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. An AIP SUP will shortly follow on July 9 – the one to look out will be 065/2026.

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:

We all like to say rog’ immediately. Don’t send ACCEPT/WILCO before you have loaded and executed it!

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.

Our friends at OPMAS have put together this useful myth-busting guide to Temporary Admission (TA) for aircraft operating within the EU.

TA is one of those topics that always causes confusion – including for us! There are still plenty of myths about when TA can be used, who it applies to, and what the rules actually say. Some are basially just wrong, and others are based on outdated info or misunderstandings. In this guide, OPMAS busts eight of the most common myths.

But first… what’s Temporary Admission?

TA is an EU customs thing that allows non-EU aircraft to operate within the EU without having to permanently import the aircraft or pay import duties and VAT.

In general the aircraft must be owned, registered, operated, and based outside the EU to qualify. If all those conditions are met, TA lets operators move around the EU for a limited time.

That’s the super short version. For the slightly longer explanation, check here.

Now, onto the myths!

Myth #1: Temporary Admission cannot be used when carrying EU passport holders as passengers

This myth is busted because:

• The EU Commission has – numerous times – stated that these restrictions are not meant to restrict having EU residents onboard as passengers. The restrictions are meant for the pilots who are, in customs terms, seen as the real user of the aircraft, meaning that there are no restrictions for carrying EU passengers. Thus, there is no need to appoint a main passenger or have a so-called authorization letter onboard.
• The idea of a main passenger, authorization letter, and other strange demands when using TA has no foundation in the Union Customs Code. It is based on a wrong interpretation or outdated information.

Myth #2: Temporary Admission cannot be used for commercial flights

This myth is busted because:

• The EU Commission approved commercial group charters as correct use of TA in 2014.
• Internal traffic was also removed as a restriction for TA in 2016 with the introduction of the Union Customs Code (UCC). The paragraph was originally intended to limit commercial traffic but has been removed for many years now.
• The requirement for Traffic rights (also called charter permits) is often mentioned as another obstacle when using TA, yet traffic rights have absolutely nothing to do with the process of obtaining TA or full importation. It is strictly an aviation regulator issue.
• Aircraft flying commercially may need to obtain traffic rights on some internal EU legs, but this is independent of the TA or full importation status. Any fully EU-imported commercial aircraft will also need to obtain the exact same traffic rights. Having a fully EU-imported aircraft instead of a TA aircraft will not improve the situation. Full importation does not grant an aircraft “better” traffic rights than aircraft flying under TA or EU-registered aircraft.

Myth #3: The owner must be onboard or present within the EU

This myth is busted because:

• It has earlier been clarified that the owner does not need to be present onboard or within the EU in the typical Part 91/135 scenario when flying within the EU. This paragraph in the Union Customs Code is meant to regulate a completely different scenario.
• This issue can, however, be a bit tricky as aviation structures are complicated and not always easily or correctly understood by customs on the ramp, so operators should always ask a competent customs agency to approve the structure in advance and outline the correct understanding in the specific case.

Myth #4: Aircraft flying under Temporary Admission will most likely have problems when flying to Cannes, Nice, or Paris-Le Bourget

This myth is busted because:

• Numerous aircraft are flying to these airports and other “dangerous” airports every day using TA and are ramp checked without having any problems because the crew onboard are well-prepared and able to explain and document why the aircraft is eligible to use the TA procedure. We have supported many of these operations, so we know how it works and what it takes.
• Some aircraft encounter problems at these airports, but all known cases are based on operators either not being TA compliant or simply not prepared to prove compliance. These aircraft can remain on the ramp for hours or weeks and sometimes result in a full VAT payment.

Myth #5: Temporary Admission is a fully paperless procedure

This myth is busted because:

• Only the entry and exit are paperless processes.
• When used correctly, TA suspends all EU taxes and duties – but only if the operator fully meets the preconditions and respects the limitations.
• Customs authorities perform random ramp checks to confirm compliance, which means that supporting paperwork to prove TA compliance must always be available onboard.
• Most operators are already prepared for SAFA inspections and have a ready-to-use SAFA binder onboard. A similar portfolio of documentation should be kept ready for customs checks within the EU, which can carry far greater consequences than SAFA violations. The fine for a SAFA violation is peanuts compared to a customs violation, so everyone should be well-prepared.

Myth #6: Temporary Admission is only relevant for internal EU flights

This myth is busted because:

• The Union Customs Code states that TA is activated every time an unimported aircraft crosses the outer EU border, whether knowingly or not. TA is terminated when the same aircraft crosses the EU’s outer border on the way to a non-EU destination. Thus, the bare act of crossing the outer EU border counts as a customs declaration.
• This means TA compliance is always required, even for itineraries with just a single stop within the EU.
• While feedback shows that customs inspections are less common for one-stop EU flights, the legal obligations and risks remain the same if documentation is lacking.

Myth #7: Temporary Admission is only required if EU citizens or residents are onboard

This myth is busted because:

• There is no provision anywhere in the Union Customs Code or in any other working paper.
• TA compliance is required regardless of who is onboard – crew or passengers, EU citizens or not.
• No exception exists anywhere in the Union Customs Code that exempts an aircraft for using TA in such a scenario.

Myth #8: Commercial aircraft do not have to bother with EU customs procedures as these aircraft are always exempt

This myth is busted because:

• There is no provision anywhere in the Union Customs Code or in any other working paper to support this statement.
• Commercial aircraft are VAT-exempt in some cases, but this does not mean that it is customs-exempt. These are two different things.
• Commercial aircraft must always somehow come under EU customs control using either full importation or TA. If applied incorrectly, the consequences could be severe.

