An OPSGROUP member operator recently reported getting into trouble after opening the aircraft door when they saw CBP officers approaching.

This may sound like a familiar story! Crew land, open the door, CBP aren’t happy. They’re told they’ve opened the door without permission, and things get fairly heated. No fine was issued, but obviously the crew wanted to know: is this actually a rule?

We checked with CBP, and the answer is pretty clear: yes, you can open the door on arrival.

Here it is on the CBP FAQ site:

The nuance is that thing about not being allowed to leave the plane. So yes you can open the doors, but no you can’t just wander off after you do.

We’re pretty sure that second part comes from this rule in 19 CFR 122.36:

So why are some airports telling crews otherwise?

Good question. Since we shared the incident above, we received a medium-to-large flurry of emails from members being told to keep the door closed at several different airports. So it’s definitely not a one-off.

One was even told the reason was that CBP needed to carry out some sort of radiation scan outside first, before opening up the aircraft. We can’t verify that one!

And yet at some airports the procedure seems to be almost the opposite – we had a few reports saying that in some places local CBP gets annoyed if the crew doesn’t get out and go into the CBP office.

So the procedure does seem to change a bit depending on where you land.

Check the local CBP factsheet

CBP publishes General Aviation Airport Fact Sheets for a lot of airports around the US.

So many facts…

Worth checking before you go! These docs contain local arrival procedures, operating hours, contact details and other stuff.

We looked at a few of these (especially the airports where we had reports of crews being told they weren’t allowed to open the door until CBP arrived!) and we couldn’t find anything about doors.

What to do?

Check the local CBP factsheet and follow whatever specific procedure it says.

But if there’s no door-related rule written down anywhere, and you’re told “you can’t open the door until CBP gives you permission”, it seems reasonable to ask where that requirement comes from!

CBP HQ guidance is clear: there is no general requirement to keep the door closed. Just remember that opening the door doesn’t mean you’re cleared to leave the aircraft area – wait for CBP to complete the arrival process.

GPS interference is becoming more of a regular problem on the North Pacific routes between Asia and North America. We’ve had several member reports over the past few months, and last week I flew through the affected areas myself.

Here’s a map of what’s going on:

The first area – Kamchatka

The first reports started around Kamchatka in June. FAA data shows more than 100 civil aircraft have been affected around NUZAN since then. The reports span the Anchorage Oceanic and Magadan West FIRs.

Most crews reported GPS jamming – at least four reported possible spoofing. One of our members was westbound on R220 in a G650 when they lost GPS completely between NUZAN and NIPPI. ADS-B and synthetic vision disappeared with it. When the GPS returned, it appeared to be spoofed, with incorrect altitude and time. The whole event lasted almost 50 minutes.

The second area – Kuril Islands

In late July, reports started appearing further south around the Kuril Islands, in the northeastern part of the RJJJ/Fukuoka FIR.

Between July 22 and Aug 3, the FAA received six reports here – four jamming and two spoofing. Four aircraft were eastbound towards Anchorage, while two were westbound towards Tokyo and Seoul.

We’ve had more reports since then. R580 has been affected from around 100nm north of ONEMU through OPULO, with aircraft on R220 reporting problems too.

On Sep 10, one of our members was flying to Japan on R220 when they got intermittent GPS interference between NUZAN and NIPPI. They were at FL400 at the time.

So whatever is going on up here, it hasn’t gone away.

We flew through it last week

I flew R580 through the area last week in a G700. Knowing about the previous reports, we briefed the expected interference area on the ground and marked it on our flight plan package.

I also put fix rings around the expected entry and exit points in the FMS.

As we passed through, we monitored the GPS status page closely for any degradation or loss of satellites – but we saw… nothing! We had no problems in either direction. I’ll be back through there again next week, and we’ll do exactly the same thing.

Not much warning

Up til the other day, Anchorage Oceanic had this single Notam about GPS interference – not actually saying it was happening, but asking crews to report it if they were affected by it:

A1136/25 NOTAMN
Q) PAZA/QXXXX////000/999/
A) PAZA
B) 2509121800
C) 2609112359
E) ATTENTION ALL FLIGHT OPERATORS. FLIGHTS THAT EXPERIENCE OR SUSPECT 
GNSS INTERFERENCE ENROUTE TO THE ANCHORAGE OCEANIC ENTRY POINT MUST 
NOTIFY ANCHORAGE ATC. NOTIFICATION SHOULD BE VIA CPDLC, SFO RADIO, 
OR SATCOM, CONFIRMING DEGRADATION OF NAVIGATION STATUS AND DETAILS 
OF ONGOING LOSS/IMPACTS TO THE AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS AND CAPABILITIES.

EXAMPLES OF NOTIFICATION:
GNSS INTERFERENCE RNP10 ONLY
NO DATA LINK
DEGRADED NAVIGATION NO GNSS

IN ADDITION, AIRLINE DISPATCHERS CAN DIRECTLY INFORM THE ANCHORAGE 
OCEANIC SUPERVISOR TO MAKE THEM AWARE WHEN ONE OF THEIR FLIGHTS HAS 
BEEN IMPACTED BY GNSS INTERFERENCE BY CONTACTING 907-269-1930.
F) SFC
G) UNL

That Notam has now expired, and there’s currently no replacement in the Anchorage Notams. There are also still no GPS interference Notams for RJJJ/Fukuoka or any nearby Russian airspace either.

We also spoke to the team at GPSwise. They don’t have any reliable data from this area either, so for now it’s a bit of a black spot.

So if you’re flying the NOPAC routes, particularly R220 or R580 around Kamchatka and the Kurils, it’s worth briefing the known areas before departure. And if you get hit, please do send us a report!

An OPSGROUP member was recently caught off guard by a day-time noise violation while departing EGGW/Luton in a Falcon 7X.

Despite flying the published departure procedure accurately and easily meeting the AIP’s only climb requirement, they busted the day-time limit of 79 decibels by 0.6. The result was a fine of £1250 GBP ($1700 USD).

While being fined for a six tenth of a decibel sounds harsh (and it is), strict enforcement of noise is common at many airports around the world.

What bothers us here is the lack of clear guidance at Luton as to what to fly, and getting stung nonetheless – there’s no published NADP procedure, and for pilots the rules are murky at best.

Welcome to the Luton noise trap…

How do we hit the number?

Things work a little differently at Luton. Rather than prescribing a vertical climb profile (NADP 1 or 2), the airport relies on Noise Preferential Routes (NPRs) to keep departures away from sensitive areas. Lateral track accuracy is essential, until reaching the prescribed day or night ‘release altitude’ – 3000 ft and 4000 ft respectively.

There is no NADP procedure – in fact the airport confirmed it has no plans to mandate one because in their own words ‘individual airlines require different procedures.’

Our member flew the NPR correctly and met the only climb requirement in the AIP – a minimum of 500 fpm, not exactly difficult in a Falcon. And yet they still found themselves in hot water.

Here’s why – Luton concurrently runs a noise-monitoring program. You won’t find it in the AIP, it’s buried in the airports’ Charges and Conditions of use.

Since January this year, the daytime limit is 79 dB and 78 dB at night. This is tracked by ‘noise monitoring terminals’ nestled in the surrounding suburbs. Fines of £1250 ($1700 USD) and £2250 GBP ($3050 USD) apply if you bust the limits.

The flight in question (a 7X near max take-off weight on a warm summer’s day) measured 79.6 dB and triggered a fine.

Here’s what we don’t like about this.

Crew are being left with decibel limits with no guidance on a profile that will achieve it – if you happen to know how to operate your aircraft to within 0.1 of a decibel, please let us know.

In fact, the only additional guidance in the AIP is pretty vague. It contains a general instruction to climb at “power settings which will ensure progressively decreasing noise-levels.” Hardly earth-shattering advice.

What the data had to say

The operator here asked the airport authority about the fine in question, who in turn pulled the actual data.

It seems the noise event was recorded at 2900 ft – just 100 feet below the daytime release altitude.

The included graph did indeed show that the incident flight was flying a slightly shallower gradient than most other departures. Despite what the AIP says, it appears many other operators are informally applying their own NADP to steepen their initial climb, most likely to avoid the same trap.

But it’s a workaround, because unlike the payment of the resulting fines, the airport doesn’t mandate it. It’s simply left up to the operators – and for that, we cry foul.

So what’s the answer?

The case above shows that you can’t rely on the AIP alone to protect you from a fine – especially when performance is limited (hot, heavy etc). Your best protection is to apply an NADP anyway. ICAO defines two of these:

NADP 1 (noise near). Maintain V2 + 10 – 20 kts and delay flap retraction until reaching 3,000 ft AGL, while reducing power at or above 800 ft. This keeps your aircraft close-in and configured, which reduces noise nearer the runway. This is what we suggest for Luton.

NADP 2 (noise distant). Early acceleration and flap retraction (usually 800 ft AGL) and then maintain your designated manoeuvring speed until 3000 ft AGL. This means that noise reduction is spread out further from the airport since you’re climbing faster and higher sooner. This trades close-in quiet for less noise down the track.

Here’s a handy summary:

Do you know of other noise traps?

Luton probably isn’t the only airport with these kinds of issues. Do you have one to share? Please reach out to us so we can share it with the group. You can reach us around the clock at blog@ops.group.

India have made some changes to their rules for permit requests. The big one is that you can now only put three aircraft registrations on a request: one primary and two alternates.

Word on the street is that some operators were putting their entire fleet on the application, so they could use pretty much any aircraft if the planned one went tech. And it seems the DGCA wasn’t too keen on that!

So for an operator with a fleet of 20 aircraft, that makes things a little more interesting. Pick the wrong three and you’ll need to get the permit changed if you end up using another aircraft.

The new guidance was issued in an email from the DGCA on 19 August 2026, which went like this:

Lots of words there, friends. But the main things worth mentioning from that list:

• You can submit a permit request no more than 10 working days before the flight. So you can’t get too far ahead of yourself.
• For changes to the permit, the DGCA say this will only be considered in exceptional circumstances. But local permit agents tell us that in reality this is not normally a problem, and as long as you get your change request in during DGCA working hours they can get it changed within 6 hours. Contact them at ops@srcaviation.com to do the needful.

But either way, if your aircraft goes tech, don’t leave the permit change til the last minute!

One More Question

Here’s something we asked, thinking we might’ve thought up a clever work-around:

For an operator with more than 3 aircraft who doesn’t know which aircraft will operate the flight, can they submit multiple permit applications (with up to 3 registrations on each) and obtain multiple permit numbers, then use whichever permit covers the aircraft actually operating?

The answer: no.

So that was the end of that.

Standard Permit Rules

One other thing to note is this new thing about max-three-planes-on-permit-requests is for all for non-scheduled/private permit requests – not scheduled airline ones. The India AIP says that private/charter/bizav/non-sched flights all fall into the same bucket when it comes to permit requests – they basically all follow the same process.

Expect 24hrs lead time for overwater flights and 3 working days for flights crossing Indian landmass. 

And on that point…

Overwater Flights

You don’t need a permit if you’re not overflying India’s landmass. Kinda interesting, but not actually very useful for most overflights between the Middle east and Asia as all the airways cross the land.

But worth knowing if you’re maybe planning a flight to the likes of VRMM/Male in the Maldives! (Can’t think of anywhere else where this no-permit-required-for-oceanic-flights would actually be useful, can you?)

The Pakistan Gotcha

Not really a gotcha, because no one has a plane registered in India or Pakistan. And if you do, you’ll know this already.

But here it is anyway. India and Pakistan have had reciprocal airspace bans in place since the 2025 conflict, and they’re still being extended – so Indian reg aircraft still can’t use Pakistan airspace, and vice versa.

Starlink has doubled the price of its Business Jet plans. For those of us who already have Starlink on the aircraft, the new prices kick in from the next billing cycle starting on or after 7 August 2026.

So we’re talking about the full-size Business Jet terminal here. Aviation Mini is a separate product and isn’t affected.

Before the change, there were two plans:

(side note of semi-interest: the old Aviation Jet 20GB plan was renamed Business Aviation 25GB earlier this year, with the allowance increased to 25GB)

There are now three:

(side note of likely more interest: hardware and installation cost has gone up too, although that’s a one-off cost and varies depending on where you get it installed)

So some big price increases all around!

Regional vs Global

Starlink has divided the world into six areas (see maps below), and a Regional plan only works inside the region you have selected. You can change regions during the month, but if you cross the boundary the service stops as soon as you leave your selected region! It won’t switch you to Global Unlimited automatically – you’ll need to contact Starlink and change your region to get it working again.

Regional coverage also includes ocean inside the region, so the Mediterranean for example is covered as part of the Europe region.

So the basic lowdown is this:

• Regional: Stay inside your selected region and the Regional plan works just fine. Cross the boundary and the Starlink stops!
• Global: Pay through the nose for the Global plan and do whatever you like! (although there are still some countries where Starlink doesn’t work: China, Taiwan, Myanmar, Turkey, India).

What the regions actually look like

So here’s what Starlink’s six boundaries for the Regional plans look like:

Bottom line

If you stay within one region, you’re looking at $12,500 a month for unlimited. If you need worldwide coverage, it’s $20,000. The service itself hasn’t changed (it’s still VERY fast in the air), it’s just that we’re now all going to be paying a hell of a lot more to use it!

Key Points – Sep 2 update

• Big change with latest EASA guidance on Aug 31. They’re now basically saying you can fly to and from airports in Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar and the UAE again (see below for the fine print!)
• US-Iran fighting has flared up again as of Sep 2. New strikes mean the risk of short-notice disruption is back up again.
• Most Gulf FIRs are open with tactical routings, but with Kuwait still closed to overflights there is still no direct central route through the region.
• The main Europe-Asia routes remain south via Egypt-Saudi-Oman/UAE or north via the Caucasus and Afghanistan.
• GPS jamming and spoofing still widespread across the region.

Recent Developments

Sep 2 – US/Iran fighting flares up again

The US launched another round of strikes on Iran, and Iran responded with missile and drone attacks against US bases in Jordan, Bahrain, Kuwait and Iraq.

So far the main Gulf airspaces remain open, but the risk of more short-notice disruption is obviously back up again.

Sep 2 – Three Saudi airports remain closed

Three airports in southern Saudi Arabia remain closed following recent Houthi attacks: OEAB/Abha, OEGN/Jizan and OENG/Najran. The OEJD/Jeddah FIR is still open, so there has been no major change to the main southern bypass route.

Aug 31 – EASA updates Middle East CZIBs again

So first the ones that changed. In their previous CZIB, EASA advised to avoid airspace in the following countries at all levels: Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, UAE, Lebanon, Jordan. They’ve now changed that advice to the following:

• Jordan: Now just a “take potential risk into account” kinda situation.
• Lebanon: Still avoid, except for flights to/from OLBA/Beirut over the Mediterranean sea.
• Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar & UAE: Slightly different twist to the Lebanon guidance. They’re now basically saying that flights over land to the airports in these countries are ok (with a general “exercise caution” warning), but that you should avoid the Persian Gulf over the sea except for flights to/from the airports. So you can get to the airports again, but ideally without spending any more time over the Gulf waters than necessary!

And the countries where the advice didn’t change:

• Oman: Continue to avoid the Gulf of Oman west of 58°E.
• Iran & Iraq: Continue to avoid at all levels.
• Syria & Yemen: Separate long-standing CZIBs remain, avoid at all levels.
• Israel & Saudi: The previous Information Notes are unchanged – take potential risk into account.

You can check all the CZIBs and Information notes here, along with some useful background on why EASA has made these changes and what’s been happening in the region.

Aug 22 – More Israeli strikes in Syria

Israel struck a military airbase in northwest Syria on Aug 18, followed by a drone strike near Damascus on Aug 22. The OSTT/Damascus FIR remains open and some operators are using it, but attacks like this are still happening now and then, so the Syria overflight option is still not a great one compared to the southern Saudi route.

Current Airspace Picture

The map below tells the short story of your overflight options! For Europe-Asia traffic or Gulf positioning, the two real options are still the same as we reported before – north via the Caucasus then Afghanistan, or south via Egypt then Saudi then Oman:

And now a quick lowdown on what’s going on in each little bit of airspace…

Kuwait

Kuwait remains closed to overflights, currently until Oct 2. Only flights arriving or departing OKKK/Kuwait are allowed with prior approval. Everywhere else is basically open to overflights in one form or another, but with Kuwait still closed it means there’s no direct central route through the Middle East.

Iran

Iran is open again, but overflights are still limited to specific routes above FL285. Radar coverage is still patchy and there are warnings for conflict activity and GPS interference. Most foreign operators continue to avoid the country.

Qatar

Qatar remains open to overflights and landings. Some flow restrictions apply for traffic heading towards Oman, and GPS interference remains an issue.

UAE

The UAE is a similar story – remains open, but traffic is still being managed through temporary routings and flow restrictions. GPS interference continues here too.

Bahrain

Bahrain remains open, although restrictions in neighbouring airspace can still affect onward routing. GPS interference also an issue here too!

