Live200 robots in operation across Europe as of May 2026.Live44 OEM partners and counting. Three new this month.Live11 European countries operational. Germany, Austria, Switzerland, France, Italy, Spain, Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Poland, United Kingdom.LiveFirst humanoid on Floor 2, Hamburg senior living. Week 12 of operation.PublishedCost-reduction case with a care group. Double-digit cost offset, year one.Live200 robots in operation across Europe as of May 2026.Live44 OEM partners and counting. Three new this month.Live11 European countries operational. Germany, Austria, Switzerland, France, Italy, Spain, Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Poland, United Kingdom.LiveFirst humanoid on Floor 2, Hamburg senior living. Week 12 of operation.PublishedCost-reduction case with a care group. Double-digit cost offset, year one.
wedrone.

wedrone / Security & surveillance

The fence decides, not the drone.

Whoever controls the ground under the track has already solved the hardest part of the risk assessment. That is why an aerial security programme starts with a map and a boundary — not with a datasheet.

Discuss a site Explore the topics

The honest state

The aerial layer replaces no guard.

It sits on top of a guarding operation that already exists. What it changes is the time to a picture and the coverage of areas that a lap on foot or by vehicle reaches only every few hours. What it does not change is responsibility: the regulated guarding service stays a service on the ground, with people who can intervene. Programmes that cost the drone as a replacement for the guard do not hold up on the first real night.

The second honest point is about order. The market sells this topic through the aircraft and the box. It is decided by the area underneath: both standard scenarios in Appendix 1 to the Annex of Regulation (EU) 2019/947 require a controlled ground area. That is exactly why your own fenced site is the position you can work from today — and exactly why the first piece of work is a map, not a choice of aircraft.

Applications

Five things settled before anyone quotes.

GRND

The site as a controlled ground area

Both standard scenarios in Appendix 1 to the Annex of Regulation (EU) 2019/947 require the operation to take place over a controlled ground area — STS-01 with a UAS bearing a C5 class label, STS-02 with C6. That is precisely why a fenced works site is a far better starting position than a route over a town: you control who is underneath. The first piece of work is therefore a map with a defensible boundary, not a datasheet comparison.

  • Boundary and access
  • Involved persons
  • Ground you own

TRIG

The scheduled flight and the triggered flight

A repeating lap on a fixed track and a sensor-triggered flight to a point nobody knew about in advance are two different operations, even when the same aircraft leaves the same box. The operational volume differs, the buffers differ and the abort criteria differ. Programmes routinely buy the first and assume the second comes with it.

  • Fixed track
  • Trigger and threshold
  • Volume per case

PLT

Who the remote pilot is when the box launches itself

Point UAS.SPEC.060 in Part B of the Annex to Regulation (EU) 2019/947 assigns responsibilities to the remote pilot, and they do not disappear because nobody is standing next to the aircraft. Article 2 of the same regulation defines autonomous operation as operation without the remote pilot being able to intervene — as long as someone can override or abort, the operation is highly automated, not autonomous. Who carries that role at your site, on which shift and with what proof of competence, belongs in the contract, not in commissioning.

  • UAS.SPEC.060
  • Shift coverage
  • Contract, not assumption

LINK

Link loss and the fallback

Point UAS.SPEC.050 obliges the operator to establish procedures and operational limits appropriate to the type of operation and its risk. On a works site that means, concretely: what happens on loss of link above the hall, above the tank farm, above the gate? That behaviour belongs in deterministic programming, in writing, and demonstrated at acceptance — not described in a brochure.

  • UAS.SPEC.050
  • Hold position
  • Demonstrated at acceptance

ROOM

The path into the control room

An event from the air has to arrive where the events from the ground already arrive. If it lands on a second screen with its own login, nobody looks at it after three weeks. The question is not whether something can be integrated, but which alert appears at which priority in which existing view, and who acknowledges it.

  • One surface
  • Priority and acknowledgement
  • Existing procedure

Inside the boundary

Over ground you own, the hardest part falls away.

How it works

Boundary. Evidence. Operator.

01

The boundary before the aircraft

The area first, the aircraft second. Where does the fence run, who may enter, who stands under the track, and who owns the ground at every point of the lap? Those answers set the compliance path. And they do not settle the airspace: under Article 15 of Regulation (EU) 2019/947 Member States may designate UAS geographical zones, and such a zone can sit over your property even though the property is yours.