Thanks to OPMAS for this article! If you have a TA related question that isn’t covered here, or need advice on your own operation, OPMAS are the people to ask – they specialise in EU Temporary Admission, aircraft importation, and customs procedures. You can contact them here. They’ve also built a huge library of info on TA over the years, which you can check out here.

The last few weeks have thrown up some interesting US ops stories.

We’ve looked at new FAA guidance on when pilots can exceed 250kts below 10,000ft, dug into a tricky question about the 200kt restriction beneath Class B airspace, followed reports of a curious transponder issue around Denver, and heard about the NTSB’s call for a review of runway condition reporting.

Here’s a quick round-up of what you may have missed in our ops alerts recently.

Going fast below ten

On June 12, the FAA published a new Information Note on exceeding 250kts below 10,000ft.

This wasn’t a rule change. It was really the FAA clarifying how an existing exception should be applied.

We know the basic rule: no more than 250kts below 10,000ft. But there’s an exception when an aircraft’s minimum safe airspeed exceeds 250kts.

Some heavy aircraft do require speeds above 250kts in certain situations. But if the aircraft can be safely configured to comply with the speed limit, then that’s what the FAA expects operators to do.

In short: the exception applies when the aircraft genuinely cannot safely operate at or below 250kts – not as a way around the speed limit.

200kts below Class B

While we’re on the topic of speed, here’s an interesting question that came in from an Opsgroup member flying the HURCN 4 SID at KOPF/Opa Locka.

The issue involves the 200kt speed limit that applies beneath shelves of Class B airspace. The SID contains a chart note instructing aircraft to accelerate to 250kts until leaving 10,000ft. So which speed wins?

Our reading is that the chart note does not override the regulatory speed limit. In this case, 200kts would apply until entering the Class B at 3,000ft, after which an acceleration to 250kts would be allowed.

A similar question came up at KSJC/San Jose on the LOUPE1 SID, where part of the procedure runs beneath a Class B shelf even though the SID itself contains a charted speed of 230kts.

It’s not just departures either. Another member asked about descents into KTEB/Teterboro, where aircraft are often kept at 250kts until relatively low altitude while being vectored for the RNAV 19 approach.

A highly-experienced Opsgroup expert and local operator told us this had come up before. While ATC may want aircraft to keep their speed up, controllers are generally careful not to assign speeds that would require pilots to exceed 200kts below the Class B.

One practical tip is to keep ATC informed. For example, if assigned a descent to 2,000ft where the Class B floor is 3,000ft, consider adding “slowing to 200 below the Class Bravo” to your read back.

If you’re an ATC controller and have experience with this issue, we’d love to hear from you at blog@ops.group.

Weird transponder issue at Denver

This one’s still a mystery!

Last week an Opsgroup member pinged us on WhatsApp, saying that ATC had advised a G550 crew of reports that some aircraft were unexpectedly reverting to transponder code 1200 and STBY without any pilot action. The issue had reportedly been observed on aircraft equipped with both Honeywell and Collins avionics, suggesting it wasn’t limited to just one type.

Sure enough, on departure from KBJC/Rocky Mountain the next day, the crew experienced exactly that. The transponder reverted to 1200 STBY without any associated CAS message.

We reported this to the group, and we’ve since received reports from other operators, including a Falcon 2000 LXS that experienced the issue on two separate transponders, along with an Embraer 175. All reports so far have one thing in common: the Denver area.

We still don’t know what’s causing it.

One possibility is an avionics or software issue. The fact that both the transponder code and mode appear to change points towards something system-related.

There is some precedence for this type of behaviour. Eurocontrol previously documented a Honeywell Primus/Mode S interface issue that could result in a transponder unexpectedly reverting to standby. But this was associated with code entry, not these specific circumstances.

Another possibility is some kind of GPS-related disruption. The Denver area has a well documented history of military GPS and interference testing. Work carried out by the Opsgroup GPS Spoofing Work Group in 2024 illustrated how closely interwoven a transponder is with ADS-B Out, GPS position and FMS.

A GPS failure should not cause a transponder to select standby by itself, but weird system interactions can’t be ruled out. We know that some systems can enter fault modes or stop transmitting ADS-B when position is lost.

A ground-based issue seems less likely. ATC sometimes see transponder anomalies that the crew may not, but this doesn’t really explain a change in both mode and code.

Then there is a remote possibility of electromagnetic interference or some other malicious cause. While not impossible, there is currently no evidence that points in that direction.

If you’ve experienced this issue yourself, especially in the Denver area, please reach out to us on blog@ops.group.

The NTSB say runways may be more slippery than reported

Last one for this update.

The NTSB is pushing for changes to runway condition reporting after determining that the current RCAM system may underestimate the loss of braking action experienced during extreme rain.

The issue is that today’s system can still classify a runway as “wet/good” even when rainfall intensity is high enough to significantly reduce braking performance.

The NTSB reviewed eleven runway overruns between 2008 and 2022 involving wet runways. In nine of them, investigators found that moderate-to-heavy rainfall likely reduced braking more than the RCAM model would predict.

In other words, not all wet runways are equal. Crews may be using perfectly valid wet-runway landing calculations based on friction values that are too optimistic. The practical takeaway – when the rain gets heavy, be conservative!

Have something to add?

Let us know! Most of our content comes from you – our members and readers. If you’ve spotted something unusual, we’d love to hear about it. We’d welcome additions to this article or ideas for future updates. Email us at blog@ops.group.

Many thanks to Giuseppe Cattaneo for his help putting this article together! Know something worth knowing about something? Got a story to share? Let us know! That’s basically how Opsgroup works – you tell us, and we’ll tell everyone in the group! Email us at blog@ops.group.

On 1 Jan 2026, Europe became the first region to switch on FF-ICE.

