The problem with telling everyone to report ‘suspicious’ drones

When the Finnish National Bureau of Investigation (KRP) recently encouraged citizens to report drone sightings to the emergency number 112, the advice was meant to promote safety. Instead, it has sparked confusion and criticism from drone experts who say it risks fueling unnecessary fear and false alarms.

In an article published in Iltalehti, KRP’s Head of Operations, Mikko Eränen, advises the public to notify authorities “without hesitation” if they spot a drone “flying in an area where a citizen thinks flying is prohibited.”

While the police admit most sightings turn out to be hobby flights or misidentified aircraft, Eränen says it’s “a good idea to report” any suspicious activity, even when uncertain. In practice, that means anyone seeing a blinking light in the sky can — and should — dial Finland’s emergency number 112. But Eränen feels such reports help authorities “intervene quickly if necessary” before a drone or its operator leaves the scene.

Police ‘report all drones’ guidance could ground public trust

The advice sounds cautious. But to professionals who rely on drones for everyday operations, it sounds alarmingly familiar — another case of misplaced panic that risks branding legitimate flyers as threats.

In a sharply worded blog post responding to the article, Stephen Sutton, CEO of FlyBy Guys — a company that specializes in providing drone services — warns that the “report first, ask later” message is dangerously simplistic and could devastate responsible operators.

Basically, encouraging citizens to call emergency services for “any” drone sighting effectively equates drones with threats, despite the vast majority being flown legally and safely. “This perception undermines years of work by drone professionals and hobbyists who have built a culture of safety. It also discourages new users from entering the hobby or industry, fearing they will be seen as suspicious even when flying legally,” Sutton says.

The police themselves admit that most reports turn out to be hobbyists or misidentified aircraft. Eränen even concedes that distinguishing a drone from a plane “is challenging even for professionals,” especially at night.

Yet the message remains: see something, say something.

It’s the same reactionary posture that has, time and again, thrown airports and communities into chaos across Europe — from London’s Gatwick in 2018 to recent drone-related shutdowns across the continent.

The problem? Often, there’s no drone at all.

Finland’s drone ecosystem has long been a model of balance: pragmatic regulation, open data tools like Flyk.fi, and a strong record of safe operations. That framework depends on public understanding: the idea that not every drone is a spy in the sky.

But when the official stance changes to encouraging the public to report every suspected drone sighting, regardless of certainty, the damage could run deep.

For professionals like FlyBy Guys, who operate drones worldwide for inspections, mapping, and emergency response, perception is everything. However, as Sutton explains in his post:

Public perception often lags behind regulatory clarity. Many members of the public still see drones as ‘suspicious,’ especially in a global climate where drones are used in warfare and surveillance. This perception creates a feedback loop: the more people are encouraged to call emergency services for uncertain sightings, the more drones are framed as a threat rather than a tool.

And this is why encouraging citizens to call emergency numbers for vague “drone sightings” can become a recipe for confusion. False reports clog hotlines, waste resources, and can even create panic. Imagine a paramedic helicopter delayed because police are chasing phantom drones.

The irony is that Finland’s own aviation authority promotes responsible drone flying through public maps and education. Flying is broadly permitted unless specifically banned: a policy built on trust and transparency. But when you push fear-based vigilance, the public begins to associate drones with illegality, rather than with innovation and creativity, Sutton stresses.

Education, not fear, is the answer

Instead of urging knee-jerk reporting, public education is the way forward. Citizens should know how to recognize genuinely risky drone activity — such as one hovering near a runway — versus ordinary hobbyist flights.

Resources like Finland’s Droneinfo and Flyk already exist to guide both pilots and the public. They just need amplification, not alarmism.

As Sutton notes in his blog post: “Most accidents or near-misses are not caused by malice but by ignorance — people who buy drones without realizing that certain areas are restricted or that flying near airports poses risks. Instead of encouraging the public to report uncertain sightings, authorities could focus on building awareness campaigns that highlight the difference between safe and unsafe operations. Clear guidelines on what constitutes a ‘suspicious’ flight would reduce unnecessary emergency calls while still empowering citizens to act when genuine risks exist.”

Finland has a chance to set a better example. By combining its robust regulations with calm, fact-based communication, it can show the world how drones and communities can coexist safely.

But if “report first” becomes the norm, everyone loses: drone pilots, authorities, and the public alike. Because when fear takes control, no one’s flying safely anymore.

More: DJI slams US court decision keeping drones under Pentagon blacklist