Iraq

Iraq remains open to overflights, with no major new changes. Some airlines are using it, but most continue to prefer the northern or southern routes instead.

Saudi Arabia

Saudi Arabia remains open and continues to handle much of the southern bypass traffic. OEAB/Abha, OEGN/Jizan and OENG/Najran airports in the south of the country all remain closed following recent Houthi attacks. Across the OEJD/Jeddah FIR, flow measures and tactical routings now a normal part of ops. Opsgroup members are also reporting heavy ATC congestion and blocked transmissions in some sectors (more on that below!)

Oman

Oman remains one of the most useful FIRs in the region, especially for the southern bypass. It is open, but still with flow measures and ongoing GPS interference reports.

Jordan

Open and operating normally. In practice though, it’s still not a major transit route for Europe-Asia traffic. Most operators continue to route via Egypt and Saudi Arabia, as they did before the conflict.

Israel

Israel is open, but ops still aren’t back to normal. Some foreign airlines have resumed services, but most major US and European operators continue to stay away.

Syria

Syria has quietly become part of the regional routing picture again after years of almost no international overflight traffic.

The OSTT/Damascus FIR reopened in early 2025 and some regional carriers are now using Syrian airspace again as an alternative to the more restricted Iran/Iraq option. Most of the traffic currently appears to be Middle East carriers rather than major US or European airlines, which largely continue to avoid the FIR.

The airspace remains high risk. Israeli airstrikes in Syria continue periodically, several countries still prohibit or strongly discourage their operators from entering the OSTT FIR, and ATC capability remains limited. Check safeairspace.net for more info on the airspace risk side of things.

We also spoke to a local Syrian agent (First Aero Services – seemed very helpful! contact info: ops@fasaero.com) about how overflights currently work here in practice. Operators generally need to apply through a local handling/permit company, which coordinates with the Syrian authorities and handles nav fee payments. Current charges are reportedly:

• EUR 70 overflight permit handling fee per leg
• EUR 455 fixed navigation charge per flight
• extra charges for urgent processing or permit revisions

At the moment, the Syria routing still looks more like a temporary workaround being used by regional operators than a mainstream replacement for the old central Middle East corridor.

Armenia/Azerbaijan/Afghanistan

Armenia and Azerbaijan remain important parts of the northern bypass, with steady overflight demand. The main issue is still Afghanistan – the OAKX/Kabul FIR remains Class G with no normal ATS service, so crews still need to use the published contingency routes and operate with TIBA procedures.

Where’s the spoofing today?

Still our favourite map to check for this – the live GPS spoofing tracker from GPSwise.

The map detects spoofing in real-time based on the ADS-B data from the OpenSky Network. Handy for a quick look at what’s been happening along your route.

Recent Opsgroup Member Reports

We’ve had a lot of useful Airport Spy reports recently from Opsgroup members operating into several Middle East airports: OMDW/Al Maktoum, OMDB/Dubai, OBBI/Bahrain, OTHH/Doha, OMSJ/Sharjah, OMAD/Abu Dhabi and OEDF/Dammam.

Big theme across all of them is the scale of the GPS jamming/spoofing currently happening around the region. Several reported complete GPS loss on arrival or departure, and interference continuing well into neighbouring FIRs. ATC seems very used to it now, with lots of runway heading departures and radar vectors being issued.

Reports also mentioned fuel delays, extra towing/hangar time, and slower ground handling at some airports. We’ve also had reports of heavy ATC congestion in the OEJD/Jeddah FIR as traffic continues concentrating on the southern bypass via Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Opsgroup members can check Airport Spy in their dashboard for the full reports.

If you have operated in the region recently and could share your experience, send us an anonymous Airport Spy report or email us at team@ops.group.

On September 30, the CARICOM eAPIS portal (the website operators have used for years to submit Advance Passenger Information) is being retired.

In its place is a new system called CARICOM MDEX, which is short for Manifest Digital Exchange. You can find it at carimdex.org, and it’s about to take over as the region’s official APIS platform.

What does this mean operationally?

If you’re unfamiliar with CARICOM, it refers to The Caribbean Community. It consists of fifteen member states that span the Caribbean including Jamaica, Barbados and Trinidad to name a few. You can view the full list below:

All flights (both commercial and private) are required to submit Advance Passenger Information (API) before departing or arriving in a CARICOM member state. If you need a refresher, see the official APIS submission rules.

This isn’t new – nothing about what you submit is changing, it’s just how you submit it. From October 1, the old eAPIS site will be turned off. Moving forward, you will need to use the MDEX portal to submit API instead.

What to do right now

We suggest you don’t wait until the deadline to get set up. If you leave it to the last minute and run into issues, you won’t be able to dispatch.

You can register for MDEX now. A full PDF has been produced with instructions on how to register and submit your APIS details, and it all seems pretty straight forward. See the MDEX registration guide.

There’s also a bit of housekeeping on the back-end. Don’t forget to update any automated upload process that is tied to the old system. If your operation submits API data automatically instead of logging in manually, don’t assume it will just keep working. MDEX is a new platform, so anything linked to the old caricomeapis.org will need to be redirected with new credentials. Take a look at the Portal API Docs link on the MDEX site for more info.

Don’t miss the boat come September 30, hop aboard MDEX now.

Mayday!

If you need help with the migration process or getting your account working, you still have time. Reach out to apis-support@impacsjrcc.org

Japan’s CAA (JCAB) is clamping down on pilot deviations, and is rolling out a three-strike system for captains at Tokyo’s RJTT/Haneda.

It works like this: a pilot who accumulates three qualifying deviations from ATC instructions will be come a ‘restricted’ captain. Find yourself on that list, and you will lose the ability to serve as PIC there.

Universal confirms these rules apply to international BizAv – the crews most likely to be unfamiliar with Haneda’s tight and high-density airspace.

So here’s everything you need to know before you step up to the plate.

The core policy

Before we start, it’s important to note this new policy is PIC-specific.

When it comes fully into effect, operators will need to declare the PIC’s name, licence number and contact info on the Airport Use Plan – the pre-arrival paperwork that international operators need to file with JCAB before operating into Haneda.

If ATC flags a deviation (e.g. runway/taxiway incursion, clearance bust etc) they will review the circumstances and decide whether to log it against the PIC or not (not all deviations will count). If it’s confirmed, the PIC’s name will go on a naughty-list the JCAB refers to as ‘Watchlist of Captains Requiring Special Attention.’

Once a PIC has accumulated three “strikes” (qualifying deviations), they will become a ‘restricted captain.’ This means they can no longer act as PIC on flights in or out of Haneda. They can still fly there, just not in command.

Things to note

Deviations will be logged against the PIC’s name, but operators won’t totally dodge the ball either. If a restricted captain is listed as PIC, the operator will be asked to swap in a different captain. Refusing that may place the operator’s own access to Haneda at risk.

But here’s some better news. The number of strikes against a PIC’s name will decrease by one after each full year passes with no further deviation, after which they’re free to operate again.

Why the change?

There was a string of ATC deviations by foreign BizAv crews through 2025. JCAB was sufficiently concerned that it issued an advisory in October last year to address this. It included two serious examples of one aircraft entering Runway 04/22 without a clearance, and another entering a closed taxiway, A1.

The advisory asks operators to make sure they check the AIP, SUPs and Notams carefully. If there is any doubt over your clearance, they want you to stop before entering a runway and actively confirm ATC’s instructions.

And of course, underpinning all of this is the tragedy of Jan 2, 2024, when an Airbus A350 collided with a Dash 8 on Runway 34R. Since then there has been a significant push to improve runway safety at Haneda, including changes to several ATC procedures.

New (ish) Safety Bulletin

In March this year, Haneda’s ATC office, along with Japan’s national government ministry published an extremely useful bulletin that provides a fairly comprehensive list of the kinds of things we’re getting wrong out there. These are covered in detail in the bulletin, but here’s a sneak preview of the main ones.

Taxiway Confusion:

The bulletin places a heavy emphasis on the mis-understanding on taxiway clearances – take one look at the airport chart and you’ll understand why.

There are several well known hotspots. Rather than blurt out a senseless series of taxiway designators, Tokyo’s Runway Safety team has summarised these into one handy graphic:

Incursion Prevention:

This one’s a reminder from an AIC published in the aftermath of the A350/Dash 8 collision. It may seem like common sense, but a sequencing call from ATC (such as No.1/No.2) is not a clearance to enter the runway. In fact there are only four phrases that let you do that:

• Cleared for take-off.
• Line up and wait.
• Cross runway.
• Taxi via runway.

Use of the RNP Runway 16R/16L:

This one is buried in the AIP. The RNPs are used for noise abatement between 15:00 – 19:00 LT in southerly conditions with good weather. The AIP states that all landing aircraft should be ready to shoot these approaches during this window. If your aircraft isn’t equipped, you need to let Tokyo approach know as early as possible. This may lead to a different runway allocation, or delays while a different approach is coordinated.

SID Suffixes:

In northerly winds, SIDs contain either an A, B, or C suffix. The initial waypoint for each suffix may vary so if you put the wrong one in the box, you may end up flying the wrong departure.

Highway Visual Runway 34R:

After getting an approach clearance, don’t cut straight to CACAO – fly the last assigned routing to CACAO unless ATC specifically tells you otherwise.

Speedy Turnoffs:

Like most busy airports, they want you off the runway pronto. Charts show the standard exits for each runway configuration and time of day.

So when is this three-strike thing actually happening?

Here’s where things are a little vague. We’ve been advised by reliable sources that informally, it already is. However the Airport Use Plan hasn’t been updated yet to include the PIC’s personal details. Assume it’s time to play ball – if a deviation occurs, JCAB will just ask for this info afterward.

In our previous article, we looked at the SAFA findings that rarely make the crew briefing: EFB mounts, MEL customization, maintenance due dates, placards and the other details hiding behind the inspection checklist.

Following that article, the EASA Ramp Coordination team shared its 2025 inspection data with us (although EASA did not commission or endorse this article!). It shows that many of the most common problems were routine issues that could have been caught before the inspection.

So here’s a look at what inspectors found, and what crews can do to avoid the same problems.

If the inspector can see it, the log should explain it

A recurring significant finding involved defects that had not been properly identified, assessed or monitored. Inspectors also found maintenance actions that were not properly recorded.

Anything found on the walkaround should be properly covered in the tech log. Staining, damage, loose panels and other visible defects should have been assessed, deferred, monitored or fixed. If an inspector can see it, expect them to check the paperwork.

“Cabin ready” means ready for flight

The more serious findings included unsecured cabin equipment, blocked emergency-exit access, poorly restrained cargo and maintenance work that did not follow the applicable MEL, Aircraft Maintenance Manual or Structural Repair Manual instructions.

Some of that can be caught during a final cabin and cargo sweep. Some of it needs maintenance control long before departure. Better to know which is which before the inspector asks!

For GA, the inspection starts at the planning desk

For business aviation, the main findings included unsuitable or insufficient alternates, missed Notams, and missing or seriously incorrect performance or fuel calculations.

They also found crews carrying an MMEL instead of an MEL, MELs that were not fully customized, outdated or incomplete manuals, mismatched checklists, old navigation databases and required charts that were unavailable when needed.

EASA’s Ramp Coordination team confirmed that the SAFA-GA Top 5 includes findings from all three categories, not just Category 3. For GA crews, flight planning and document control are among the main areas to check before an inspection.

Before your next trip to Europe

• Match visible aircraft defects to the tech log and any maintenance or deferral action.
• Check the MEL is the operator’s current, usable document – not an MMEL wearing a new cover.
• Recheck alternates, Notams, fuel, performance and both flight plans.
• Verify the ATC flight plan Item 10 equipment and surveillance codes against the aircraft’s installed, serviceable and approved capabilities.
• Cross-check Item 18 entries – including PBN/, NAV/, COM/, DAT/, SUR/, REG/ and OPR/ when applicable – and make sure OPR/ identifies the actual operating agency, not automatically the management or flight-planning company.
• Confirm manuals, checklists, navigation data and required charts are current and available.
• Check the cabin, emergency exits and cargo areas for anything likely to result in a finding.

Run your own ramp check first

Carry out an internal ramp check using one of your aircraft and an actual trip. Work through each inspection area, record any discrepancies, assign responsibility and confirm they have been closed. That is a simple internal Ramp Inspection Program.

If you prefer to do it electronically, Fly-Right LLC’s SAFA+Checklist app for iOS takes crews through the inspection and records the review in one place.

Bottom line

A ramp inspection covers much more than the condition of the aircraft. Inspectors will also check the flight plan, MEL, tech log, manuals, cabin and cargo, so make sure everything is current and consistent before departure.

EASA contact and responsibility

For program information, visit the EASA Ramp Inspection Programmes website or contact the EASA Ramp Coordination team at safa@easa.europa.eu. The mailbox is monitored, and the team will do its best to address community questions.

EASA does not mediate or decide disagreements over individual findings. Each finding remains the inspecting authority’s responsibility and is subject to that state’s normal appeal process. EASA also provides information to IBAC annually, and IBAC members may contact IBAC.

Scott Moore is the founder of Fly-Right LLC, creator of the SAFA+Checklist app for iOS. More information is available at flyrightconsulting.com.

EES is now fully operational at the Schengen external border. For crew, the important thing to understand is that EES and visa requirements are two separate issues.

EES decides whether your entry and exit are recorded in the system. Your visa status decides whether you are allowed to enter without a visa. One does not automatically decide the other.

If you are travelling on official crew duty with the required crew docs, your entry and exit may not need to be recorded in EES. This means no EES biometric registration, but you must still complete the normal crew immigration process. It also does not automatically mean you can enter without a visa.

A GenDec helps show that you are operating crew on that flight. In most countries though, it is supporting evidence – not a visa waiver and not a replacement for the crew docs required by immigration.

To work out what applies to you, ask three simple questions before you travel:

1. Does my nationality normally require a visa?
2. Does this country accept my licence or Crew Member Certificate for a crew visa exemption?
3. What am I allowed to do once I arrive – stay near the airport, transfer to another airport, or travel further?

This is where the rules become less straightforward. Some countries allow qualifying crew to enter without a visa for normal duty travel. Others only allow airport-area movements, require proof that you are joining your next flight, or keep the visa requirement for certain nationalities.

Before you travel

Bring your passport, crew ID, pilot licence or Crew Member Certificate, GenDec, and flight details.

If you are planning personal travel, an overnight stay away from the airport, or entering Schengen in one country and leaving from another, check your visa position and permitted movements before departure. Don’t wait until you reach the border to find out!

On arrival, tell immigration if you plan to leave Schengen from another country, so your full crew itinerary is clear from the outset.

Your quick country guide

The straightforward countries:

If you are travelling as crew on official duty and hold a recognised licence or Crew Member Certificate, you do not need a visa in the countries below – unless the nationality rule mentioned above still requires one. If your docs are in order and the trip is clearly for crew duty, entry should be fairly simple.

🇦🇹 Austria · 🇧🇪 Belgium · 🇭🇷 Croatia · 🇨🇾 Cyprus · 🇪🇪 Estonia · 🇫🇷 France · 🇬🇷 Greece · 🇭🇺 Hungary · 🇮🇸 Iceland · 🇮🇹 Italy · 🇱🇹 Lithuania · 🇱🇺 Luxembourg · 🇲🇹 Malta · 🇳🇱 Netherlands · 🇳🇴 Norway · 🇵🇱 Poland · 🇵🇹 Portugal · 🇸🇰 Slovakia · 🇸🇮 Slovenia · 🇪🇸 Spain

Countries with extra conditions:

The countries below also recognise the crew visa exemption, but only if you meet the extra conditions shown here.

Extra proof needed: Bring your GenDec and clear evidence that you are operating crew or signed on for duty. In some cases, a GenDec may be accepted where the usual crew document is not available.

🇧🇬 Bulgaria · 🇩🇰 Denmark

Airport-area movements only: The exemption covers airport-related movements only – arriving or departing through the airport, staying in the nearby municipality, or transferring to another airport to join a flight. It does not cover wider travel in the country.

🇨🇿 Czech Republic · 🇩🇪 Germany · 🇷🇴 Romania · 🇸🇪 Sweden · 🇨🇭 Switzerland

In Germany, border police may need to confirm the exemption and issue a laissez-passer if you do not hold a flight crew identity document.

Your next flight matters: The exemption is only for travel directly connected to your next crew duty. Make sure your onward flight plans are clear and directly linked to your crew duty.

🇱🇻 Latvia · 🇫🇮 Finland

What to remember

Treat EES, your crew docs and your visa status as three separate checks. A GenDec helps show that you are operating crew, but it is not a visa waiver. Before departure, make sure your nationality, crew docs and planned movements all fit the rules at your destination. If one of those does not line up, resolve it before you reach the border.

For a deeper look at the national rules, you can read the EU’s complete Info on national derogations from the visa requirement.