You probably didn’t notice! You’re still filing flight plans. Your flight planning software probably looks much the same as it did a year ago. Chances are your day-to-day operation hasn’t changed at all.

But behind the scenes, one of the biggest changes to flight planning in decades is already underway.

FF-ICE (which stands for Flight and Flow Information for a Collaborative Environment) is ICAO’s plan for modernising how flight information gets exchanged between operators, flight planning systems, ANSPs and network managers.

The good news? You probably don’t need to do much about it right now…

What is FF-ICE?

Today’s ICAO flight plan is basically a structured text message. It works fine, but it has limits.

FF-ICE doesn’t replace the flight plan. You’ll still file one, but what changes is how the information behind it gets shared. Instead of passing around a fairly basic flight plan message, FF-ICE allows systems to exchange much more info, including aircraft performance data, trajectory information and flight plan updates linked to a unique flight identifier.

The goal is to give everyone involved in the flight a more accurate picture of what’s planned to happen and make it easier to manage changes along the way.

The important bit is that the old and new methods currently exist side by side.

Some systems can already submit an FF-ICE electronic flight plan. Others still use traditional ICAO flight plans. Eurocontrol sits in the middle and translates between the two – and this setup is expected to remain in place for a few years yet.

What changed in Europe?

Europe switched on FF-ICE on 1 Jan 2026.

If you fly IFR in Europe, there’s a good chance FF-ICE is already involved somewhere in the background when you file a flight plan.

Some mixed IFR/VFR flights and certain state aircraft can use a simplified version called a Light eFPL. Pure VFR flights don’t currently need to use it.

What we’ve got today is really just the first step. The current focus is on flight planning before departure. The bigger changes are expected later this decade, when FF-ICE expands into the airborne phase of flight.

Source: EBAA FF-ICE webinar, SESAR Deployment Manager presentation.

Does this affect BizAv?

Yes, but probably less than you think. FF-ICE mainly applies to IFR operations rather than whether a flight is commercial or private.

If you’re flying BizAv IFR in Europe, you’re generally part of the transition. But for most crews, very little has changed so far.

The operational impact is currently felt much more by dispatchers, flight planning teams and ATM systems than by pilots. We’ve heard a few reports of odd filing behaviour during the transition – some operators have received both ACK and REJ messages even though the flight plan was ultimately accepted.

But apart from some occasional filing weirdness, day-to-day ops seem largely unchanged.

Why haven’t operators noticed?

Because the flight planning providers are doing most of the work. If you use ForeFlight, PPS, ARINC Direct, Honeywell or another major provider, there’s a good chance FF-ICE is already being handled behind the scenes.

In most cases, you still build and file a flight plan exactly as before. Then the software takes care of the FF-ICE side of things.

What might change later?

This is where things get slightly more interesting.

The real goal of FF-ICE isn’t just changing how a flight plan gets filed. It’s about building a more accurate picture of the flight and sharing that info more effectively.

That means flight planning systems may eventually start asking for more detailed information than most operators provide today. Things like more accurate performance data, better weight information, or more precise timing constraints.

So crews won’t suddenly be building XML flight plans. But operators may eventually need to feed better data into the system so it can build a more accurate picture of the flight. And that’s where FF-ICE may start to become more visible.

What about the rest of the world?

Europe is leading the rollout, but FF-ICE was never intended to be just a European project. The FAA and other authorities are developing similar capabilities, although everyone is moving at different speeds.

That means we’ll probably be living in a mixed environment for years, with traditional flight plans and FF-ICE services operating side by side.

For now, the practical takeaway is simple:

• FF-ICE is here.
• Europe switched it on in Jan 2026.
• No one cares (ie. most operators won’t need to do anything differently right now, and the bigger changes are still ahead!)

Key Points – June 20 update

• Most Gulf FIRs are now open to overflights again, although many are still using tactical routes and flow management.
• Kuwait remains the exception – overflights through the OKAC/Kuwait FIR are still prohibited.
• The main Europe-Asia routings remain south via Egypt-Saudi-Oman/UAE or north via the Caucasus/Afghanistan.
• GPS jamming/spoofing remains one of the biggest operational issues across the region.
• ATC congestion and tactical routing procedures remain common, especially on the southern bypass.

The Gulf airspace picture has improved a lot over the past few weeks, but the central Middle East corridor still isn’t quite back yet.

Most Gulf FIRs have now reopened to overflights in some form, including Iraq, Bahrain, Qatar and the UAE. But Kuwait continues to prohibit overflights, meaning many of the most direct Europe-Middle East routings still aren’t available.

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

Syria

Yes, unbelievably we’re starting this list with Syria! It seems to have quietly become part of the regional routing picture again after years of almost no international overflight traffic.

May 27: Lots of little naughties sneaking through!

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.

Kuwait

Kuwait has extended its airspace restrictions until at least Aug 4. Overflights through the OKAC/Kuwait FIR are still not permitted – only flights arriving to or departing from OKKK/Kuwait are allowed, with prior approval.

That makes Kuwait the remaining gap in the middle of the Gulf routing structure. While neighbouring Iraq, Bahrain, Qatar and the UAE have all reopened to overflights in some form, operators still need to route around Kuwait, either via the southern Egypt-Saudi-Oman corridor or further north.

Iran

Iran is still operating in what it calls a “recovery period” rather than normal ops. Some overflights above FL285 are possible via specific temporary routes linking Oman/UAE with Central Asia, the Caucasus and Turkey, but western Iran remains heavily restricted. Several radar systems remain degraded, many western airports are still closed or daytime-only, and pretty much everyone continues avoiding the airspace.