02

Two flights, two cases

The scheduled lap and the triggered approach are assessed separately and documented separately. Where a standard scenario does not carry the case, the individual assessment applies; since 29 September 2025 the governing means of compliance to Regulation (EU) 2019/947 is SORA 2.5 (EASA ED Decision 2025/018/R). How that procedure runs in detail we have written up elsewhere, and we do not repeat it here.

03

Operations with certified partners

wedrone does not fly and holds no operational authorisation. We structure the area, the compliance path, the trigger logic and the interface to the control room, and bring in the operator who carries the authorisation. werob is a manufacturer-independent systems integrator, not an OEM and not a manufacturer. The regulated guarding service is untouched by any of this and stays on the ground.

Note: wedrone is a systems integrator, not an aviation operator. wedrone holds no operational authorisations of its own and does not fly itself. Whether a site can be flown under an authorisation depends on the specific case. This page covers the security of sites and assets: the flight is there to establish that something is happening on an area, not who is there. Person identification, biometric matching and crowd monitoring are not part of what we specify here.

Ground side

What laps the ground keeps lapping.

The lap across the yard, the interior round through stores and plant corridors, the audit-grade log of every round: that does not run on drones but on ground robots — with their own rulebook, their own sensing and their own failure modes. In almost every real security programme that is the larger share, and the two are specified together.

werob security & patrol: robots on the round

FAQ

Does a drone replace our guarding contract?
No, and we do not sell it that way. The regulated guarding service stays a service on the ground, with people who can intervene. What the aerial layer changes is the time to a picture and the coverage of areas a lap on foot or by vehicle reaches only every few hours. Costing the drone as a replacement for the guard produces a programme that looks good on paper and does not hold up on the first real night.
Do we need a remote pilot if the drone launches from the box by itself?
Yes. Point UAS.SPEC.060 in Part B of the Annex to Regulation (EU) 2019/947 assigns responsibilities to the remote pilot regardless of whether anyone is standing next to the aircraft. Article 2 of the same regulation defines autonomous operation as operation without the remote pilot being able to intervene; as long as a fallback exists through which someone can override or abort, the operation is highly automated and not autonomous. Settle early who carries that role on which shift, where that person sits, and who provides them — the operator or you.
Our site is fenced. Does that help?
It is the single most important point. Both standard scenarios in Appendix 1 to the Annex of Regulation (EU) 2019/947 require a controlled ground area, STS-01 with a UAS bearing a C5 class label and STS-02 with C6. A site whose access you control is exactly why that is a far better starting position. Two caveats belong with it: the fence alone does not make the area a controlled ground area — that has to be operationally assured and documented — and it does not settle the airspace, because under Article 15 of the same regulation a UAS geographical zone can sit over your property.
Can the drone fly to any alarm on the site?
Not automatically, and this is where most projects renegotiate. The repeating lap on a fixed track and the triggered approach to a point nobody knew in advance are two operational cases with different operational volumes, different buffers and different abort criteria. Both can be built, but they are assessed separately and documented separately. If someone offers you the triggered approach as a side effect of the scheduled lap, ask for the second case.
What about data protection? There are people on the site too.
That is why the boundary on this page is a design constraint and not a footnote: the flight is there to establish that something is happening on an area — not who is there. Person identification, biometric matching and crowd monitoring are expressly not part of what we specify here, and that belongs written into the requirement before any sensor is chosen. In Germany, video observation of publicly accessible spaces by optical-electronic devices additionally falls under section 4 of the Bundesdatenschutzgesetz; a purely operational site is usually not a publicly accessible space, but the edges of a site often are, and those edges belong in the assessment up front. None of this replaces your own data-protection review.
What does it cost?
We do not put a price per site on a website, because without the area it does not exist. What drives it can be named in advance: the size and shape of the controlled ground area, whether it stays with the scheduled lap or the triggered approach is added, how the remote pilot is covered across shifts, and how much work the integration into your existing control room turns out to be. What we can tell you beforehand is whether your site is a case for the aerial layer at all.
And on the ground?
The lap keeps running there, under a different rulebook and with different failure modes. Ground patrol, interior rounds and audit-grade logging sit under the werob Security & patrol solution. In almost every real programme that is the larger share, and the two are specified together.

Further reading

A site nobody sees at night.

Send us the area, the boundary and the procedure your control room runs today. We will tell you honestly whether it is a case for the aerial layer, whether the ground solves it better, and what the compliance path looks like.

Discuss a site info@werob.de