On July 24 one of our members’ aircraft – a medevac jet – departed MGGT/Guatemala City bound for Florida. An hour or so later, while approaching the Belize/Mexico border, ATC turned it around. SpaceX had just launched Starship Flight 13 from Boca Chica, Southern Texas, and the airspace ahead was closed. The aircraft returned to Guatemala, thankfully with no patient on board.

The crew briefed normally, via ForeFlight, before departure. The key problem is that the system they were relying on wasn’t built for what a major SpaceX launch actually does to the airspace.

It’s not just one Notam. It’s a wall.

A SpaceX Starship launch is a big deal. They’re a test flight of the biggest, most powerful rocket ever built – the one SpaceX intends to eventually use for missions to the Moon and Mars. Bigger even than Apollo’s Saturn V that took Neil, Buzz and Michael to the lunar Sea of Tranquility back in 69′.

They launch from a site called “Starbase,” on the southern tip of Texas near Boca Chica Beach.

Starship is actually two huge stages stacked together. The massive first stage does the heavy lifting off the pad and either flies itself back to the launch site or has a controlled splashdown in the ocean.

Starship (the second stage) sits on top and continues into space along with whatever payload it’s carrying.

But for aviation, the relevant bit isn’t the spectacle. It’s the debris and hazard footprint – which is huge.

It isn’t just about closing a box of airspace around the pad. It involves a hazard corridor covering the first stage descent, splashdown, debris footprint i.e. the whole shebang.

The corridor crosses several FIRs, and each FIR is responsible for publishing its own Notam for its slice of it. There’s no single Notam that covers it all.

For this launch, Mexico published MMFR Notam B1467/26. This described a polygon of airspace defined by no less than 14 lat/longs referred to as ‘Area B2′:

B1467/26 NOTAMR B1443/26
Q) MMFR/QRDCA/IV/BO/W/000/999/
A) MMFR
B) 2607242245
C) 2607300056
D) DLY 2245-0056
E) DANGEROUS AREA FOR LAUNCH OF ROCKET SPACEX STARSHIP FLT-13,
LATERAL LIMIT AREA FORMED BY THE UNION OF THE FLW POINTS:
AREA B2:
2430N 09103W
2430N 09052W
2420N 09031W
2312N 08804W
2232N 08638W
2212N 08600W
2200N 08600W
2117N 08538W
2144N 08645W
2216N 08832W
2236N 08938W
2303N 09114W
2310N 09137W
2430N 09103W
FIR MEXICO (MMFR)
F) SFC
G) UNL

Have time to plot 14 coordinates from a single Notam? We don’t either. Here’s what this would look like if you did:

Cuba published a separate Notam MUFH A2617/26, restricting the use of certain waypoints in the Havana FIR – with a different take (re-routing traffic around specific points, rather than closing a defined chunk of airspace). That’s why it reads so differently to Mexico’s.

A2617/26 NOTAMR A2603/26
Q)MUFH/QXXXX/IV/NBO/E/000/999/2107N07944W999
A)MUFH B)2607232045 C)2607300100
D)2045/0100 DLY
E)SOUTHBOUND TRAFFIC FROM KZMA, KZHU FIRS ENTERING MKJK FIR AND MMFR 
FIR, WILL BE ACCEPTED OVER:
- SHARQ, CANOA, MAXIM UP TO 2150Z
- FUNDI, TANIA, URSUS, BORDO, DYNAH, ENAMO UP TO 2135Z 
- ERRCA, GHANN, MEDKO, OVALU , BYGON UP TO 2100Z.
WESTBOUND TRAFFIC COMING FROM THE EAST OF MUFH FIR, WILL BE 
ACCEPTED OVER:
- URLAM, MODIT, MEDKO ENTERING IN MMFR FIR UP TO 2045Z
NORTHBOUND TRAFFIC FROM MHCC, MKJK FIRS , GRAND CAYMAN APP WILL BE 
ACCEPTED UP TO 2235Z.
TRAFFIC OVER GELOG WILL BE ACCEPTED UP TO 2245Z
INCOMING TRAFFIC FROM MMID WILL BE ACCEPTED OVER:
- ALURU L/UL674 UP TO 2145Z
- NUDAL, NUKAN, EMOSA, PEPSO UP TO 2235Z
FOR AN EMERGENCY, AVAILABLE AIRPORTS: MUHA , MUVR, PLEASE READ 
NOTAMS A2480/26 NOTAMR A2014/26 , A2481/26 NOTAMR A2015/26 ( JET A1
FUEL NOT AVAILABLE )
-REASONS: SUPER HEAVY STARSHIP LAUNCH 13TH

Individually, each one reads like some kind of weird danger-area Notam. Only if you plot every FIR’s Notams together do you see the the whole thing adds up to an east/west wall blocking traffic spanning from Southern Texas, across the Gulf and Caribbean, all the way down to Barbados and the Lesser Antilles.

The problem of time

But it wasn’t just the size of the disruption, but also time. The Mexican Notam wasn’t issued until after they’d pulled their ForeFlight briefing. Even Guatemalan ATC didn’t catch it when issuing the IFR clearance.

There’s currently no requirement for space launch Notams to go out any set number of hours in advance. They can and do get filed and re-filed reactively.

Take the US for example. 14 CFR Part 417, Appendix B (which governs licensed launch operators’ hazard-area Notams) only requires the Notam to be effective thirty mins prior to flight. In practice, they’re usually visible 48 – 72hrs prior. But the key point here is that don’t have to be.

That’s also the nature of space flight. Launches slip constantly – minutes, hours, days. It’s why we talk about launch “windows” and back-up days. Every slip means every affected FIR has to reissue its Notam, trying to stay ahead of a moving target and it get it into the system before the next crew pulls their briefing.

In other words, there’s plenty of wriggle room for something to slip through. This may well be what happened to the crew here, but we can’t say for certain. But it appears the system has gaps a normal briefing might not catch.

Big space ambitions

Two things have crossed our desk recently suggest this problem isn’t going away and may get worse.

First is that FAA is proposing to streamline the approval process for commercial space ops. This will include greater flexibility to waive certain requirements when reviewing commercial space licences and permits. The number of operations each year is expected to double over the next decade. From an ops-perspective, airspace closures will become far more frequent. The FAA has published a handy SAFO on this subject.

Second, from SpaceX itself: In a recent earnings call, Elon Musk has floated the idea of eventually flying Starship daily.

And the flight paths may change too. Right now, only the booster stage is landing back at the Boca Chica Starbase. The upper stage still splashes down in water. However, they will soon attempt to return that stage to the launch site too, in which case hazard and debris areas may begin to affect the airspace over more US states.

So how do we brief them?

The existing Notam system simply isn’t designed to handle huge geographic areas which extend over multiple FIRs. We’re not saying don’t read them, but they can struggle to give you the full picture. What helps is live tracking.

And there are a few good places to find it. SpaceX publishes its own launch schedule which remains the primary source for launch schedules and status. They also share information on temporary flight restrictions associated with the Starbase launch site here.

Beyond SpaceX, the Texas Space Launch Schedule is a useful tool for forward planning around upcoming launch windows. And finally, Space Notices is worth a look too. It’s privately-run but provides a useful ‘big picture’ view that shows full hazard areas across all FIRs involved, not just one.

Cover yourself

Beyond briefing, there are some things you can do to further lessen the impact of SpaceX launches on your flight.

On a known launch day, plan to cross the corridor before the window opens. Don’t be tempted to show up right after a scheduled launch because if it’s delayed (and they often are) you’ll be heading right into the action.

For flights near the Gulf or northwest Caribbean, check the status of a launch right up to departure, not just when you’re flight planning. Lest a mysterious and unexpected Notam suddenly appears that wasn’t in your briefing pack.

It doesn’t end there either. It may be a good idea to have someone on the ground monitoring Space X’s status page who can then relay that information to the crew in the air. Just because you were all clear on departure, doesn’t mean you will be when you arrive.

And finally, don’t assume one FIR’s Notams tell the whole story. If your route takes you anywhere near a Starbase launch corridor, check the Notams for the FIRs adjacent to your track too – not just the one you’re flying through.

Look out in a few weeks time

The next mission, Starship 14, is slated to launch in early September. When a date is announced, we’ll be sure to let you know.

A special thank you to the pilots involved who brainstormed their lessons-learned for the benefit of our group! We salute you!

And one final tidbit. Remember when SpaceX launched a Tesla Roadster into space aboard a Falcon Heavy back in 2018? It’s still out there – last tracked millions of miles from Earth in an orbit around the sun. Starman the mannequin is still in the driver’s seat.

Five ways experienced crews still get caught out by weather that isn’t showing up the way they expect it to – and what we can actually do about each one.

1. Radar attenuation can hide the worst cell behind the one you can already see, while rapidly building cells can outpace your radar scan even when you’re working the tilt correctly – as a recent Air France crew found out over Corsica.
2. Dry microbursts and virga produce almost no radar or visual signature, and they’re a summer, high-desert, and monsoon-season problem as much as a classic thunderstorm one.
3. Embedded convection inside a solid cloud layer can sit in the gap between two cells your radar simply can’t see through.
4. Clear air turbulence and mountain wave give you no warning at all – no cell, no radar return, and sometimes nothing useful in the forecast.
5. Supercooled large droplet (SLD) icing builds ice aft of your protected surfaces faster than de-ice equipment can clear it, which is why anti-ice needs to go on before you enter the conditions, not after.

Less than fifty seconds after the seatbelt sign came on, an Air France A320 descending into Corsica hit 31 seconds of turbulence and hail severe enough to break bones. The crew’s radar was working. They’d seen it building. They just ran out of time to do anything meaningful about what they saw. That’s the pattern behind every trap on this list – not equipment failure, not inexperience, but a hazard that doesn’t look dangerous until it’s too late to do much about it. Here are the five I brief for, and how I try to stay ahead of each.

1. Radar attenuation and shadowing – does the weather radar always tell the truth?

Let’s start with what actually happened to that Corsica crew, because it’s a near-perfect illustration of the first trap: attenuation, and its close cousin, tilt lag. Attenuation is the radar’s way of lying to you politely – your beam punches through a heavy rain shaft to reach the cell behind it, but the nearer cell eats most of the energy, and what bounces back comes home weak, green or yellow on your display when it’s actually a red core hiding behind a wall of rain. Tilt lag is the same trick played a different way: you’re working the radar exactly as you should, but a cell is building vertically faster than your scan rate and workload can keep up with.

If you’re flying with an old-school manual radar, make sure you bring tilt into your scan. A good rule of thumb is to start the tilt at around +5, and by the time you reach cruise, you want to be painting some ground returns past the 80nm ring. For my old jet, that would be around -1.

For those of us using the fancier modern radars, don’t forget to use the vertical and lateral memory modes to paint the picture both ahead of you and to either side. This is particularly useful when navigating a squall line of storms – you get a better picture of how the weather is moving, which lets you make better tactical deviations.

The BEA’s inquiry into that Air France A320, descending into LFKJ/Ajaccio on August 20, 2025, found the crew were carrying a “relatively high” workload in the 15 minutes before the encounter (briefings, frequency changes, performance calculations, as well as a passenger needing pain relief in the forward galley) while a “favourable” forecast for the crossing may have dulled how closely they were watching a radar that needed regular manual tilt input. Around eight miles from the cell and descending through 29,000ft, they were tracking green echoes with the seatbelt sign already on. The captain lowered the tilt to identify a distant return; when he raised it again, the display went yellow, then red, then – in his words – “completely red”. The cell had been building for 45 minutes but stayed below 23,000ft until about six minutes before impact, and nobody (not the crew’s radar, not the airline’s weather app, not air traffic control with their own secondary system showing the cell) got word to the flight deck in time. Three cabin crew and two passengers came away with bone fractures.

So here’s the rule I hold myself to: a clean-looking picture on a routine sector gets the same suspicion as one on an obviously active day, because a benign forecast is exactly when tilt and gain management gets lazy. A return that looks suspiciously weak, or slow to build behind a stronger one, earns a harder look, not a sigh of relief. And on the newer jets, where the radar increasingly manages its own tilt, I still treat “automatic” as a reminder to stay engaged with it, not a licence to switch off.

2. Dry microbursts – the one that doesn’t show up on radar at all

A microburst doesn’t need much rain to be lethal, which is exactly what makes it such an unfair fight. High-based convection with a dry sub-cloud layer produces a downburst where the precipitation evaporates before it hits the ground – this is virga. The evaporative cooling accelerates the downdraft, but because there’s little or no rain reaching the surface, there’s often nothing on radar and nothing to see out the window – just a sudden headwind, then a violent shift to tailwind, right when you have the least altitude to recover from it.

When we are talking about Microbursts, Hong Kong has its own well-known case. On August 22, 1999, an MD-11 flown by Taiwan’s China Airlines came in to land as Typhoon Sam sat offshore, with gusty crosswinds and heavy rain across the field. The airline’s safety department blamed a microburst on short final; Hong Kong’s investigators focused instead on an excessive, uncorrected sink rate in the final seconds before touchdown. Either way, the outcome was the same – a hard right-gear touchdown, the number three engine striking the runway, the right wing separating, the aircraft flipping and catching fire. Three of the 315 on board died, and well over 200 were injured.

My rule here doesn’t depend on which version of events you believe: gusty, convective conditions on approach get a stabilised-approach discipline that doesn’t bend, and a real willingness to go around the moment the numbers move outside limits, not an attempt to rescue a landing that’s already gone soft. Most airports now carry Doppler radar that can pick up wind shear and microbursts even without much rain, with warnings on the ATIS or as an advisory from the tower – and I treat those calls as a genuine lifesaver, not a formality to talk your way around. Never conduct an approach into an airport where active microbursts are present – they build fast and dissipate just as quickly. We turn the seatbelt sign on when we see virga in the air, so why would you try to land when it’s present near the ground?

3. Embedded convection – the cell hiding in plain cloud

This is the trap that isn’t your fault, and it still gets you. Instead of one obvious cell, you’re looking at a broad, unremarkable cloud layer with genuinely severe convection buried inside it – sometimes sitting in the narrow gap between two cells that individually look avoidable. A flat scan across a layer like this will miss exactly the part you need to see.

Singapore Airlines Flight 321 is the case every crew should know. On May 21, 2024, the Boeing 777-300ER was cruising at 37,000 feet over southwestern Myanmar when it flew through the gap between two clusters of deep convective cloud (tops at roughly 55,000 feet) entering the second cluster only around eight seconds after leaving the first. Investigators found the radar simply couldn’t see through cloud that dense, and separately couldn’t rule out an undetected radar display fault on top of it. The aircraft dropped and climbed violently within five seconds. One passenger died of a heart attack, and the aircraft diverted to Bangkok with more than fifty injured on board.

What I take from it: a radar picture that looks clear enough to route through isn’t the same thing as a picture that’s actually shown me what’s there, especially over places like the Bay of Bengal and Indochina, where towering convection builds fast most of the year. I treat any gap between cells as suspicious rather than inviting, and I make a point of actually understanding how my own radar processes the picture – the newer sets build a bank of scanned images rather than a single live sweep, so the old rules of thumb on tilt and gain don’t always translate directly. I always make it a habit to look at all the imaged in the radar’s memory – you may not get a paint at your level, but if there’s red below you or in the nearby vicinity, it’s going to be a bumpier ride than you’d expect.

4. Clear air turbulence and mountain wave – no cell, no warning, no excuse

CAT is the hazard with no manners. No cell, no radar return, often no PIREP until someone’s already been through it, and it can turn up nowhere near the jet stream boundary or mountain range you were trained to expect it at. Mountain wave is CAT’s close cousin, generated by strong flow over high terrain, and its effects can carry a surprising distance downwind and, in the right conditions, all the way up to the high flight levels. I’ve personally flown through moderate mountain wave turbulence at FL490 over the Rockies – higher doesn’t mean better. We stepped down to FL450 for more margin and thrust until we were clear of the area.

Continental Airlines Flight 1404 is the surface example worth knowing. On December 20, 2008, the 737 was accelerating for takeoff at KDEN/Denver when strong mountain-wave winds produced a sudden crosswind gust at ground level. The resulting crosswind gust hit roughly 40 knots – well beyond the aircraft’s limit and far beyond what the forecast had predicted. The aircraft departed the runway and caught fire. Remarkably, everyone on board survived, though several were injured.

There’s no radar fix for this one, so my approach to it is entirely procedural: I take mountain wave AIRMETs and SIGMETs seriously even well downwind of the terrain that generated them, brief for a possible late go-around at airports known for this kind of activity, and treat calm-looking conditions near high terrain with real caution. I also lean on ADS-B-based turbulence tools when I’ve got inflight connectivity – I’ve been running SkyPath for a few months now, alongside ForeFlight’s own forecast maps, and it’s paid for itself in smoother rides and better-informed seatbelt-sign calls.