Qatar

Qatar has now reopened to overflights. The earlier restrictions on waypoints and arrival/departure route segments have been withdrawn, although some temporary restricted areas and military activity remain. OTHH/Doha and the Doha FIR seem to be almost back to normal again.

UAE

The UAE remains open to overflights, with traffic managed through a mixture of normal ATS routes and temporary RNAV corridors. GPS interference continues to be one of the biggest operational issues across the FIR.

Bahrain

Bahrain is open to overflights again and things are mostly back to normal. Just keep in mind that nearby airspace, especially Kuwait, is still restricted and can affect your routing.

Iraq

Iraq is open for overflights again, but it still doesn’t really bring back the old Europe-Asia corridor because western Iran remains restricted and most operators still consider the ORBB/Baghdad FIR too high risk. Some airlines are using Iraq, but the main flows still seem to be north via the Caucasus/Afghanistan or south via Egypt/Saudi/Oman.

Saudi Arabia

Saudi remains open and is still the main southern bypass link. Traffic levels through the OEJD/Jeddah FIR remain very high, especially between the Gulf and Egypt, with 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 part of the managed corridor system, with flow measures and ongoing GNSS interference reports.

Jordan

Open and operating normally. In practice, 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 again in a limited way, but ops still aren’t anywhere near normal. Some foreign airlines are returning, but most major US/European operators are still cautious.

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.

So for Europe-Asia traffic or Gulf positioning, the two real options are still the same as we reported before back in March – north via the Caucasus then Afghanistan, or south via Egypt then Saudi then Oman:

Airport Spy reports

We’ve had a lot of useful Airport Spy reports recently from Opsgroup members operating into several Middle East airports: 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.

Access latest Airport Spy reports here.

Recent developments

May 27 – EASA updates Middle East CZIB again

EASA has updated its Middle East Conflict Zone Information Bulletin (we’re now on revision #11!) reflecting the shift from active conflict towards what it describes as a “state of heightened tension” across the region.

The new version says the ceasefire between the US and Iran is currently holding, and that the overall level of risk has decreased since the peak of the conflict in March and April.

For Iran, Iraq and Lebanon: they recommend operators do not operate in the airspace at any altitude.

For Bahrain, Kuwait, Israel, Jordan, Qatar, Oman, UAE and Saudi Arabia: the advice has softened slightly to “exercise caution” and maintain updated risk assessments etc.

Also, the previous Saudi/Oman “safe corridor south of a line” wording has now disappeared entirely from the bulletin.

May 27 – Most Gulf FIRs reopened

Most Gulf FIRs have reopened in some form, but things are still far from normal. Most Europe-Asia traffic is still routing south via Egypt-Saudi-Oman/UAE or north via the Caucasus and Afghanistan, with very little using the old Iran/Iraq corridor.

GPS jamming/spoofing is now one of the biggest operational issues in the region. Opsgroup members reported complete GPS loss, and interference extending well into neighbouring FIRs. ATC across the Gulf seems very used to it, with runway heading departures and radar vectors now common.

May – Ceasefire holding but tensions remain high

The ceasefire between Iran, Israel and the US does seem to be holding for now, which has allowed most Gulf FIRs to reopen in phases. But this definitely doesn’t mean things are back to normal yet. Military activity is still happening in parts of the region, restrictions are still changing quite often, and several FIRs are still operating under contingency procedures.

April 24-26 – Kuwait and Iran begin phased reopening

Kuwait has reopened its airspace and resumed limited operations after nearly two months of closure, while Iran has restarted some international flights from Tehran and expanded access in the eastern part of its FIR. Both are reopening cautiously and in phases, and neither restores a normal central Middle East routing yet. Most international airlines are still avoiding Iran, with only limited use of Iraq airspace.

April 23 – Opsgroup member reports on OEJD/Jeddah FIR congestion

OPSGROUP members report comms congestion in the southeastern sector of the Jeddah FIR (towards the Muscat boundary, up to ITRUX). Frequencies are saturated with blocked transmissions and delayed check-ins, with ATC sometimes instructing extended “standby” and calling aircraft individually. Guard (121.5) has occasionally been used to pass frequency changes. Crews report being held around FL300-330 until handoff. This reflects the increased traffic using the southern bypass route and may cause delays in the area.

OPSGROUP members can check Airport Spy for more info.

April 21 – Iran reopens east part of Tehran FIR

Iran has reopened the east part of Tehran FIR to overflights above FL285 under recovery-period procedures, while the west part remains closed. This is the biggest airspace change since our last update, but it does not restore a normal central corridor.

April 20-22 – Qatar and Bahrain move further into controlled reopening

Qatar’s current Notams now say OTHH is available to all airlines via dedicated corridor entry and exit points, while Bahrain remains open with prior approval only and fixed OBBI entry and exit points. Both are more usable than they were in early April, but neither is back to normal hub operations.

March 30 – Missile intercepted over Turkey

Another Iranian ballistic missile was intercepted over southern Turkey, with debris reported near the Syrian border. Turkish airspace remains open with no operational impact, but the incident again shows how far west some of the missile activity is extending.

March 24-30 – UAE short-notice closures continue

The UAE continued to briefly close its airspace during new missile and drone threats, reopening shortly afterwards. This reinforced the risk of sudden disruption even when the FIR was technically open.

March 24 – OKKK/Kuwait airport fuel tank hit

A drone strike hit a fuel storage tank at OKKK/Kuwait, causing a fire. No casualties were reported, but this was another direct strike on airport infrastructure and highlighted the ongoing risk to ATC and fuel systems.

March 17 – UAE airspace closure

The UAE briefly closed its entire airspace overnight on March 16-17 as an “exceptional precautionary measure” during new missile and drone threats.

It lasted about two hours before reopening, but caused fresh disruption to already limited ops into OMDB/Dubai and OMDW/Al Maktoum.

