maintain "overall" coverage on an area. The hovering action minimizes cognitive load on the operator, freeing them to communicate effectively or manage streamed intelligence. This is an acceptable role for a drone, but a single sensor platform will struggle to maintain "overall" coverage or containment. I would argue for a more calculated single sensor overwatch approach.

A single drone on overwatch (unless tasked for a specific operational need) should focus on positioning in a location with the greatest probability of containment. Any good patrol cop can show up on a scene and inherently move toward the spot where their presence is going to provide the best "bang for your buck" -- perimeters are built and broken down daily by officers responding to potential emergency situations.

So why does it seem like the majority of drones simply go straight up and provide an elevated view of what others are already looking at? Part of the issue is policy and training to the standard of requiring the operator to stay within visual line of sight. I hope that if you're reading this you know the FAA recognizes the need for tactical BVLOS operations. If this is a surprise, please do a little research and update your policies. FAA rules change but I rarely see sUAS program policies changing in time with these updates. I would never suggest that an officer should break any FAA rules or policies, however the exigency of life-safety operations often do require public safety professionals to make difficult decisions to preserve life.

When considering containment, evaluate the viewpoint and approach corridors of personnel already in the area and consider these areas lower priority compared to areas not already "illuminated" by coverage. For the SWAT guys in the room consider that if all your units are approaching from the 1-2 corner and nobody is on the 3-4 corner, your best bet is to put your drone over on that 3-4 corner. If you have several drones, consider "perching" in that area so that you can move another drone into a good position.

Overwatch is not always a containment operation. If your overwatch is designed to provide leadership with a real-time feed of the tactical situation, you may need to fly high and keep that broad view, but consider the benefit you might get from this approach. Tactical leadership is generally not conducted from the command post. If you can bring your drone lower, checking the unseen sections of an area, you may be able to provide much more intelligence to your team with much greater potential for mitigation of life-safety risks. Identifying open doors/windows, dogs (tied up?), obvious signs of egress (broken fence boards, leaning ladders), signs of the presence of firearms (makeshift shooting range, weapons in plain sight) -- many of these valuable pieces of intelligence will be overlooked if overwatch stays way up high.

Every agency will decide how it wants the overwatch function to be performed. There is something to be said for maintaining a slow-orbit using a drone's "POI orbit" function. There's something to be said for landing on a nearby rooftop and perching throughout the operation. Sometimes the overwatch drone is outfitted with a loudspeaker to attempt to make contact with a subject. None of these are "wrong" from my perspective, what I hope this little article will do is provide some small provocation of thought for your program and how you approach the deployment of your overwatch drone.

Flying a drone for a tactical team should be an ongoing effort to provide the greatest benefit as the incident progresses -- an officer should strive to dynamically adjust their tactics to maximize benefit to the operators on the ground. Train with scenarios, practice the scenarios and constantly re-evaluate tactics for their effectiveness and risk profile. If you practice this basic risk analysis approach, development of new and more effective cooperative tactics will occur organically with your tactical team. Embrace the dynamic aspect of the drone's presence and you will see the greatest benefit.

In my next little bit, I want to share some thoughts on the chase role of a drone in public safety. Specifically, I'll focus on providing aerial support for officers in a foot pursuit, on a K9 search or other situation (such as a suspect running from a high risk warrant target house etc).

I hope this is interesting. I spent minimal time looking it over, so I am quite likely to update it and fix some stuff as people bring issues to my attention. Keep in mind this is a set of thoughts and opinions I've built up from my own experience and through anecdotal discussions and practical training and operations. If you shared a story or suggestion with me in the past it's quite likely I've included your thoughts in here and I thank you for that. Feel free to call me out where I'm wrong and where you think I made a good point. Any and all discussion is welcome.