5. Icing from supercooled large droplets – the ice your boots can’t reach

Ice doesn’t play by the rules your protection system was built for. Standard icing certification assumes droplets small enough that your leading-edge protection (boots, TKS, or bleed-air anti-ice) sheds them before they build up. Supercooled large droplets, typically freezing drizzle or freezing rain, are ten to a hundred times bigger. They don’t shed cleanly. They splash on impact and refreeze aft of the protected surfaces entirely, building ridges of ice on unprotected wing and tail sections your equipment was never designed to reach.

Roselawn remains the reference accident. American Eagle Flight 4184, an ATR-72, was holding in freezing drizzle aloft near Roselawn, Indiana on October 31, 1994, when ice built aft of the de-icing boots and formed a ridge that disrupted airflow over the aileron. The result was an uncommanded roll the crew couldn’t recover from. All 68 on board were killed, and the accident reshaped how regulators and manufacturers think about SLD icing certification to this day.

My own rule is simple: I’d rather run anti-ice a few minutes too early than a few seconds too late, because once SLD ice has built aft of a protected surface, cycling the boots or adding bleed flow doesn’t necessarily clear it – the ice is sitting somewhere the system was never built to reach. I switch it on below 10°C (50°F) with visible moisture around, and only relax once it’s reliably below -40°C (-40°F), when the risk of icing all but disappears – though that risk can climb again fast near thunderstorms. The automatic ice-detection probe on the nose is a good backstop, not a substitute for getting ahead of it.

Worth saying out loud

It’s worth remembering that none of these five traps are exotic. They’re all well understood, well documented, and are still catching professional crews on well-equipped aircraft, which is exactly why they’re worth briefing on purpose rather than assuming everyone already has them covered.

More reading:

• Air France A320, Ajaccio, August 2025 — BEA investigation, as reported by FlightGlobal, “A320 crew’s detection of violent convective cell too late for evasive action,” 12 August 2026
• Airbus Safety First — Optimum Use of Weather Radar
• Honeywell — Weather Radar Modes: Which Mode, When
• Honeywell — Understanding Weather Radar
• Honeywell — RDR-4000/RDR-7000 Radar Corner
• Honeywell RDR-4000 MultiScan — YouTube
• Honeywell RDR-4000 MultiScan — YouTube (Part 2
• FAA Lessons Learned — Delta 191 microburst accident, DFW

There are plenty of ways to get caught out by US Customs! Wrong passport in APIS, late change, wrong airport after arriving from the south, a BOE that doesn’t actually cover the flight – these are just a few.

A lot of the problems aren’t obvious either. Some come from rules that have changed recently, some from differences between airports, and some are just things crews regularly get caught by.

So here’s a closer look at 13 of the main gotchas we’ve heard about recently…

Gotcha 1: Trusting the software instead of CBP

A green tick in your APIS software doesn’t necessarily mean you’re good to go.

Check the actual CBP response. Make sure the aircraft, airports, times and people are right. And for a US arrival, make sure you have Permission to Land too. An APIS auto-response isn’t the same thing.

Many ports now use addresses in the format ICAO_GAP@cbp.dhs.gov, such as KTEB_GAP@cbp.dhs.gov, but not all have switched yet. Check the airport’s CBP Fact Sheet for the current address.

Gotcha 2: Leaving the US without departure clearance

APIS is needed when leaving the US too.

For private flights, file eAPIS and wait for the CBP response before you go. You can depart from virtually any US airport, even if it isn’t listed in eAPIS. In that case, use the nearest CBP airport in the filing and put the real departure point in the “Actual Departure Location” field.

For commercial flights, file APIS and contact the CBP port responsible for your departure to get clearance. You can also depart from an airport without CBP on site, but you have to arrange it with the responsible CBP port first.

Gotcha 3: Filing the wrong person or passport

This is an easy one with saved pax profiles. Wrong family member, old passport, or a dual-national passenger turns up with a different passport to the one in APIS.

Check the actual passports against the final manifest before you go. If something doesn’t match, fix the filing and get the new APIS approval.

Gotcha 4: Making a change and assuming APIS is still good

For private flights, changes to passengers, passports, traveller details or the aircraft normally mean amending the APIS. Once you amend it, the old approval is no longer valid. So wait for the new one.

But note: if you amend the APIS less than 60 mins before departure, you don’t have to wait another 60 mins before you can depart. You just need to wait for CBP to approve the amended APIS.

Changes to times or airports can sometimes be handled directly with CBP. But if the flight moves to another calendar date, you’ll need to file a new APIS.

And if the flight gets cancelled, just cancel the APIS and tell CBP!

Gotcha 5: Assuming Part 91 means private

Part 91 doesn’t automatically mean “private” to CBP.

An empty positioning flight is a good example. CBP says if either the arrival or departure leg of a journey is commercial, it treats both legs as commercial. So flying out empty to pick up charter passengers, or returning empty after dropping them off, can still count as commercial!

Gotcha 6: Assuming your BOE covers the flight

The basic rule if you’re arriving from the south is that CBP normally requires your first landing to be at the nearest southern airport of entry. A Border Overflight Exemption lets you bypass that rule and fly straight to an approved US airport with CBP. More info here.

The gotcha is that not every BOE covers every flight.

Check the operator named on it, the airports it covers and the expiry date. The operator in APIS must be the one the BOE was issued to.

Another couple of recent BOE changes:

• Since Jan 2026: CBP has separate BOEs for private-only operators and those approved for both private and commercial flights. If yours is private-only, you can’t use it for a charter flight.
• Since July 2025: CBP has shifted BOE applications and renewals into the eAPIS web portal, instead of you having to do it all by email. So just log in with your usual APIS credentials and hit the new “Border Overflight Exemption” link under the manifest options.

Gotcha 7: Assuming every CBP airport works the same way

Every pilot’s number one complaint when it comes to CBP! The frustrating reality is that every airport does things a little differently. Notice periods, opening hours, parking and after-hours arrangements can all vary.

So the best thing you can do is check the local setup before every trip. Check the airport’s current CBP Fact Sheet and whatever instructions you get with Permission to Land.

A couple of other useful ones:

• One we get asked a lot – can you open the aircraft door before CBP arrives? Yes. There’s no nationwide rule saying you have to stay onboard. But nobody should wander off beyond the immediate aircraft area or interact with anyone else until CBP gives permission.
• And the APU: If the exhaust is less than 8ft off the ground, it needs to be shut down during CBP processing. If it’s 8ft or higher, you can normally leave it running.

Both are covered in the CBP arrival FAQs.

Gotcha 8: Assuming ESTA is enough

An approved ESTA doesn’t mean someone can arrive in the US on any BizAv flight.

For someone entering the US under the Visa Waiver Program, the operator generally needs to be a VWP signatory carrier.

So check two things: the ESTA matches the passport they’re carrying, and the operator is on CBP’s VWP signatory carrier list. If not, they’ll normally need a US visa.

There are some exceptions for people returning from Canada, Mexico or nearby islands during an existing VWP admission. But that’s not the same as an initial entry.

Gotcha 9: Assuming your decal covers every flight

For private flights, the annual CBP arrival fee is normally paid through DTOPS. But that decal only covers private flights – it doesn’t cover commercial ops. Commercial flights have their own CBP and APHIS fees. The decal is also tied to one aircraft and can’t be transferred.

If you’ve paid but the decal hasn’t arrived, put receipt in the APIS decal field and carry proof of purchase. More info is in the CBP FAQs.

Gotcha 10: Assuming Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands are simple domestic legs

They’re US territories, but flights to and from them aren’t always treated like normal domestic flights!

Puerto Rico: nonstop flights between the mainland US and Puerto Rico are normally treated as domestic if you fly IFR above 12,500ft with no stop en route. VFR, lower-level or stopping flights can change that.

USVI: flying from the mainland US or Puerto Rico to the islands is generally treated as domestic. Coming back is different – you need to clear CBP in the USVI before departure.

There can also be extra rules for commercial cargo, food and agricultural items.

There’s a good rundown of all the different scenarios in this operational guide, and the USDA/APHIS guidance covers the agricultural side.

Gotcha 11: Not thinking about what’s on board

Some things need more advance planning than simply declaring them when you arrive.

Cash: more than USD 10,000 is legal, but it has to be reported. Use FinCEN Form 105 or the electronic CMIR.

Valuables: CBP Form 4457 can be used to record things like jewellery and cameras before leaving the US.

Firearms: the same Form 4457 can help show that an eligible firearm left the US. It isn’t an export licence or foreign import permit.

Food, plants, pets and aircraft garbage can all have separate requirements. International aircraft garbage is covered by the APHIS rules.

Worth checking before you go, especially if the arrival airport might not be able to handle it!

Gotcha 12: Diverting and forgetting about CBP

If you divert to a different US airport: your original Permission to Land doesn’t automatically cover the new one. Contact CBP at the diversion airport as soon as you can.

If you weren’t originally heading to the US but need to divert there: send APIS before arrival if time allows. For an emergency, the standard thing applies – deal with the emergency first, then contact CBP as soon as you can.

More details are in the CBP emergency arrival rules.

Gotcha 13: Getting a penalty notice, or having a bad run-in with CBP

CST Flight Services published some good advice on this recently. Most CBP arrivals go without a problem, but occasionally you might disagree with how something has been handled, or feel that a penalty shouldn’t apply.

If that happens, ask to speak to a supervisor straight away. If a penalty is being discussed, getting a supervisor involved early may help sort it out before one is issued.

Keep a record of what happened – names, times, phone calls, APIS responses, Permission to Land and anything else useful.

If it can’t be resolved locally, you can file a formal complaint with CBP.

The standard stuff

If you’re completely new to US ops, here’s the basic process.

APIS: you need it when flying both to and from the US. File the aircraft, crew and everyone onboard, and make sure the deets match their travel docs.

Before flying to the US: contact CBP at the airport you’re flying to and get Permission to Land before you leave. Filing APIS alone isn’t enough.

Before leaving the US: APIS is required again, and you need CBP clearance before you go. (Gotcha 2 above explains how this works for private and commercial flights.)

Before every trip: check the airport’s current CBP Fact Sheet. That’s where you’ll find the local notice period, opening hours, contact details, parking and any special procedures.

That’s the basic setup. The gotchas above are the bits most likely to complicate it!

If you’ve come across any other CBP gotchas we haven’t covered here, let us know! You can email us at news@ops.group, or if you want to make it infinitely more fun, use our patented Report-A-Thing tool.

Key Points

• Three-Runway System has been fully operational since Nov 2024, improving slot and parking availability.
• HKBAC (the big BizAv terminal) has completed a major expansion, nearly doubling handling capacity.
• APIS is now fully enforced. Submit it at least an hour before departure to avoid fines.
• Expect RNP procedures, mountainous terrain and frequent wind shear.
• Macau is a solid alternative if Hong Kong doesn’t work out.

Hong Kong is one of Asia’s busiest BizAv destinations, and quite a bit has changed over the past couple of years. This is the 2026 Hong Kong survival guide: everything you need to know before your next trip.

Getting in and out of Hong Kong

Hong Kong sits hard against high terrain, and that shapes almost everything about flying in and out. Minimum safe altitudes run up to 4,300 feet close to the field, so every arrival and departure is built around RNP procedures flown precisely on the FMS and autopilot, with speed restrictions to manage the turn radius. Wind shear is the main hazard to plan for, especially on the southern runway (07R/25L) in winds of 15 knots or more, with the surrounding hills amplifying it.

Since the Three-Runway System came online, the airport has generally used the northern runway for arrivals, the southern runway for departures (plus some cargo and BizAv arrivals), and the centre runway for departures. Expect this to change over time as they continue to refine the whole Three-Runway System – check the latest AIP SUPs before you fly.

Hong Kong loves paperwork. Before any flight you need:

• A landing permit through the Civil Aviation Department.
• A confirmed parking slot through the Airport Authority’s BAPS (Business Aviation Parking Management System).
• A confirmed handling setup through HKBAC, the airport’s only BizAv FBO.
• A confirmed slot through the Hong Kong Schedule Coordination Office, booked via the third-party OCS system, which needs an account set up in advance.
• APIS filed correctly before departure.

Get a local trip support company involved. Hong Kong isn’t an airport worth trying to navigate alone. ASA Group has a local presence and years of experience getting this right.

Hong Kong Business Aviation Centre: the renovation and what it means for you and your passengers

HKBAC has been Hong Kong’s only FBO for private jet support for years, and it was starting to show. The facility historically handled close to 7,000 flights a year with around 100 based aircraft at peak, numbers that collapsed during the pandemic and have since come roaring back. The renovation was the response, and the refurbished facility is now fully open.

The physical footprint is up roughly fivefold, the parking apron has grown too, and the first thing you’ll notice is a new 26-metre all-weather sky canopy connecting the terminal to the apron, the first of its kind in Asia. Customs, immigration, and quarantine facilities have been upgraded, and there are new private VVIP suites. Handling capacity is now nearly double what it used to be, which means parking and handling slots are genuinely easier to get.

That doesn’t guarantee you a spot on the HKBAC ramp itself, though. There are remote bays around Taxiway N in the mid-field area, and if you land there, expect a van to ferry your passengers over, about a ten to fifteen-minute journey, depending on the airside traffic. There’s also long-term parking near the MRO hangars. One thing worth knowing: HKBAC often tows aircraft during longer parking stints, and that requires a brake rider, either a crew member or someone from an MRO. TAG Aviation, Metrojet, Hong Kong Jet, and Jet Aviation Hong Kong can all help with that.

The expansion tracks directly back to the third runway’s commissioning, which freed up constraints that had limited BizAv growth at Hong Kong for years. If you haven’t flown into HKBAC in the last year or so, expect a noticeably different building than the one you remember.

APIS: where enforcement has landed

The short version, if you missed our original piece from April 2025: APIS became mandatory for all crew and passengers, including transit, on every flight into Hong Kong, private and commercial alike.

The basics haven’t changed. Passenger data is due 40 minutes before departure, crew data 60 minutes, best bet is to submit both at least an hour out and not bother explaining the 40-minute rule to your passengers. Crew must be submitted twice per inbound flight, once before departure and again as a close-out message afterward, even with no crew changes. A “No Board” response bars that traveller or crew member outright – contesting it means calling the Command Centre directly on +852 2121 0008, or apisoperation@immd.gov.hk. The operator must submit directly or through a trip support provider, HKBAC itself can’t do it for you.

What’s changed is that the grace period is over. Enforcement went live on schedule on 1 September 2025, and penalties for non-submission, inaccurate data, or misleading information now run up to HKD 100,000 (roughly USD 13,000) per violation. That’s noticeably lighter than the EU’s equivalent regime (EUR 3,000 to 5,000 per violation), with license-withdrawal risk for repeat offenders, but it’s real money now, not a soft rollout.

Filing works two ways: register directly through the Immigration Department’s portal, or the easier route for most operators – let your trip support company file on your behalf. APIS isn’t new to BizAv generally, but it is new to Hong Kong within the last two years, so if you haven’t flown there in a while, or even if you’re a regular, it’s worth confirming you’re still doing it right.

The third runway: what it really changes

The physical runway, 07L/25R, opened back in July 2022. What matters for planning purposes is the full Three-Runway System, commissioned in Nov 2024 alongside the wider Terminal 2 and apron expansion, with a stated long-term design target of 120 million passengers and 10 million tonnes of cargo a year.

For BizAv, the direct effect is airside and terminal capacity. The indirect effect, and the one that matters to us, is that slot and parking pressure has eased as ATC works up to full mixed-mode use across all three runways. It’s a gradual change: slots are easier to get, but don’t confuse easier with easy. Keep booking early.

Nearby alternates, and why they’re not a quick fix

Hong Kong has plenty of nearby alternates, but most aren’t practical at short notice. Since 1 March 2025, aircraft docs for flights into mainland China must be approved before you can apply for a landing permit. Allow 7-10 days overall, or longer around Chinese public holidays.

A local trip support company earns its fee here. Get them involved early, as they can often speed up the process.

Foreign-reg aircraft face extra scrutiny getting recognised by mainland authorities, so get docs in well ahead of any Greater Bay Area trip. And if the mainland leg is part of a longer trip, sequencing matters: get one leg’s authorisation out of order and it can invalidate permits already issued for the next. That includes ad-hoc fuel stops, China permits are airport to airport specific.

And remember, if you divert into China, without any permits or customs approval, the chance of disembarking the passengers is slim. So, you can expect to remain on the ground until you can depart back to Hong Kong once the weather improves. This means that a Mainland alternate is not ideal. My pick is VMMC/Macao, or if the weather in the Greater Bay Area is bad, I use an airport in Taiwan.

Macau sits outside the mainland CAAC process entirely, which is exactly why it gets its own section.

Using Macau instead of Hong Kong

When the constraint is Hong Kong slots, HKBAC capacity, or simply cost, landing at VMMC/Macau and transferring passengers into Hong Kong is a real option, not just a workaround, if the timing works.