This came just one day after the drone strike near OMDB, and showed how quickly the situation can change – even FIRs that are technically open can shut with little or no warning.

March 16 – LLBG/Tel Aviv BizAv ban appears to ease

Earlier this week we reported that BizAv flights were not being approved at LLBG/Tel Aviv, based on guidance from the Israeli CAA and multiple Opsgroup member reports. That restriction did not appear in the Notams at the time.

A local handler at QAS Executive Aviation (pvt@qasisrael.co.il) later advised that BizAv operators could again apply for PPR approval through the airport ops center. Slots remained extremely limited and priority was still being given to emergency and state flights, so approvals could be difficult to obtain. Check with your handler before planning any BizAv ops to LLBG.

March 16 – OMDB/Dubai drone strike halts flights

A drone strike hit a fuel storage tank near OMDB/Dubai, causing a large fire and forcing a temporary suspension of operations. At least 65 flights diverted to airports across the region, including OMDW/Al Maktoum, while others held or turned back as emergency services dealt with the blaze.

March 14 – Drones strike OKKK/Kuwait airport radar

Kuwait authorities reported that multiple drones targeted OKKK/Kuwait airport, damaging part of the airport’s radar system. No casualties were reported, but the incident highlighted the potential for ATC capability to be degraded if radar infrastructure is damaged.

March 11 – Opsgroup member reports

OMDW/Al Maktoum turn: One member reported a recent turn at OMDW/Al Maktoum with generally smooth operations despite the regional situation. Arriving from the north, the only operational issue was GPS jamming beginning near Riyadh. The airport itself was quiet and well organised. Departure was delayed by about five minutes due to military activity. The permit process was more involved than usual, requiring a risk assessment before approval as part of the current UAE corridor procedures (see this section below for more info).

OERK/Riyadh rescue flight: Another member operating a Part 121 rescue flight reported smooth ops on a routing Germany-Riyadh-Germany. The permit process and UAE GCAA No Objection Certificate were issued without problems. Ground handling at OERK/Riyadh was efficient, with fuel uplift starting immediately on arrival and a two-hour ground time. The western routing via Saudi-Egypt-Greece worked without issues. They also reported that insurance applied a premium for the trip, and the flight required a Safety Risk Analysis including FAA considerations.

March 7 – OMDB/Dubai drone incident

OMDB/Dubai Airport briefly suspended operations on March 7 after a drone struck near Terminal 3, causing minor damage and smoke near the terminal area. Flights were halted while authorities checked the airport and several arrivals aborted or held. Operations resumed later the same day, though delays continued across the airport.

March 6 – Israel

Ops at LLBG/Tel Aviv were briefly disrupted when an El Al repatriation flight had to abort its landing after missile sirens sounded across central Israel during an Iranian attack wave. The aircraft entered a holding pattern before returning for a second approach once the alert was lifted.

March 6 – OOMS/Muscat “scheduled flights only” Notam

Some media reports said Muscat was restricting BizAv flights due to congestion from evacuation traffic. A Notam appeared to support this: OOMS airport accepts scheduled flights only, all diversion flights subject to prior approval. However, a local handler at Jetex OOMS advised that normal BizAv operations were continuing, and operators should not expect any practical impact from this Notam for now. Contact them at: fbo-mct@jetex.com for more info.

March 6 – UAE airports operating limited flights

Airlines started operating more flights from UAE airports using the restricted corridor system, though capacity remained well below normal levels.

A local handler advised that to use the repatriation corridors into UAE airports, operators first had to obtain a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the GCAA Foreign Operators Affairs Department (FOA). Operators reportedly submitted a short risk assessment to foa@gcaa.gov.ae, after which a NOC was issued. This then had to be provided to the handler for the landing permit request. Response times were typically less than 60 mins, and a single NOC could cover multiple flights for the same aircraft during the recovery period. You can find an example of a completed risk assessment here.

March 6 – Oman becoming a staging point

Flightradar24 reported that OOMM/Muscat was becoming a staging point for evacuation and repositioning flights. Airline and private aircraft were using the airport to position for repatriation flights, as it sits just outside the most restricted Gulf airspace while still providing access to the southern bypass route via Saudi Arabia and Egypt.

March 5 – Azerbaijan drone strike

Iranian drones crossed the Iran-Azerbaijan border early on March 5 and one struck the terminal building at UBBN/Nakhchivan airport. Damage appeared limited to the terminal area with no confirmed runway impact. This was the first time the current Iran conflict spilled into the Caucasus, close to the Armenia-Azerbaijan overflight corridor used by traffic avoiding the Middle East airspace closures. No impact was reported to UBBB/Baku airport or the main overflight flows.

March 4 – Missile interception over Turkey

On March 4, a ballistic missile launched from Iran travelled west and was intercepted over southern Turkey by NATO air defence systems. Debris was reported to have fallen in the Hatay region near the Syrian border. Turkish airspace remained open and there was no operational impact reported, but the incident highlighted how far west some of the missile activity associated with the conflict was extending.

March 3 – Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

Iranian drones struck the US Embassy area during overnight attacks on Saudi Arabia. Damage was reported in the area, though Saudi air defences intercepted several other drones targeting the city.

March 1-2 – Cyprus

A drone strike caused minor damage at RAF Akrotiri, a major UK airbase used for regional military operations. Nearby LCPH/Paphos airport was briefly evacuated after radar detected a potential aerial threat approaching the island.

Since Feb 28 – Israel and Iran

US and Israeli strikes on Iranian military targets triggered ongoing Iranian missile and drone retaliation across Israel and several Gulf states. Multiple waves of attacks targeted military bases and infrastructure across the region, leading to widespread airspace closures and disruption to normal Middle East flight routes.