Macao has its own private jet handling through local FBOs; TAG Aviation Macau runs a dedicated facility there, and it’s my go-to whenever I’m there. From the airport it’s about a 40 to 45-minute van ride to Hong Kong Airport, or roughly 90 minutes into downtown Hong Kong by road. A ferry into downtown takes about 55 minutes, and if the client wants it faster, Sky Shuttle’s helicopter does it in about 15.

Macau also runs at roughly half the cost of Hong Kong for BizAv, fuel, handling, permits, all of it is cheaper. The trade-off is time, so it suits some trips better than others. As far as close-by alternates go, though, it’s the clear winner.

I fly to Hong Kong, here’s what I do…

Hong Kong is my local, but that doesn’t mean it can’t still catch out even seasoned operators. It’s a busy commercial hub, but Hong Kong manages BizAv traffic well. Still, there’s plenty worth being mindful of. Here are a few notes that might make your trip smoother…

Handling

Everything centres on HKBAC. The team is helpful, and there’s always a group ready to meet you for arrival and departure. It’s an expensive place to fly into, but then Hong Kong is expensive generally.

They use a belt loader for all baggage uplift and stage it around an hour before departure, so flag it early if you need it sooner.

HKBAC tags all crew and passenger luggage and handles security and customs checks too. If your crew needs aircraft access before the departure date itself, for pre-flight checks or to help with a tow that apron control has requested, apply for the ramp pass in the morning, it’s only available for collection in the afternoon, and you will need to arrange a security escort through HKBAC as well.

Arrival

The airport sits surrounded by large mountains, so expect real mechanical turbulence and wind shear. Hong Kong has a Windshear Detection Radar, and the advisories come in two flavours, ‘Expect Significant Windshear’ which is a radar generated warning and ‘Significant Windshear Reported’ which comes from pilot reports. Report it to ATC if you hit it.

All arrivals are RNAV. You may get vectored to the final approach fix, and ATC generally keeps your profile from getting too high. On the Runway 25s, don’t descend below 4,300 feet until established on the approach, read the charts carefully. ATC will often ask your final approach speed, and per the HK AIP, you must tell them if your Vapp is under 125 knots.

Take the RNAV 25R over the ILS if you have the choice. The ILS runs a complicated two-part RNAV transition, high workload, and you must not select approach mode (LOC/GS) before TOPAN. Stick to the RNAV Z unless cloud base genuinely forces the ILS, which is rare.

Even with calm winds on the ground, expect the approach itself to be bumpy. ATC assigns runways based on departure traffic; they know BizAv wants 07R/25L and will give it to you if they can, so there’s no need to ask. Land on 07L/25R instead and expect a longer taxi with several frequency changes, it’s a busy routing: cross 07R/25L at K6, then a right turn onto K and into the BAC.

Keep your exit off the runway prompt. Large-cabin bizjets land at similar speeds to medium airliners but slow down faster on the ground, and the high-speed exit can be a fair way down, so help ATC by minimising your runway occupancy time.

Call HKBAC on arrival on 131.1, “BAC Operations,” and they’ll tell you whether to expect the ramp itself or a remote bay. Once the doors open, they’ll offload passengers and cargo, customs screens everything, so know what’s banned, vapes and Zyns especially, they often reposition you to a staging bay quickly while you clean up. First thing once passengers are off: put the pins in. HKBAC won’t tow you without them.

For a short layover, the Sheraton at Tung Chung is a good call; otherwise, it’s about a 45-minute Uber into town.

Departure

The ramp is small, so expect a remote staging area while you prep the aircraft. Running the APU is fine, and around ETD minus 30 they’ll tug you into departure position, give them a heads-up if your passengers are running late. Departures increasingly happen from a remote bay too.

PDC and Digital ATIS are both available. Remember you need a start clearance – this isn’t the US.

Departures run off 07R/25L and 07C/25C depending on your routing and SID. On a ULR flight where fuel matters, you can request the closer runway (07R/25L) from ATC, but only for genuine performance reasons. It’s a short taxi, just don’t hold up cargo traffic taxiing from the same side if your cabin prep runs slow.

ATC is friendly and competent and expects the same efficiency back.

Departure clearance runs to 5,000 feet on your SID. Mind the noise abatement procedures – they expect you to accelerate to SID speed restrictions as soon as practicable, it’s all on the charts, and remember you’re operating in a sea of heavies. Hong Kong Departures only wants your first call to report altitude passing and non-climb, no need to report the SID itself. Expect to level at 9,000 feet until 20 to 30nm out, arrival traffic sits above you. And you can never deviate off SID track below 4,300 feet for weather, terrain doesn’t allow it, so factor that into any weather deviation around HKG.

Weather and other gotchas

Hong Kong is windy and turbulent, a byproduct of where it’s built – brief your passengers well before going in. Winter is the better flying season; summer brings typhoons and squally, fast-moving but intense thunderstorms, give them a wide berth. Local operators relocate aircraft out of Hong Kong ahead of typhoons, worth following their lead. When the wind is strong, 07L/25R is the pick, it’s the least affected by wind shear, but always check the ATIS or ATC for current warnings.

One more thing worth knowing: Hong Kong Airport runs its own lightning alerting system, called ATLAS, on top of the general weather radar picture. An Amber warning, amber flashing lights all around the airport apron, means cloud-to-ground lightning predicted within 5km of the airport, and suspends non-essential apron activity. A Red warning, the same amber flashing lights plus a siren, means lightning within 1km of the airport island, and stops baggage handling and shuttle buses outright, even marshalling must stop, with ground staff taking shelter until it clears. If you’re at HKBAC when a red warning comes in, expect your ground handling to pause completely, so build some buffer into your schedule through the summer months. Passengers are only embarked or disembarked once the warning drops back to Amber.

The bigger picture

Hong Kong is a great airport for BizAv operators, but there’s just a bit more planning involved than at most destinations. The good news is that the third runway and HKBAC expansion have made Hong Kong easier to operate into than it was a few years ago. And if Hong Kong doesn’t work out because of slots, parking, cost or anything else, Macau is a solid alternative!

The FAA want us off the radio. And with good reason. More than half of IFR clearance requests are still done the old fashioned way, via VHF.

Familiar with this routine? You key the mic for your IFR clearance and get nothing back. Three other aircraft, a taxi request and a full route read back to somewhere random in North Dakota are all fighting for the same slice of frequency. When it finally comes through, it’s is delivered fast and flat. Altitude, route, departure frequency, squawk all in one breath as you fumble to write it down. Halfway through the read back the squawk code evaporates from your memory. You ask for a repeat and still manage to botch a digit anyway. Now it’s just getting embarrassing.

Multiply that by tens of thousands of clearances and its easy to see why a system that simply displays the clearance rather than relying on a game of verbal ping-pong sounds appealing.

So put down your paddles 🏓

That’s exactly what the FAA has set out to achieve with its Mobile Clearance tool and the idea is simple: instead of the radio, you request your clearance right from an app on your phone or tablet, and it comes back to you as text.

How does it work?

At a participating airport, you file your IFR flight plan through a supported app – right now that’s Foreflight or Garmin Pilot – and then you request your clearance from inside the app itself.

ATC sends it back as text for you to check over before you accept it. The FAA says the goal is fewer-read back errors, and less time on routine clearance delivery which frees up controllers to focus on more safety-critical tasks like separation.

If that sounds a bit like the datalink clearances airlines have used for years, that’s because it’s built on the same logic – just scaled down for GA and BizAv aircraft who haven’t had access to it before.

ForeFlight

Jeppesen ForeFlight announced its side of Mobile Clearance at Oshkosh on July 23, calling it a joint build with the FAA.

It’s built into ForeFlight Mobile and can even handle amended and revised clearances too. So if ATC change their mind about something after the fact, you’ll get a notification in the app to accept or reject it.

ForeFlight also confirmed a feature to cancel your IFR is coming – especially handy at non-towered airports.

Right now it’s live at a growing number of Texas airports with more states planned.

Garmin

Garmin Pilot is the other launch partner, and it works a little differently.

Once you’ve filed an IFR flight plan from a participating airport, Garmin Pilot Premium subscribers can open a Mobile Clearance Delivery session from the ‘Flights’ page, starting about 30 mins before you plan to go wheels-up.

The clearance is stored in the app for up to 48 hrs incase you need to check it again.

Status of the roll out.

Mobile Clearance isn’t nationwide yet, but will be soon.

The FAA has been quietly beavering away on this since 2016. Simulations took place in 2024, and then real-world testing began in May this year at several Houston-area airports.

This was expanded over the summer to include KATW/Appleton and KIXD/New Century.

The rollout will now continue to the Kansas City, Nashville and Austin areas this fall.

The evaluation period will officially end this coming February, before deployment to airports across the US.

What about right now?

If you’re flying through Houston, Appleton or New Century this season, don’t be surprised if this comes up up. But treat it as a bonus, not a replacement for your normal procedures. The tool is still being evaluated, so if your clearance isn’t available, or the app isn’t working for some reason, still be ready to hop on the radio and get your clearance the old-fashioned way.

We’ll keep tracking the roll-out as more airports come online. If you fly though one of the test locations and give it a try, we’d love to hear how it went. You can reach us via blog@ops.group.

If you’re planning a trip to Italy in a foreign-reg aircraft, be prepared for increased checks on the ground!

We’re hearing reports of increased inspections by the Guardia di Finanza (Italian Financial Police), with some aircraft reportedly detained while paperwork is checked.

According to AOPA Italy, the checks are aimed at three main things:

• Is the aircraft genuinely foreign owned, or is it being used by an Italian owner to avoid Italian taxes?
• Does the aircraft have the correct EU customs and VAT status, or is it legally operating under Temporary Admission?
• If the aircraft is company owned, is it genuinely being used for private flights rather than illegal commercial charter?

Aircraft on foreign reg (particularly N, T7 and HB reg aircraft) appear to be attracting the most attention. AOPA Italy says the inspections have been most common in northeastern Italy, where some operators have also reported being asked to notify flights several days before arrival.

The inspections are linked to Italy’s luxury tax rules that started back in 2011. AOPA says some operators have received substantial tax demands, and in some cases aircraft have reportedly been prevented from departing while the issues were investigated. AOPA also says it’s pushing back, with several legal cases now underway and a complaint lodged with the European Commission.

But in the meantime, if you’re flying to Italy in a foreign-reg aircraft (especially one owned by a company or with a more complex ownership structure!) make sure you have the paperwork showing the aircraft’s ownership, customs and VAT status, and that the flight is private rather than commercial!

Have you experienced one of these checks? We’d love to hear what happened. Email us at team@ops.group (we will keep it anonymous!)

Key Points

• France has introduced new API/PNR reporting requirements for commercial BizAv.
• Strict enforcement starts on 1 Oct 2026, so make sure you’re ready by then. Getting it wrong could result in a fine!
• The rules apply to commercial pax flights to/from French territory. For Private flights you still just do GenDec as before.
• You’ll need to send pax data twice: once 48hrs before departure, and again at the time of departure, using the final and accurate pax manifest.
• API/PNR does not replace customs or immigration requirements.

So, what changed?

France now requires commercial BizAv flights to send API + PNR data electronically to the National Travel Data Agency (ANDV), replacing the passenger-reporting part of the GenDec process.

API covers identity and travel-docs details, while PNR covers booking and journey information.

Under Article L232-7, this applies to flights arriving in or departing from French territory, except those operated entirely within mainland France.

Strict enforcement starts on 1 Oct 2026. Article L232-5 allows fines of up to EUR 50,000 per journey for data that is missing, incorrectly formatted, incomplete or clearly false.

Who is actually in scope?

It applies to commercial passenger flights regardless of aircraft reg, size or who owns the aircraft etc.

It also applies to commercial flights within the Schengen Area. Flights from LSGG/Geneva, EBBR/Brussels or LEMD/Madrid for example, are in scope. Only flights operated entirely within mainland France are excluded.

For now, only passenger data is required. Crew data is not currently requested.

How much of France are we talking about?

For API/PNR purposes, France means more than mainland France. You also need to consider the French overseas territories:

• One French overseas territory to another: API/PNR required.
• Mainland France to/from a French overseas territory: API/PNR required.
• Mainland France to mainland France: API/PNR not required.

The French overseas territories covered are: Guadeloupe, French Guiana, Martinique, Reunion, Mayotte, Saint-Barthelemy, Saint-Martin, Saint-Pierre and Miquelon, French Polynesia, Wallis and Futuna, and New Caledonia.

Which flights are exempt?

• Private flights (filed with G, rather than N, in Item 8 of the FPL), but you may still need to submit a GenDec where required.
• Crew-only flights, including positioning and ferry flights.
• Cargo, maintenance, military and medical evacuation flights.

These flights are exempt from API/PNR reporting only. Any other customs, immigration or local notification requirements still apply.

When must the data be sent?

You normally need to send the data twice:

• H-48: Send the passenger details available 48hrs before departure.
• H0: At departure, send the final and accurate passenger manifest.

H-48 is a reporting point, not a cut-off. Passengers can still be added, removed or changed afterwards, and you do not need to send a new transmission after every update. Just make sure the H0 submission contains the final and accurate passenger manifest.

Last-minute flights are still OK. If a flight is first scheduled after the H-48 reporting point, current guidance is that only the H0 transmission is required.

Put simply: H-48 tells France what you know at that point, H0 tells them who actually departed.

API/PNR does not replace customs clearance

Sending passenger data and clearing customs or immigration are two separate jobs. You must still use an authorised airport of entry.

If your final destination cannot handle the required border formalities, your first landing must be at an authorised AOE. Once cleared, you can continue to your destination as a domestic flight.

One more thing: EES is separate

If you are flying commercially into France from outside the Schengen Area, you may also have obligations under the EU Entry/Exit System (EES). This is separate from France’s API/PNR programme.

EES replaces manual passport stamps with electronic entry/exit records for covered third-country nationals. Since 10 April 2026, you must use the eu-LISA Carrier Interface to check whether passengers travelling on a short-stay single- or double-entry visa have already used their permitted entries.

What should you do now?

With strict enforcement approaching, now is the time to set up and test your reporting process. You have two options:

• Manage the reporting yourself: Contact ANDV for registration details and the reporting procedures that apply to your operation.
• Automate the reporting: A specialist provider such as Streamlane can retrieve passenger and flight data from your flight-management system, validate it and submit it to the authorities at the required times. This removes manual submissions and helps ensure the data is sent accurately and on time.

Contact Streamlane or email contact@streamlane.eu.

A big thank you to Streamlane for helping us put this article together and work through the practical implications for BizAv operators. Among other things, Streamlane manages passenger and crew compliance in more than 80 countries, covering API, PNR, GenDec and iAPI reporting, as well as compliance checks for EU EES/ETIAS, UK ETA/eVisa and US TSA Secure Flight.

Key Points

• BOBCAT allocates slots for westbound flights entering Afghanistan’s OAKX/Kabul FIR between 2000-2359 UTC each night.
• It’s run by the Bangkok ATFMU and resumed in September 2025 after a four-year suspension.
• BOBCAT manages traffic flow only. Kabul FIR remains uncontrolled Class G airspace, with crews self-separating using TIBA procedures.
• Slots are only required for westbound flights below FL410 entering Kabul FIR between 2000 and 2359 UTC. Requests are submitted via bobcat.aero before the daily 1200 UTC cutoff.
• BOBCAT is only one part of the picture. Operators still need Afghan overflight permission, appropriate insurance, and a thorough risk assessment before planning to use Kabul FIR.

Say “BOBCAT” to most people and they’ll picture the feral cat known across North America. 😼

In aviation, it’s something else entirely: the air traffic flow system keeping aircraft properly spaced through Afghanistan’s uncontrolled airspace, and a vital link for traffic running between Southeast Asia and Europe.

OAKX/Kabul FIR has had no air traffic control service since August 2021. That hasn’t stopped traffic through it – if anything, the opposite. The air routes themselves are bidirectional and open 24/7, but airlines and some BizAv operators still route westbound flights across Afghanistan every night, self-separating on published contingency routes using TIBA procedures, because the alternative is a long and expensive diversion around it.

And with more Europe-Asia traffic being pushed north and east this year to avoid other closed corridors or unstable airspace in the Middle East, those routes through Kabul FIR have gotten busier, not quieter.

That’s where BOBCAT comes in. It doesn’t restore air traffic control to Afghan airspace (nothing does that right now), but it does sequence aircraft before they enter the FIR, so traffic is already spaced before crews take over their own separation using TIBA procedures.

Where BOBCAT came from

BOBCAT stands for the Bay of Bengal Cooperative Air Traffic Flow Management System. Before taking on its current role sequencing traffic into Kabul FIR, it began life as a regional flow management system for Southeast Asia. Most Europe-bound flights leave the region in a late-evening wave, creating a nightly surge of westbound traffic that BOBCAT was designed to organise.

Why it’s back on the radar

BOBCAT’s Kabul procedures were suspended in Aug 2021 when Afghanistan’s en-route ATC service ended. They returned in Sept 2025 as more Europe-Asia traffic shifted back across Afghanistan, driven by restrictions and instability on other Middle East routes.

Flow management, not air traffic control

BOBCAT allocates a slot and CTOT so aircraft enter Kabul FIR with the required spacing. Once inside the FIR though, nothing changes: there is still no radar or procedural ATC, and crews self-separate using TIBA procedures under the Contingency Plan on the Afghan CAA homepage.

BOBCAT also has nothing to do with the separate question of whether you should overfly Afghanistan at all. That’s covered in our March 2026 article on the considerations to weigh before planning to use OAKX/Kabul FIR.

A quick recap of what most BizAv operators need for a flight through OAKX/Kabul FIR:

• Prior permission from Afghan authorities, which includes paying the overflight fee ($700 USD) via an agent in India.
• Insurance considerations: some hull insurance policies require notification that you intend to operate through the FIR. This is usually no problem, but worth checking before you go.
• Awareness of the general risk picture, which can include periodic border friction with Pakistan, plus the fact that there’s no suitable airport within the FIR for an immediate diversion.
• A BOBCAT slot is only required if you’re transiting the FIR westbound toward Europe between 2000 and 2359Z, at a flight level below FL410.

How it works: waypoints, levels, and spacing

BOBCAT manages five waypoints where traffic enters the Kabul FIR, each tied to a specific airway. At each one, aircraft on the same flight level need 15 minutes of longitudinal spacing as per the Kabul FIR Contingency Plan. That’s the number BOBCAT is solving for when it assigns slots.

Aircraft must be RVSM approved, and the allocated level must be reached before entering Kabul FIR – level changes aren’t permitted once inside. BOBCAT calculates a CTOT from your departure time, taxi time and estimated flight time to the FIR boundary. Good estimates matter: a bad EET produces a bad slot!

How the daily slot cycle works

• 0000 to 1159 UTC: you can log slot requests at bobcat.aero, specifying preferred route, flight level, and Maximum Acceptable Delay (MAD). Requests can be amended right up to the cutoff.
• 1200 UTC: cutoff. Submit multiple route/level/MAD options if your first choice might not clear. It measurably improves your odds of getting a workable slot.
• Shortly after 1200 UTC: BOBCAT processes all requests and generates allocations.
• By 1230 UTC: results post to the BOBCAT website’s Slot Allocation page (email or AFTN as a backup if the website isn’t practical).
• After distribution: flights that didn’t get their requested slot, or never submitted one, pick from remaining unallocated slots. Miss out entirely and expect to be tactically squeezed into the flow later, which very likely means an en-route delay, often holding.

If it becomes clear a calculated take-off time won’t be met, don’t just wait. Ask your handler or ops to get a new slot as quickly as possible, either through the system or by phone to the Bangkok ATFMU.

The same goes in reverse: if a flight diverts, returns, or is cancelled after a slot’s been issued, tell the ATFMU so that slot frees up for someone else.

And if a flight departs before the 1200 UTC cutoff but still enters Afghan airspace inside the 2000 to 2359 UTC window, the dispatcher still needs to submit a request, based on actual, not planned, departure and entry times.

Exemptions

A handful of flight categories are exempt from BOBCAT:

• declared emergencies
• search and rescue or firefighting
• urgent medevacs
• Head of State flights
• any others designated by a State CAA

If you’re exempt, include “STS/ATFMX” in Field 18 of the flight plan.

The numbers so far

Since restarting in Sep 2025, here are some BOBCAT stats:

• Handled 4,851 flights over 108 nights
• Average delays of 2.2 minutes per flight
• Estimated fuel saving: 1,060 tonnes
• Estimated CO₂ reduction: 3,350 tonnes
• 93% of flights crossed the FIR at or above their allocated level

Not bad!

I’ve flown it so you don’t have to!

There’s a hefty dose of “at your own risk” in all of this, and the choice to overfly is not an easy one. I’ve flown this route dozens of times since it reopened in 2023, most recently a few months ago, and I treat it with the same caution I’d give any ETOPS-style flight: the airports within the FIR are unsuitable for diversion, so I plan around ETPs in case of an inflight emergency.

I’m risk averse – but I still find this route a better option than the western routes over the Middle East. The FIR has been stable since reopening, with no last-minute closures so far.

The permit was easy. An email to flightpermissions.acaa@gmail.com (cc flightpermission.atm@mota.gov.af), with the application form, insurance, airworthiness certificate, and registration attached, got a reply within 24 hours confirming the flat $700 USD fee. They ask for 48 hours’ notice; we gave a week.

Insurance checked out too: like most policies, ours excludes certain countries but covers ATC-approved airways, with cover intact if an emergency forces a diversion. L750 was fine.

Entering the FIR is straightforward: you get handed over to 125.2 and commence TIBA ops. Make sure your lights are on. We kept TIBA on Comm 2 (125.2), the previous sector’s ATC held on Comm 1 for another fifteen minutes or so, and 121.5 stayed monitored on Comm 3, broadcasting at each fix roughly every five minutes.

It’s busier than it used to be. Plenty of airlines now use it both day and night for Asia to Europe routes. No spoofing, no jamming, no ATC surprises, and connectivity held up too: Starlink worked perfectly

Getting set up

Infrequent users can submit slot requests using BOBCAT’s standard email form. Operators who use Kabul FIR regularly should contact the Bangkok ATFMU for direct system access.

Bangkok ATFMU – Tel +66 2 287 8024 · Mobile (contingency) +66 8 1829 5256 · AFTN VTBBZDZX · Email atfmu@bobcat.aero · web bobcat.aero

The bigger picture: BOBCAT solves one problem pretty well by sequencing aircraft into Afghanistan’s uncontrolled airspace so they aren’t all arriving at the same place at the same time. Whether you choose to route through Kabul FIR in the first place is a separate decision. For more on that, check safeairspace.net.

Last week an OPSGROUP member messaged us with this head-scratcher. And it’s not the first time this exact scenario has tripped up crews abroad.

On approach to EDDM/Munich, a crew was assigned the BETOS 26 transition and cleared direct to the waypoint ‘DM453.’

Here’s the chart:

Here’s the problem: When the crew loaded the procedure, the FMS strung it as BETOS-DM452-DM459, and most of the other ‘delta mike’ points scattered across the plan view never showed up. The only way to get there was to type it in manually.

This raised two interesting questions:

1. Is this a charting problem?

Look at the BETOS 26 plate above and you’ll see a pile of waypoints in the plan view that don’t appear in the routing strip. It looks like something’s missing – but it isn’t.

Our member checked with Jeppesen, who confirmed this is deliberate. It turns out the German AIP rules only require ‘essential’ waypoints (such as turning points, or ones carrying speed and altitude restrictions) in the published route description that Jeppesen builds its routing strip from.

Everything else, DM453 included, exists purely so ATC can shortcut you to final when traffic’s light. Those points are still charted – but only in the plan view.

2. Can you legally insert a waypoint that isn’t in the loaded procedure?

This is the more interesting question and it’s where things get a little more technical.

In the US, the FAA doesn’t want you hand-building STARs. AC 90-100A says manual entry of the published procedure waypoints (by lat/long or place-bearing) isn’t allowed. AIM 5-4-1c backs this up, STARs must be retrievable by name from the database. AIM 1-1-17 says the same for approach procedures.

The logic behind this is that once ATC clears you for a published procedure, the safety case behind it (traffic sep and terrain clearance) depends on you flying exactly what’s coded, not a hand-edited version of it.

Europe is similar. Under EASA’s AMC 3 to CAT.OP.MPA.126 (just felt dizzy), crew flying an RNAV or RNP-based procedure (RNAV 1/2, RNP 1/2, RNP APCH etc) shouldn’t insert or modify waypoints by manual entry once the procedures been pulled from the database.

So how is manually grabbing DM453 not a violation? Simply put, because the BETOS 26 transition isn’t a PBN procedure at all.

RNAV transition vs PBN Procedure

This is where real confusion lies. Not every RNAV-looking route on a chart is a PBN procedure which have the stricter ‘don’t mess with it’ rule attached.

When ATC clear you on a published STAR or approach with a navigation specification specified, you’re flying a PBN procedure which should be flown exactly as coded.

The BETOS 26 doesn’t carry one of those specs. Take another look, you won’t find one on the chart.

Instead it is essentially a sequence of charted radar vectors: most importantly, in the shape of a trombone – our words, not theirs…

ATC continues to provide radar separation and monitors terrain clearance throughout the transition.

Selecting an individual waypoint within the transition (such as DM453) is effectively equivalent to accepting another vector. It doesn’t constitute modifying a published PBN procedure!

So how can I tell if I am flying a PBN procedure?

The easiest way is to check the chart carefully.

If it includes a required navigation specification (such as RNAV 1, RNP 1 etc) it is a PBN procedure, and the associated operating rules apply.

If it is published as an RNAV transition (with no PBN specification), it is typically a radar-vectoring tool rather than a PBN procedure. You only need a GPS or an FMS capable of following the transition.

While both use RNAV tech, only PBN procedures carry the burden of restrictions associated with published navigation requirements.

So in the case of the BETOS 26 transition in Munich, no issues hitting the ol’ direct-to. You’ll get to the beer hall quicker that way.

Side note – consider Hofbräuhaus München, Augustiner-Keller or Brauhaus am Kapuzinerplatz if you’re planning a layover 🍺

Have something to add?

We’re just pilots, dispatchers, controllers and professionals like you. We’d love to hear from you. You can reach the team around the clock via blog@ops.group.

Member Update: January-July 2026

Recent reports show that South Africa’s permit process remains unpredictable. In January, a private flight to FACT/Cape Town had its landing permit denied just 1 hour before departure, despite applying more than a month in advance. In May, another operator reported trouble-free flights to FAOR/Johannesburg and FAEL/East London after using World Fuel Services for trip support, showing that the process can work when everything is arranged early.

One charter operator reported that permits worked smoothly for flights with up to 8 passengers, provided each entry and exit was submitted as a separate application. A multi-sector itinerary with two entries and exits was repeatedly rejected when submitted as one application, but was approved once split into two. The operator has not been able to obtain a Foreign Operator Permit for flights with more than 8 passengers.

However, in June, a private flight from Mozambique to Botswana was denied permission to cross South African airspace on the day of departure. The operator said the overflight permit requirement appeared inconsistent with the published AIP and had to reroute via Zimbabwe.

The picture remains mixed. Good local support helps, but approval is never guaranteed. Apply early, check everything carefully and have a backup plan.

Original Story: July 2025

We’ve had multiple updates over recent months about the ongoing chaos around landing permits and FOPs Foreign Operator Permits for South Africa. While there were signs of improvement earlier in the year, member reports and on-the-ground feedback continue to show that the process remains inconsistent, unpredictable and often painful.

What’s the issue?

Let’s quickly recap the two main permits you might need when flying into South Africa:

Landing Permit: Issued by the Department of Transport (DOT). This is required for all foreign-registered aircraft, even private ones. It usually takes 3 working days to process.

Foreign Operator Permit (FOP): Issued by the South African CAA. This is meant for commercial operations, typically with more than 8 passengers or cargo over 1000 kg. It takes much longer to obtain (up to a month), and the paperwork can be extensive.

The issue: Even for flights where an FOP shouldn’t be required under the official rules – for example, a private flight with fewer than 8 passengers – sometimes operators are still being asked to submit one. Sometimes this comes from local agents who’ve handled the same flights for years. 

This mismatch is at the heart of the problem. The South African AIP says one thing (like “no permit needed for private flights”), the law technically says another, and what’s being demanded in practice by officials is sometimes something else entirely.

One operator told us they submitted a full FOP package for a charter with just 6 pax, only to be told a week later it wasn’t required.

More recently, operators have also reported that the situation has become even more unpredictable. Any changes to an approved flight schedule, including timing, routing, passenger or crew details, can now trigger a requirement for the original landing permit to be revalidated by the Department of Transport before departure. This has been reported even for crew-only, ferry and maintenance flights.

The revalidation must be handled by a local handler and requires a signed power of attorney from the operator. Processing can take several days and critically, the Department of Transport only operates on weekdays, with no weekend support. As a result, schedule changes late in the week have left aircraft grounded until Monday, often with unexpected parking costs. Some operators have reported being unable to depart without unofficial after-hours assistance.

Why is this happening?

A new Minister of Transport took office, and a new Air Services Licensing Council (ASLC) was appointed. That might sound like progress – but according to folks on the ground, the new team found evidence of corruption, started clearing it out, and in the process created a massive vacuum. Staff were removed, new rules came in, but no one was properly trained. The result: total inconsistency.

One local agent told us: “It’s bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy… Officials now interpret the rules however they want, and nobody has been trained properly.”

Permit processing times?

Here’s the reality as it stands:

• Landing permits: Officially 3 working days, but expect 7-10 days minimum, and if anything is missing or unclear, the clock resets.
• FOPs: Can take a month or more, especially if your application gets bounced back for clarification (which it often does).
• All permit applications go through permits@dot.gov.za – but your best bet is to use a local clearance company. Trying to deal with the DOT directly is not recommended.
  

Corruption?

There were credible reports of permits being deliberately delayed in hopes of bribes. The Department of Transport has acknowledged this and says reforms are underway – but in the meantime, honest operators are left paying the price in delays and uncertainty.

What do you need?

For most private ops under 8 pax, you shouldn’t need a FOP – just a landing permit. But the advice from multiple members is clear: don’t take anything for granted.

Suggested checklist:

• Private flights (under 8 pax): Landing permit only (in theory).
• Charter flights or more than 8 pax: Landing permit + FOP.
• FOP applications require 20+ notarised and certified documents – use a local agent or FBO to manage the process.
• Include a detailed flight purpose – vague terms like “business” aren’t accepted anymore.

Local agents like ExecuJet, Onyx, and others are actively supporting operators with this, but even they admit it’s a bit of a lottery.

We’ll keep tracking this, but for now: expect delays, get your paperwork in early, and triple-check everything before submitting. And above all – don’t trust the published timelines.

Key Points

• SAFA inspectors are checking more than the familiar “top findings”. Recent guidance has expanded what inspectors are told to look for, even though the core inspection categories remain unchanged.
• Some of the easiest findings to avoid are also the least talked about, including EFBs, MEL customization, maintenance due dates, approvals, briefing cards and placards.
• Need a checklist? We’ve included our trusty printable SAFA checklist below. If you’d rather work electronically, check out SAFA+Checklist, an app that guides you through the inspection and generates a PDF report when you’re done.

You already know the greatest hits. Most SAFA articles list the same top findings: damaged tires, missing documents, out-of-date charts. Fair enough – they top the statistics every year.

But the inspector walking up your airstairs isn’t just working from a top-five list. They’re working from the full EASA Ramp Inspection Guidance Material, and recent revisions have quietly added new items and expanded the inspection instructions on existing ones. Here’s a tour of the findings that are completely fair game but rarely make the crew briefing…

First, know which flavour of inspection you’re getting

“Ramp Inspection” covers more than one program. SAFA applies to third-country operators against ICAO standards, while SACA applies to EASA operators under the EU regulatory framework. Commercial operators receive most of the attention, but business aviation is routinely inspected as well. Whether you’re operating a scheduled airliner or a privately operated business jet, the knock on the flight deck door can come just the same.

Flying past an inspection due point (A22-04)

Inspectors can and do ask for maintenance docs showing when the next scheduled inspection is due – and compare it against your hours and cycles. If the paperwork shows you’re operating past a due inspection, that’s a finding on overdue maintenance, and not a small one.

The easy defense: have maintenance insert a computer run of next-due items in the aircraft documents, or verify that the next-due blocks in the logbook are filled in, accurate, and compliant. Either way, know where your aircraft sits against its next check before someone in a high-vis vest works it out for you.

Placards: the cheapest finding on the airplane (A01-20)

Missing or unreadable markings and placards. That’s it. A worn NO STEP, a faded EXIT marking, or a placard that peeled off during the last wash. It takes an inspector seconds to spot and earns an unnecessary line on the report. Walk your aircraft occasionally and read what a stranger would read.

EFBs: the mount, the wires, and the backup (A06 / A03-08)

The inspection guidance for Electronic Flight Bags has expanded considerably. Inspectors are specifically instructed to verify that the EFB is properly secured during critical phases of flight.

Whether permanently mounted or secured in an approved viewable stowage location, the EFB must not obstruct flight controls, cockpit equipment, emergency equipment, or emergency exits. If it isn’t adequately secured, expect the inspector to ask about your operator’s policy. “It sits on my lap” isn’t an acceptable answer.

The stowage requirement also creates a trap. If a portable EFB must be stowed during takeoff or landing and it is your only source of approach charts, inspectors may cite A06-06 – required charts not available during critical phases of flight – a Category 3 finding. Mount the EFB or carry an independent backup.

Inspectors also verify that operators have a backup for critical Type-B EFB applications such as the Operations Manual, AFM, checklists, charts, performance software, and weight-and-balance calculations. A second independent EFB or hard-copy backup satisfies the requirement. One tablet carrying everything does not.