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.

The updated OPSGROUP NAT Plotting and Planning Chart 2026 is now available!

This is our chart showing North Atlantic Oceanic Airspace and adjoining domestic airspace, with easy to read NAT Tips, Airspace Requirements, Emergency Procedures, and much more!

OPSGROUP members – you can grab a copy in your Member Dashboard here. View it on your iPad or Laptop etc as a PDF, or print it out! If you’re not a member, read on for how to get a copy…

Changes in this new edition (June 2026):

• FULLY UPDATED for 2026!
• NAT Tips: now shows current OCR/RCL procedures across all NAT FIRs, including Gander, Shanwick, Reykjavik, New York, Santa Maria, and Bodo.
• NAT Airspace Circle of Entry 2026: clearer view of NAT HLA, DLM, surveillance areas, and where datalink is or isn’t required.
• Iceland-Greenland corridor and VHF routes: updated post-Blue Spruce routings, including current ADS-B and VHF requirements.
• BIRD/Reykjavik FIR 2025 ADS-B requirement: now shown on the chart.
• Greenland alternates: BGGH/Nuuk and BGQO/Qaqortoq added, BGBW/Narsarsuaq removed.
• Additional diversion airports added: with runway, approach, length, RFF, and hours.

Other chart features:

• Requirements for NAT tracks, PBCS tracks, datalink mandate.
• NAT FPL codes, clearance frequencies, Satcom, HF, and RCL timings.
• All NAT Entry/Exit points with associated required landfall fixes.
• Quick reference for contingency, weather, and comms failure with easy graphics.
• Easy view of boundaries for HLA and DLM/Datalink mandated airspace.
• and … Treasure Boxes!

There are two options to download a copy of the NAT Chart:

OPSGROUP Members

You can get it in your Member Dashboard here.

Not a member?

• Option 1: Buy a copy in the store
• Option 2: Apply to join OPSGROUP, and get it for free!

With an OPSGROUP membership, all publications like this from the group are free of charge and all available through the Member Dashboard. Join with an individual, team, or airline/dept membership, and connect with over 8000 other pilot, dispatch, ATC, and operations members.

More NAT goodies…

The Opsgroup NAT Guide 2026 (aka My First North Atlantic Flight is Tomorrow) is now available too – a practical guide for pilots and dispatchers covering the basics of North Atlantic ops. Get your copy here.

With World Cup traffic significantly increasing arrivals into Canada, CBSA has launched a pilot program allowing BizAv and GA operators to submit a PDF form up to five days before arrival.

Calling CANPASS is a familiar pastime for many pilots operating into Canada. Traditionally, pilots are required to call 2-48hrs prior to their arrival to preregister crew and pax details with CBSA. Depending on how busy the call centre is, this can sometimes take “a while”. It’s also quite arduous to have to pass all of the personal particulars of crew and pax over the phone.

But now, some of that burden can be alleviated by a simple PDF.

If you want to take part, it’s open to all. So first thing, download this PDF. It seems to only open properly in Acrobat, nothing else. So if you use Acrobat to open it, it should look like this:

If you try to open it with another program, it’ll probably look like this:

(and then you’ll have to do what we did and download Acrobat to make it work!)

Once you’ve filled it in, there’s a button at the bottom that says “Submit by Email”. You can do that, but it might start an annoying chain reaction where your computer tries to open the default Mail app and you get stuck in an infinite loop of frustration. Probably easier to just click “Save Form” to PDF, and then manually email it to CBSA at this address: trc_preregistration_inscriptionprealable_crt@cbsa-asfc.gc.ca

A few other things to keep in mind:

1. The form is only a pre-submission. It allows you to provide the personal details that typically take the most time over the phone, including names, passport details and dates of birth for crew and passengers. Once submitted, the form is sent via email and you should receive a confirmation email from CBSA.
2. You must still call CANPASS between 2-48hrs before arriving in Canada. But this call should be considerably quicker, as you’re only confirming that the info previously submitted remains accurate and that there have been no changes.
3. You must still call CANPASS after landing to determine whether you can proceed with disembarkation or if you need to wait for CBSA officers to attend the aircraft.
4. Keep a copy of all crew and pax details readily available in case CBSA asks you to verify any information during either call.

The trial program is currently scheduled to run until 19 July 2026. The more operators who participate, the more useful feedback CBSA will receive when deciding whether to make the program permanent!

You can download the CBSA Pre Registration Form here.

CANPASS:
Within Canada: 1-888-226-7277
Outside Canada: +1-905-679-2073

You can also visit the CBSA General Aviation Reporting website here.

Two major events are set to impact BizAv ops in Switzerland next week. The G7 Summit takes place in Evian on Lake Geneva from June 15-17, while Art Basel runs in Basel from June 15-21. Expect increased traffic, limited parking and restrictions at airports across the region, particularly around LSGG/Geneva and LFSB/Basel.

LSGG/Geneva

If you’re planning to use LSGG/Geneva during the G7 Summit, you’ll need a Plan B.

The airport has confirmed that no PPR approvals will be granted from June 15-17, except for a very limited number of exempted flights like medical ops etc. During the summit, BizAv facilities will be reserved for diplomatic and gov traffic.

Parking is another challenge. From the evening of June 14 until the morning of June 18, aircraft won’t be allowed to remain parked on the apron. Unless specifically authorized by the authorities, expect a drop-and-go operation followed by a reposition.

The restrictions extend to cheeky helicopters as well. Geneva’s helipads will be reserved for military use from June 13-17, leaving no room for normal helicopter traffic.

For more info, Geneva Airport has published a dedicated operational notice covering the temporary G7 measures.