The MEL: customization is not optional (A07)

MEL findings often feel like an operator problem – until the inspector is standing on the flight deck asking questions. Inspectors look beyond whether the MEL is on board. It must be current, reflect the equipment actually installed on the aircraft, include the required (M) and (O) procedures, and deferred defects must comply with its instructions.

Just as important, the MEL must be fully customized. Simply adding your aircraft registration to a generic MMEL isn’t enough. If your MEL lists equipment your aircraft has never carried – or omits equipment it does have – expect a finding.

Fuel and performance: extra gas can bite you (A13)

Here’s one that surprises many crews. Carrying more fuel than planned is perfectly acceptable – as long as it’s reflected in your weight-and-balance and performance calculations. If you tanker extra fuel but use the original fuel load for takeoff performance calculations, the finding isn’t about fuel. It’s about incorrect performance and weight-and-balance calculations.

Inspectors are also instructed to verify that fuel planning meets ICAO and EASA requirements, including approach manoeuvering and the route to the alternate. Fuel consumption monitoring should be conducted according to your approved procedures. If no procedures exist, that can become an Operations Manual finding.

Another item often overlooked is Rescue and Fire Fighting Services (RFFS). Your Operations Manual establishes the required RFFS category, but someone still has to verify the destination airport actually provides that category on the day of the flight. It’s easy to assume a smaller airport can accommodate a large business jet – but assumptions don’t satisfy inspectors.

Finally, expect inspectors to verify that the crew reviewed current weather for both the destination and alternates and confirmed forecast conditions remain above the applicable operating minima.

Do your approvals match your avionics?

Avionics upgrades happen constantly. Every software load, navigation capability upgrade, or equipment modification is another opportunity for the paperwork to drift away from the airplane.

Make sure your flight plan equipment codes, LOAs, and OpSpecs match the equipment actually installed. For example, operators flying into LFMN/Nice may require separate authorizations for arrivals, RNP approaches, and DA minima. The chart won’t remind you – but an inspector might.

Even with the proper approvals, always review current Notams. Some European airports have temporarily suspended LPV approaches because of navigation-system limitations, so today’s authorized approach may not be available tomorrow.

Down the back: cabin findings inspectors still catch (B01, B03, B06, B10, B11)

Unsecured baggage is an easy finding. Loose bags in the cabin are written up under B13, but if they obstruct an emergency exit, the finding becomes more serious.

Passenger briefing cards deserve a closer look than many operators give them. They must accurately reflect the aircraft configuration, be readily available, and contain picture-type instructions. Just as important, every piece of emergency equipment shown on the card must actually be where the card says it is. Cabin modifications have a habit of leaving briefing cards behind.

Inspectors also pay attention to seatbelts. Frayed webbing or damaged restraints may be considered unserviceable, making this one of the easiest findings to prevent with a routine cabin inspection.

Bottom line

None of this is exotic. It’s maintenance due dates, placards, EFB mounting, MEL customization, performance calculations, approvals, briefing cards, and seatbelts. The annual “top findings” receive most of the attention because they’re common – but inspectors are working from the entire checklist, not just the statistics. The more familiar your crews are with those inspection items before arriving in Europe, the faster and smoother the inspection is likely to be.

Want a checklist?

The good news is that the core EASA ramp inspection checklist hasn’t changed much over the past few years. The same five sections (Flight Deck, Cabin, Aircraft Condition, Cargo and General) and the same inspection items are still used today. The big changes have been in the inspector guidance behind those items – what inspectors are told to verify, what questions to ask, and what now constitutes a finding.

If you just want a printable checklist, you can download a PDF copy of the OPSGROUP SAFA Ramp Inspection Checklist here.

But if you’d rather prepare electronically instead of working from a paper checklist, check out SAFA+Checklist – an app built by an OPSGROUP member that walks you through the inspection on your iPad, keeps everything an inspector might ask for in one place, and generates a PDF report when you’re done.

Thanks to Scott Moore from Fly-Right for help with this article! Fly-Right has developed SAFA readiness tools for international business aviation since 2016. Founded by an active International captain, the company created SAFA+ checklist-an iOS application that puts the complete EASA SAFA checklist, operator-specific documentation, expiration tracking, cockpit calculators, and carbon emissions tracking in the crews’ hands at every ramp.

Every summer, everyone in the group wants to know the same thing: what levels of misery can we expect this year for BizAv parking in Europe?

So instead of publishing separate guides for Spain, Greece, Italy, France and the other hotspots, this year we’ve pulled everything together into one guide. It shows where parking is hardest, where you still have a chance, and some of the local rules that can catch you out.

As always, if you know something we don’t, tell us. We’ll keep updating this guide throughout the summer 👍

Spain

Spain remains one of Europe’s busiest summer destinations for BizAv, with the Balearics continuing to see the highest demand. Overnight parking at LEIB/Ibiza, LEPA/Palma and LEMH/Menorca is denied in many cases, and the pressure is now spreading to the mainland. Airports such as LEVC/Valencia and LEAL/Alicante are no longer the easy reposition options they once were – but still worth trying as backup options.

Parking/slot requests generally open 14-15 days before arrival. Earlier requests are not accepted, and there is no real-time parking availability. Your handler must first submit the full request before the airport authority decides whether space is available, so apply as soon as the booking window opens and always have a backup plan.

The Balearics: still the biggest challenge

LEIB/Ibiza is usually the hardest airport to secure, with overnight parking often refused. A summer PPR is also needed for aircraft with a wingspan greater than 18m planning to stay on the ground for more than 3hrs.

LEPA/Palma is slightly easier, but still heavily congested. From June – Oct, aircraft longer than 20m are limited to a max 7-day stay unless specifically approved by the airport. Fuel delays have also been reported during peak periods.

LEMH/Menorca is generally the easiest of the three, although overnight parking is still difficult, particularly over weekends.

FBO contacts: Aviapartner – leib@aviavip.com, lepa@aviavip.com, lemh@aviavip.com

Mainland Spain: where you might have a chance

When the islands are full, repositioning to the mainland is often the best option.

LEBL/Barcelona is okay-ish. It operates H24, but non-based aircraft are limited to a maximum 96-hr stay. New for this summer, aircraft below 15 tonnes MTOW cannot arrive between 0900-1330 LT. Expect taxi times of around 20 mins from the BizAv apron, and remember that A-CDM rules are strictly enforced. + The 3-hour stay limit is back. Until Jul 29, BizAv flights using aircraft with a wingspan over 19.2 m can stay for no more than 3 hours.

LEMD/Madrid is looking easier than last summer. Local FBOs tell us the previous restrictions on overnight parking and positioning flights are not currently in force, although parking approvals still depend on apron capacity and restrictions could return if demand increases later in the summer. Also, expect taxi times of 15-30 mins, and possible fuel delays if you don’t have a confirmed same-day departure, as priority is given to commercial and outbound traffic.

FBO contacts: Universal – universal.aviation@uvspain.com, bcn@uvspain.com

Other airports are also worth a look. LEGE/Girona and LERS/Reus are good options on the northeast coast. Further south, LEZL/Seville, LEJR/Jerez, LEMG/Malaga, LEGR/Granada and LEAM/Almeria may also work. For the best chance of finding parking, head north to LEBB/Bilbao, LEAS/Asturias, LEST/Santiago de Compostela, LEVX/Vigo and LEXJ/Santander, where summer traffic is generally lighter.

LEMG Member report July 1: We experienced a roughly four-hour fuel delay at LEMG/Malaga during an early morning stop, with airline traffic taking priority for refuelling. If you’re planning a fuel stop here in summer, allow extra time.

Greece

Overnight parking is the biggest challenge in Greece every summer. Even quick turns can be difficult across the islands, and LGAV/Athens is not an easy parking alternative anymore.

Most of the busiest island airports are managed by Fraport. If you’re planning an overnight stay, check two things: the Fraport PPR Handbook for the published max ground time and PPR requirements, then the hideous Notams. During July and Aug, Notams often introduce even stricter parking limits than those in the handbook!

Watch out for extra summer charges at LGMK/Mykonos, LGKR/Corfu and LGKO/Kos. BizAv flights are required to use the dedicated GA Terminal, with an additional charge of EUR 2,000 per passenger-carrying sector. An inbound and outbound passenger flight will therefore cost an extra EUR 4,000, plus VAT for non-EU operators.

Don’t miss your slot

Slots are just as important in Greece. The Flight Plan Suspension (FLS) system is back for summer 2026, in effect from 29 May – 4 Oct. It applies to Level 3 coordinated airports, which basically covers most of the busiest island destinations. You can find the full list of Level 3 airports here. For full details, see SUP 05/26.

If your flight plan differs from your confirmed slot by more than ±15 mins, it will be automatically suspended. Your handler will normally obtain the airport slot from the Hellenic Slot Coordination Authority (HSCA), but make sure any schedule changes are coordinated before updating your flight plan.

The slot ID must be included in Field 18: RMK/LGXXAxxxxxxxxx for arrivals + RMK/LGXXDxxxxxxxxx for departures.

Parking alternatives

For most Greek island trips, drop-and-go with a confirmed reposition remains the safest bet.

On the mainland, LGTS/Thessaloniki, LGIO/Ioannina and LGKV/Kavala are probably the best options. LGSA/Chania, LGIR/Heraklion, LGKL/Kalamata, LGRP/Rhodes, LGKO/Kos, LGMT/Mytilene and LGSK/Skiathos may also work. We’ve also heard positive reports from members about LGBL/Almiros, wherever that is?

LGAV/Athens continues to operate under the same parking rules introduced last summer. Aircraft staying up to 90mins do not need a PPR. Longer stays require a PPR, with requests typically processed within only 24 hours of the flight! See the Slot Authority guidance for full details.

Outside Greece, LCPH/Paphos and LCLK/Larnaca may still be worth trying. Along the Turkish coast, local FBOs recommend LTFE/Bodrum for shorter stays (3-5 days) and LTBJ/Izmir for longer parking (10-15 days).

At the other end of the scale, LGMK/Mykonos, LGSR/Santorini, LGKF/Kefalonia, LGZA/Zakinthos and LGPZ/Preveza remain “peak misery” options – these are the hardest places to secure overnight parking. LGSM/Samos is generally best treated as a backup option, while LGKR/Corfu can also become difficult during peak periods.

Italy

Unlike Spain or Greece, summer demand in Italy is spread across several regions rather than one hotspot. Northern Italy, the Amalfi Coast, Sardinia and Sicily all become busy.

Watch Italy’s aircraft disinsection requirements. If you’ve operated from certain mosquito-risk countries within the previous 28 days, you may need a residual disinsection certificate or advance declaration before arrival. Check with your FBO before you fly, as requirements and enforcement seem to vary between airports!

Now get ready for the most brutal map so far! An assault on the senses!

Northern Italy: Venice, Milan and Tuscany

LIPZ/Venice remains the biggest challenge in northern Italy. From mid-May to late Oct, ground time is limited to 24 hrs, and PPR is mandatory. 

LIPH/Treviso has traditionally been one of the easiest nearby options, but we’ve recently heard of parking being denied even for short pax pickups. LIPX/Verona is also busy, with PPR required, overnight parking usually limited to one night, and Wednesdays and Saturdays proving the hardest days. Local FBOs recommend repositioning to LIPO/Brescia, LIPQ/Trieste, LIME/Bergamo or LIPY/Ancona. Both Bergamo and Ancona require PPR, with Ancona introducing a new PPR procedure this summer due to limited apron capacity. We’ve also had several positive reports from members using LIMJ/Genoa for longer parking, although availability appears to change quickly from week to week.

The Milan airports remain good options. LIML/Linate currently has no major seasonal restrictions and is usually the preferred airport for downtown Milan, while LIMC/Malpensa is also BizAv-friendly and better suited to larger aircraft. But longer stays at LIMC may require remote parking and fuel delays are possible during peak periods. Parking charges at both airports also remain significantly higher than pre-2025 levels. Expect the biggest pressure on parking in Sept during the Italian Grand Prix and Milan Fashion Week. LIMF/Turin is another reliable alternative with PPR required.

LIML Member report July 1: During a recent heatwave at LIML/Linate, early APU use was initially denied due to local ramp restrictions. After repositioning to another stand, it was approved 1h15 before departure. If you’re operating in hot weather, discuss APU requirements with your handler in advance.

Further south, LIRP/Pisa usually works okay, although expect delays during peak periods as available PPRs are limited by hourly runway capacity. LIRQ/Florence is much tighter, with PPR accepted only between 15 days and 24 hours before arrival and parking limited to 24 hours.

LIPE/Bologna is another okay option with PPR required. For easier parking, head to LIMZ/Cuneo, LIMP/Parma or LIPR/Rimini, where demand is generally lighter.

Central and Southern Italy: Rome, the Amalfi Coast and beyond…

Rome needs a bit of planning. LIRA/Ciampino is the main BizAv airport. From 1 May to 30 Sep, ferry-in BizAv aircraft with a wingspan over 21.40 m are limited to a max 24hr stay. LIRF/Fiumicino is not a great fallback: BizAv is normally routed there only when LIRA is unavailable or closed, with any daytime use limited to specific cases such as denied LIRA PPR, and usually capped at a max 12-hour stop. Ferry-in/ferry-out PPR requests are not approved.

Away from Rome, things get much easier. LIRS/Grosseto offers overnight and long-term parking, no formal ground time limit, and PPR with 24 hours notice. The main limitation is that civil traffic is accepted only between sunrise and sunset, with no civil night ops. LIRZ/Perugia and LIBP/Pescara are handy alternatives. LIRZ requires PPR for most BizAv, while LIBP has no notable summer parking restrictions.

The Amalfi Coast requires much more planning. LIRN/Naples is one of Italy’s most restrictive airports, with summer ground time typically limited to 3 hours, no overnight parking, and PPR. The airport operates 0600-2300 LT with no extensions. Nearby LIRI/Salerno is only slightly more flexible, allowing stays of up to 48hrs depending on parking availability. At both airports, PPR requests open only 15 days before the flight.

LIRI Member report June 12: We were held before landing despite arriving on our confirmed slot, reportedly due to commercial traffic. On arrival, ground handling was slow and customs queues were exceptionally long, as the old FBO is closed and the temporary terminal is currently handling both BizAv and airline passengers. Based on this experience, we’d recommend having a backup airport if you’re planning to use LIRI.

Further south, LICA/Lamezia Terme is one of the better parking options, typically allowing stays of 4-5 days, with PPR required. Keep in mind that despite the airport operating 24/7 most BizAv movements are limited to daylight hours. If parking is unavailable, local FBOs recommend LIBF/Foggia. LIBD/Bari operates under PPR, with most summer parking limited to 24hrs. If available, a small number of stands can accommodate stays of up to 5 days. LIBR/Brindisi is more restrictive, with ground time usually limited to 3 hours and PPR opening 10 days before the flight. LIBG/Taranto offers overnight parking with no PPR or ground time limits, but the airport operates only between 0800-2000 LT, with the last arrival at 1920 LT and the first departure at 0830 LT. LIBC/Crotone and LICR/Calabria are quieter alternatives, with no notable summer parking restrictions published in the AIP, although LICR requires prior crew qualification.

Sardinia and Sicily

Demand across Sardinia seems to increase every summer. LIEE/Cagliari requires PPR, and longer stays are not always possible during peak season. If parking is unavailable, local FBOs recommend repositioning to LIEO/Olbia or LIEA/Alghero. LIEO remains the preferred reposition option thanks to better parking availability, although PPR is required.

Sicily is generally easier than mainland hotspots, although parking still depends on apron capacity. LICC/Catania is H24 and is one of the island’s best options, with no published ground time limit and PPR required. LICJ/Palermo is more restrictive, with summer parking typically limited to 3-4 days. During the annual Google event at the end of July, long-term parking becomes particularly difficult. If parking is unavailable, local FBOs recommend repositioning to LICT/Trapani or LICB/Comiso. LICT is a military airport open to authorised civil traffic, while LICB operates 0600-2200 LT.

France

Summer demand in France is focused on the Mediterranean coast. The Cote d’Azur and Corsica see the greatest parking pressure, and several inland airports remain good alternatives.

Most airports require advance notice for parking, handling and customs details, often 24-72 hours before arrival and usually via MyHandling. Rules vary widely: some airports are slot and PPR free but limited by stand space, while others use strict PPR or slot procedures. At the busiest locations, approval may come only a few days before the flight.

The French Riviera and Southern France

LFMN/Nice is the main BizAv gateway, but parking approval is tough. Nice is fully slot-controlled, with tight tolerances: ±10 min for arrivals and -10/+15 min for departures. Any schedule change can mean losing both your slot and parking, and the confirmed slot ID must be included in Field 18 of the FPL. Fuel delays are common, as airline traffic takes priority. APU use is also limited before departure, so plan around ground power availability during hot weather.

Nearby LFMD/Cannes may be scenic, but it’s not built for bigger jets. Jets over 35 tonnes MTOW and turboprops over 22 tonnes are not accepted. The airport is coordinated from 11 May – 14 Sep, with slots required for IFR/Y/Z arrivals and departures.

LFML/Marseille is still one of the more practical alternatives. It operates H24, but summer parking is now more controlled. From 1 June – 31 Aug, all BizAv requests require airport administration approval through a handling agent. Short-turn parking is generally straightforward, but longer stays are harder to secure, with only 6 stands available for parking beyond 72hrs and they fill up quickly.

Further along the coast, LFTH/Toulon is a useful alternative, but it has limited operating hours and extra constraints as a joint civil-military airport. PPR is required. LFTZ/La Mole Saint-Tropez also has limited operating hours, restricted-use status and a short runway, so it is mainly suitable for approved operators with aircraft and crews meeting the required qualifications.

Away from the Riviera, parking generally becomes much easier. LFMT/Montpellier is an option, with PPR required for non-based BizAv aircraft. LFMV/Avignon, LFMP/Perpignan and LFTW/Nimes also have generally good parking availability, although all have more limited operating hours than the major coastal airports. LFMP requires PPR for BizAv. LFMQ/Le Castellet is a niche option, requiring slots and accepting Schengen traffic only.

LFMT Member report June 19: We repositioned to LFMT after dropping our passengers at LFMN. Parking and handling were straightforward, but be aware that the VIP terminal currently has no X-ray equipment, so all baggage is checked manually, which can significantly slow departures.

If you’re prepared to reposition further inland, LFLL/Lyon Saint-Exupery usually has parking available even during peak season and can easily accommodate larger bizjets. Nearby LFLY/Lyon Bron is another option, while LFLS/Grenoble remains one of the easiest alternatives – although with more limited operating hours.

Finally, check your alternates carefully. Some airports can only be used as alternates under specific conditions. LFTH cannot be used without PPR, LFMD is only accepted as an alternate for flights to LFTZ, and LFMQ should never be your only alternate, as it does not routinely publish TAF/METAR reports.

Corsica

LFKF/Figari is the most restrictive airport, generally allowing only quick turnarounds with no long-term parking. LFKB/Bastia offers a little more flexibility, although parking is still limited during peak periods. LFKJ/Ajaccio remains the best option on the island. Both slots and PPR are required, although local FBOs report that parking availability is generally good.

Portugal

Portugal is mainly about two places: Lisbon and the Algarve. LPPT/Lisbon is notoriously difficult to get into for BizAv, with ad-hoc slots for non-based aircraft currently limited to short turnarounds: 45 min for Code A/B, 60 min for Code C/D and 90 min for Code E.

LPCS/Cascais is an option for Lisbon traffic. Overnight parking is generally available, no slots are required, and PPR is only needed for non-Schengen flights. The main limitation is operating hours: the airport is open from 0800 LT until sunset, with extensions possible until 2259 LT subject to fees and approval.

LPFR/Faro is the main Algarve airport and needs early planning! Slots are mandatory and applications are accepted no earlier than 10 days before arrival. Overnight parking is tight. Until the planned VIP terminal opens, passport control delays remain common during the summer, particularly between 0900-1300 LT.

LPBJ/Beja is the easiest parking airport in the group, with overnight parking available and no slots. LPPR/Porto is also workable. Slots are mandatory, while PPR is only required for AOC flights operating to/from international destinations.

Another thing catching some operators out is Portugal’s EORI requirement. Several handlers now report that non-EU operators may need an EORI number even for private flights or simple tech stops.

Croatia

Croatia is mostly about the Adriatic coast. LDPL/Pula and LDRI/Rijeka in the north are generally workable, although local FBOs say the summer rush has already started. LDPL currently requires PPR due to apron congestion, while LDRI has no routine slot/PPR requirement.

LDPL Member report July 1: We had a smooth overnight stop at LDPL, with efficient handling and no issues on departure. Catering options were limited, so plan ahead.

Further south, LDZD/Zadar is one of the preferred reposition options recommended by local FBOs, although a PPR is currently required due to limited apron capacity.

LDZD Member report July 1: We parked at LDZD for 10 days without issue. Customs at the VIP terminal may be delayed if an international airline flight arrives first, and fuel/GSE services are prioritised for airline traffic, so allow extra ground time.

LDSP/Split is the hardest airport in the group. Overnight parking is usually not available during the summer, turnaround time is typically limited to 60 mins, and slot requests open only 14 days before the flight. LDSP is also not available as an alternate during much of July.

Nearby LDSB/Brac isn’t an easy fallback option. A PPR is currently mandatory for all flights due to limited parking, and operating hours change throughout the season, so always check the latest Notams.

LDDU/Dubrovnik is more workable and a popular reposition option recommended by local FBOs, with overnight parking possible subject to airport approval and no routine slot/PPR requirement. Out-of-hours PPR applies.

Away from the coast, LDZA/Zagreb is the strongest parking option, with overnight parking generally available and no slots/PPRs. LDOS/Osijek may also work, but not a single person has ever heard of it, and operating hours vary throughout the season, so check the latest Notams.

If parking proves difficult in Croatia, local FBOs also suggest repositioning to LYPG/Podgorica or LYTV/Tivat in Montenegro, LYBE/Belgrade in Serbia, LQSA/Sarajevo in Bosnia and Herzegovina, or LJLJ/Ljubljana in Slovenia.

FBO contacts: FCG OPS – ops@fcg.aero

Boring basics – a final note

Some general advice for ops across Europe this summer:

• Keep your EOBT (Estimated Off-Block Time) current, make sure your flight plan times match any confirmed airport slot, and don’t update times without coordinating with your handler first.
• At A-CDM and slot-coordinated airports, mismatches can trigger flight plan suspension, a worse CTOT (Calculated Take-Off Time), or no start-up clearance at all.
• For more on how Eurocontrol and CTOTs work behind the scenes, see our explainer article.

Help us keep this article updated!

These Maps of Misery come with absolutely no warranty whatsoever! Sorry friends! All of this parking stuff can go from “no problem” to “absolutely no chance” in a day.

So if you’ve been to any of these airports recently, send us an Airport Spy report. If things have changed, we’ll update the map.

What’s Airport Spy? It’s just a quick note about what happened. Was parking easier than expected? Any fuel delays? New procedures? Anything that would help the next crew.

Back in May we reported on an ICAO bulletin that had triggered a wave of NOTAMs across Europe, with some states suspending LPV approaches outright and others raising minima while they reviewed their procedures. At the time, the picture was changing almost daily, and it wasn’t clear whether this would become a short-term admin exercise or something with wider operational consequences.

Two months on, the dust has settled enough to see what’s really going on. Most affected states have now settled on their preferred mitigation, we’ve spoken directly with the FAA about why US LPV procedures aren’t affected, and it’s become clearer that this isn’t really an avionics problem at all – it’s a difference in how missed approaches were designed under PANS-OPS compared with TERPS.

Here’s what happened, why Europe has been affected while the US hasn’t, and what operators need to watch for as reviews continue…

What was ICAO actually worried about?

The issue is to do with the missed approach segment of SBAS-based LPV procedures. ICAO says there may be “an inconsistency between the assumptions behind the obstacle assessment criteria and the navigation systems standards” used for LPV operations.

ICAO didn’t conclude that every LPV procedure was affected, and it didn’t tell states to suspend LPV across the board. Instead it asked them to review their procedures and apply mitigations where necessary while the underlying designs were reassessed.

The issue

Procedure-designers built LPV missed approaches assuming the aircraft keeps flying at LPV-level accuracy, roughly 0.3NM, through the initial part of the go-around. But the design of the underlying avionics standard (DO-229F) means that some SBAS navigation systems actually revert to a wider “terminal mode” at the missed approach point, applying a 1.0NM accuracy assumption instead.

That’s a real gap, a missed approach protection area sized for 0.3NM accuracy may not actually cover an aircraft that’s just quietly widened out to 1.0NM. Obstacle clearance margins that were assumed to exist may not be there for some aircraft types. 

ICAO’s bulletin lays out three options for states to apply a temporary fix to affected procedures

• raise the LPV minima
• suspend LPV minima on specific procedures or runways 
• suspend the LPV line of minima altogether until it can be reassessed against the full PANS-OPS criteria.

How states have actually responded

Unsurprisingly, everyone’s taking a slightly different path.

Germany came out swinging and nearly every airport we checked had a NOTAM suspending LPV approaches entirely while reviews were carried out, worded along the lines of “ALL LPV APCH SUSPENDED DUE TO POSS INADEQUATE PROTECTION PROVIDED IN THE MISSED APPROACH SEGMENT…” That lasted about a day. Germany then softened its position, opting instead to reinstate LPV procedures but raise the minima to LNAV or LNAV/VNAV levels. New NOTAMS have been rolling out airport by airport since.

Elsewhere, some states have kept LPV available but simply raised minima on the affected runways. That list so far includes EHAM/Amsterdam, EHGG/Groningen, EGJJ/Jersey, EGJB/Guernsey, EGJA/Alderney, several airports in Belgium, Austria and Croatia, and a number airports in Germany that have since been reinstated at the higher minima rather than left suspended.

Others have gone the restriction route on specific procedures or runways rather than a blanket suspension, including EIDW/Dublin, LIBP/Pescara, LOWS/Salzburg, LOWI/Innsbruck, several airports in Spain, and some in Croatia and Romania.

This list is nowhere near exhaustive. States are still working through their reviews, and the NOTAM picture is changing week to week, so if LPV is part of your planning at any European airport, check current NOTAMS before you file, not just at the destination but at any alternate too.

Why isn’t this hitting the US?

If you operate on both sides of the Atlantic, the obvious question is whether this touches FAA published LPV approaches too. We put that directly to the FAA. Short answer, no, and the reason comes down to how TERPS and PANS-OPS build the missed approach differently.

Both criteria sets can produce the same published minima, but they get there on different assumptions. As explained by the FAA, TERPS and PANS-OPS use different obstacle assessment surfaces for the SBAS/LPV final and initial missed approach segments.

In TERPS these are called obstacle clearance surfaces (OCS). Critically, the FAA says the TERPS LPV initial missed approach OCS is already predicated on a transition to a 1.0NM RNP missed approach segment, and “adequately assesses obstacle protection in the transition from LPV final to missed approach.” In other words, TERPS assumed the widening to 1.0NM from the outset. This avionics behaviour that’s exposing a gap under PANS-OPS was already baked into the US design.

Asked directly whether the FAA’s concern is with avionics behaviour after the MAP or with how procedures are constructed, the FAA pointed back to that same answer – it’s a procedure-construction issue, not an avionics one.

And asked whether crews flying LPV approaches in FAA airspace need to change anything in the meantime, the FAA’s answer was equally direct – “No new or additional considerations are necessary to safely conduct LPV approach procedures developed with TERPS.”

So this is very much a PANS-OPS states issue for now and the ICAO bulletin combined with the resulting NOTAM scramble apply to procedures built under PANS-OPS criteria, not TERPS ones. Worth knowing if your operations span both environments, since “LPV is suspended in Europe” absolutely does not mean “LPV is suspended,” full stop.

At this point it is worth zooming out further, since it’s not just a US/Europe story. LPV only exists where there’s an operational SBAS overhead, and that list is shorter than people assume. WAAS covers the US, Canada and Mexico. EGNOS covers Europe and is the system at the centre of this particular mess.

Outside of these two regions, we have Japan (MSAS) and India (GAGAN) both with their own operational SBAS with LPV. Over in South Korea KASS has just been certified and is entering service, so LPV is starting to roll out there too.

Everyone else is still waiting. China (BDSBAS) and Russia (SDCM) are in testing/development with their systems, Australia and New Zealand’s SouthPAN isn’t expected to support aviation-grade LPV until around 2028, and there’s no operational SBAS yet across Africa or Latin America.  It’s a reasonable bet that the same missed-approach question gets asked again as those other systems come online.

What this means for ops

This is exactly the kind of change that looks small on an individual flight plan and turns into a real problem if it’s missed. A few practical points worth building into your process while this shakes out.

• Check NOTAMS for LPV restrictions at destination and alternates every time, not just once when planning a recurring route. The situation is changing all the time, and an airport that had LPV available last week may not this week, or may now require higher minima than your performance planning assumed.
• Don’t assume “LPV suspended” means “approach unusable.” In most cases there’s still an LNAV or LNAV/VNAV line of minima available on the same approach. It’s just higher, and your fuel and alternate planning needs to reflect that, not the LPV minima you might be used to.
• Brief crews specifically on this. A pilot expecting LPV minima who hasn’t seen the latest NOTAM or is unaware of the reason behind the change, is likely to get caught out.

If an alternate’s usability depends on LPV minima that have since been suspended or raised, you are likely to need a new plan B. What worked as a valid alternate under the old minima may no longer meet the numbers.

What to watch next

ICAO says the underlying PANS-OPS criteria are being re-evaluated, with a permanent fix to follow once confirmed.

But in the meantime, EB 2026/13 is the operative guidance and states are expected to act on it. We’ll keep tracking how the NOTAM picture develops across Europe, and the rest of the LPV world and update this as more states publish their reviews.

If you’ve hit an LPV restriction we haven’t listed, or seen a NOTAM change at an airport you operate into, let us know, blog@ops.group.

The FAA has recently updated its resource guides for the three big oceanic areas of interest:

• The North Atlantic. Updated July 7, 2026.
• The Pacific. Updated April 17, 2026.
• WAT airspace (West Atlantic / Gulf of Mexico / Caribbean). Updated June 30, 2026.

These guides are a good starting point for understanding all the basics of operating in these areas, and include links to all kinds of useful extra info around the main topics for each one.

Click on the pics to check them out!

North Atlantic

Pacific

WAT

To see a timeline of the big changes on the NAT stretching back to 2015 click here.

Opsgroup members can download several NAT guides and a NAT Plotting & Planning Chart via the Members Dashboard here.

On July 2, NAV CANADA is bringing back CPDLC route clearance uplinks for eastbound NAT flights, ending the use of voice clearances that have been required for these route amendments since May 2025.

The change will apply to eastbound flights that receive route amendments from Gander Oceanic, prior to oceanic entry. AIP SUP 065/2026 has the info.

Instead of receiving a reroute by voice, crews will once again receive a CPDLC uplink in the following format:

CLEARED TO [position] VIA [route clearance]

This is the standard ICAO route clearance format, known in ICAO docs as ‘UM79.’

Why the change?

CPDLC route clearances are preferred because they can be uplinked directly to the FMS, negating the need for error-prone manual entry.

However following the implementation of Canada’s Oceanic Clearance Revision (OCR) in late 2024, problems emerged.

It was identified that some reroute uplinks were creating route discontinuities in the FMS. As a result, NAV CANADA decided to revert to voice clearances for these amendments in May last year while improvements were made to the back end.

Now these issues have been fixed.

What’s different?

Under the previous system, a route amendment could terminate at a waypoint that wasn’t connected to the remainder of the active flight plan, creating a route discontinuity in the FMS. Crew then had to manually reconnect the route before oceanic entry.

With the new system (effective July 2), the ‘CLEARED TO’ waypoint will be a waypoint already contained in the filed flight plan, either within oceanic airspace or after oceanic exit. The amended route strings automatically with the existing plan, allowing the route to be loaded without creating a disco (of the non-musical variety 🪩).

For crew, this will make eastbound oceanic reroutes easier to load and review prior to NAT entry.

Crew Errors

All sounds pretty straight forward, right? Well it is, but with some important caveats.

Pilot error when handling CPDLC route amendments remains a persistent issue across at the NAT region.

Last month, EUROCONTROL published some guidance highlighting several common CPDLC mistakes made by flight crews, many of which create significant workload for controllers or lead to clearance busts.

We covered this in a seperate article, and the lessons apply just as much in oceanic airspace as they do in Europe.

With this update, NAV CANADA reiterates many of the same precautions – especially the importance of acknowledging route amendments correctly and not misinterpreting them as ‘direct-to.’

For the avoidance of error, the following flow is suggested whenever a route amendment is received via CPDLC:

Quick reminder: OCR hasn’t changed

Gander remains fully in Oceanic Clearance Removal (OCR) mode. In normal human speak that means there’s no oceanic clearance in Gander. You still send an RCL 90-60 mins before the OEP, but it’s for planning only – you’re not requesting an oceanic clearance, and none will be issued. Continue in accordance with your current ATC clearance unless ATC issues a change before the OEP. Once oceanic, any further changes will be issued via CPDLC or HF as required!

The only thing changing on July 2 is how pre-entry route amendments are delivered: they return to CPDLC instead of voice.

Key Docs

This is a significant change for Gander’s airspace. There are two official documents to look out for:

• This IATA Bulletin which explains NAV CANADA’s fix in more detail.
• SUP 065/2026 (*to be published July 9).

A virtual call on this update has already been held by IATA – remember, July 2 is the change-over.

And for more info on recent North Atlantic changes, check out this post.