Local handlers have a fairly straightforward message: don’t rely on Geneva for parking during the summit. If the Lake Geneva area is your destination, now’s the time to secure parking elsewhere and work out your repositioning plan.

Security Airspace Around Evian

The summit will also trigger temp security airspace structure around Lake Geneva between June 15-18.

France has published AIP SUP 110/26 establishing three temporary security areas:

• ZIT LAC: a prohibited area directly over the summit area, SFC-FL115.
• ZRT SAVOIE: a large restricted area surrounding Lake Geneva, SFC-FL195.
• ZRT EVIAN: an extra restricted area over Evian between FL195-245.

The good news: these restrictions are not aimed at normal airline or BizAv traffic. IFR flights to LSGG/Geneva, LFLB/Chambery, LFLP/Annecy, LFLL/Lyon, and other major airports in the region should still be able to operate under normal ATC procedures.

The biggest impact will be on local VFR flying. Training flights, gliding, parachuting, balloons, drones and all that kinda stuff will be restricted or suspended during the summit period.

Looking for Alternatives?

So where do you park if Geneva isn’t an option?

LFLB/Chambery and LFLP/Annecy are the closest alternatives. Both airports will require PPR and mandatory handling during the summit period. Also keep in mind that both airports sit in Alpine terrain and can be more operationally challenging than Geneva or Lyon.

Further south, LFLL/Lyon Saint Exupery and LFLY/Lyon Bron currently look like two of the most practical alternatives. No major G7-related restrictions have been announced so far, but parking demand is expected to increase.

Don’t overlook LFLS/Grenoble either. Several local handlers pointed us towards it as a good fallback option if parking starts to tighten elsewhere.

Wherever you decide to park, the common theme is the same: submit requests early!

LFSB/Basel

Art Basel is back from June 15-21 and the airport is warning about parking limits during the event week.

Local handlers told us they’re seeing very strong demand and are reviewing parking requests on a case-by-case basis.

If Basel is on your schedule, expect mandatory handling, one-hour max turns, and no overnight parking on the main apron. LFSB also cannot be filed as an alternate airport during the event period.

The good news is that handlers aren’t aware of any restrictions beyond those already published. The challenge is simply finding space, so the earlier you submit your request, the better your chances.

Mali’s security situation has taken a sharp turn for the worse in recent months, prompting several states to issue new airspace warnings and revisit existing guidance.

We’ve written about Mali before, particularly following the military coups of 2020 and 2021. What’s different now is that the conflict is no longer confined to remote areas. Since April, armed groups have shown an ability to coordinate attacks across multiple cities at the same time, including near Bamako.

The biggest flashpoint came on April 25, when militants launched coordinated attacks across much of the country. Military bases, government facilities and GABS/Bamako airport were among the reported targets. The attacks highlighted a level of coordination not seen in Mali for more than a decade and raised fresh concerns about the government’s ability to contain the threat.

Although Bamako remains under government control and things have settled down since then, armed groups remain active across large parts of Mali, attacks continue regularly, and there’s a real possibility of further coordinated offensives in the months ahead.

The April 25 attacks were the largest coordinated militant attacks Mali has seen since 2012.

The Airspace Picture

From an ATS perspective, Mali is split between two FIRs. Eastern Mali sits in the DRRR/Niamey FIR, and Western Mali in the GOOO/Dakar FIR. The danger exists in portions of this airspace that lie above Malian territory.

Here’s what this all looks like on a map:

Airspace Warnings

Several states have issued new or updated airspace warnings for Mali in recent weeks, most of which remain in effect

Italy

LIRR Notam E0557/26

ITALIAN AIR CARRIERS AND CAPTAINS OF AIRCRAFT IN CHARGE OF AIR SERVICES OPERATED BY CARRIERS HOLDING AN OPERATING LICENSE ISSUED BY ITALY, WHETHER THEY ARE CONTRACTUAL CARRIERS AND/OR OPERATING CARRIERS, OR PERFORMING AIR SERVICES THROUGH A WET LEASE OR A CODESHARE AGREEMENT AS WELL AS FOR ANY FLIGHT MADE WITH AN AIRCRAFT REGISTERED IN ITALY ARE RECOMMENDED TO AVOID PORTIONS OF DAKAR FIR (GOOO) AND NIAMEY FIR (DRRR) WITHIN TERRITORY AND AIRSPACE OF MALI BELOW HEIGHT 25000FT AGL AND ACCORDING TO EASA SAFETY DIRECTIVES.

Plain English: Italian operators should avoid the airspace of Mali below 25000ft AGL.

United Kingdom

EGTT Notam V0019/26

SECURITY – HAZARDOUS SITUATION IN MALI. UK CIVIL AIR OPERATORS ARE RECOMMENDED NOT TO ENTER FIR NIAMEY (DRRR) AND FIR DAKAR (GOOO) WITHIN THE TERRITORY AND AIRSPACE OF MALI BELOW 25,000 FT ABOVE GROUND LEVEL (AGL). POTENTIAL RISK FROM ANTI-AIRCRAFT WEAPONRY AND HEIGHTENED MILITARY ACTIVITY. THIS SUPERSEDES THE ADVICE IN THE CURRENT UK AIP ENR 1.1. AR-2026-3729/01.

Plain English: Operators should not enter the portions of the GOOO/Dakar and DRRR/Niamey FIRs over Mali below 25,000 ft AGL due to risks posed by anti-aircraft fire and military activity.

Canada

CZUL Notam H2442/26

AIRSPACE SECURITY WARNING ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT IN RESPONSE TO THE SECURITY SITUATION IN MALI. CANADIAN AIR OPERATORS AND OWNERS OF AIRCRAFT REGISTERED IN CANADA ARE RECOMMENDED TO MAINTAIN A FLIGHT LEVEL EQUAL TO OR ABOVE FL320 IN THE PORTIONS OF FIR DAKAR (GOOO) AND FIR NIAMEY (DRRR) LOCATED IN THE TERRITORY OF MALI DUE TO THE POTENTIAL RISK FROM MILITANT ACTIVITY AND ANTI-AIRCRAFT WEAPONRY.

Plain English: Canadian operators are recommended to remain at or above FL320 while in portions of the GOOO/Dakar and DRRR/Niamey FIRs overhead Mali due to risk of anti-aircraft fire and military activity.

France

LFBB Notam F1114/26

DUE TO SECURITY SITUATION IN MALI, FRENCH AIR CARRIERS AND CAPTAINS OF AIRCRAFT IN CHARGE OF AIR SERVICES OPERATED BY CARRIERS HOLDING AN OPERATING LICENSE ISSUED BY FRANCE, WHETHER THEY ARE CONTRACTUAL CARRIERS AND/OR OPERATING CARRIERS, OR PERFORMING AIR SERVICES THROUGH A WET LEASE OR A CODESHARE AGREEMENT AS WELL AS FOR ANY FLIGHT MADE WITH AN AIRCRAFT REGISTERED IN FRANCE ARE REQUESTED TO MAINTAIN AT ALL TIMES A FLIGHT LEVEL ABOVE OR EQUAL TO FL320 IN THE PART OF FIR DAKAR (GOOO) AND IN THE PART OF FIR NIAMEY (DRRR) LOCATED ABOVE THE MALIAN TERRITORY AND NOT TO SERVE OR IDENTIFY AS ALTERNATE BAMAKO MODIBO – KEITA AERODROME (GABS). THIS NOTAM SUPERSEDES THE RESTRICTIONS CONCERNING MALI ISSUED IN PARAGRAPH 3.11 MALI OF THE AIC NR A02/26 CURRENTLY IN EFFECT.

Plain English: French operators are advised to remain at or above FL320 in the portions of the GOOO/Dakar and DRRR/Niamey FIRs overhead Mali. GABS/Bamako should not be used at this time (including as an alternate) due to a deteriorating security situation.

What about the US FAA?

The FAA had already previously upgraded its airspace warning for Mali, since re-issued as (very lengthy) KICZ Notam A0023/26.

The warning expanded the scope of the threat. Previous guidance from 2022 focused mainly on risks below FL260. The concern then was mostly insurgent activity, indirect fire and possible MANPAD threats around airports in Northern Mali.

Then in 2025, several changes were made. The current advisory now warns US operators to exercise caution at all altitudes citing expanding foreign private military presence, and the introduction of an advanced air defence system.

The FAA later expanded on this in a background notice published in March this year.

The FAA says Mali now hosts a state-run paramilitary force operating anti-aircraft weapons, helicopters, fighter aircraft, drones and electronic warfare equipment. That’s a notable shift from earlier guidance which focused mainly on low-level threats such as indirect fire and MANPADS.

Alternatives

Mali, and especially GABS/Bamako, used to be a fairly common BizAv tech stop. However in the past decade, many operators have become increasingly cautious about Mali because of terrorism, political instability, military coups and general risk.

The events of April have reinforced this – stops in Mali are currently dangerous.

If you’re looking for alternatives, Senegal (GOBD/Dakar) has become probably the most common option in West Africa for biz jets. It has sound infrastructure, is generally stable and relatively safe.

Other options include Cape Verde (GVAC/Sal) which is especially popular for Atlantic crossings, and Ghana (DGAA/Accra).

Safeairspace

Visit safeairspace.net for a full list of active airspace state-issued warnings for Mali, and all other countries.

Update June 1:

• We’ve expanded our Special Event Fees Tracker to cover World Cup host cities and match dates. OPSGROUP members can access that via your members dashboard here.
• Below we’ve put together a practical lowdown for ops into the US, Canada, and Mexico – key airports, peak traffic periods, and what to plan for!

The 2026 FIFA World Cup runs June 11 to July 19. With 48 teams and 104 matches, it will likely be one of the busiest BizAv periods North America has seen.

Check the official FIFA match schedule below. Arrivals typically peak the day before and on match morning. Departures spike immediately after. Then things ramp up fast from the Round of 32 onwards…

Official FIFA schedule times are published in Eastern Time (ET). Local time at some host cities is different!

Or hover over the cities on the map below to quickly check which dates matches are happening:

Mexico

If there is one country that can mess with a World Cup trip before you even leave the ground, it’s Mexico! AFAC permits, possible slot controls, special event fees, and Mexico City congestion will make this the main tricky country of the three.

If you need support with Mexico planning or permits, contact CST Flight Services at: info@cstflightservices.com.

Permits

Mexico permits are handled by AFAC, and during the tournament, permits will probably be one of the main reasons flights slip.

Private flights now operate under the AIU (Single Entry Authorisation) introduced in Jan 2024. Despite the name, it is valid for 180 days and allows multiple entries and domestic legs. Processing has improved, but issuance still depends on the destination airport receiving an authorisation number from AFAC HQ in Mexico City. That can take minutes or a couple of days.

Charter permits are typically issued on a one-shot basis. Do not expect new Blanket Permits before the tournament. If you do not already have one, plan for a one-shot authorisation and start early.

For full background, see the OPSGROUP article on Mexico permits.

Slots and fees

Slot controls may tighten for the World Cup period, potentially with priority given to sponsors and VIP traffic. Special event fees are also likely, although details have still not yet been published!

Match day pressure

Mexico City airspace is saturated even on a normal weekday. Expect delays, tight parking and heavier security on match days. Host cities are Mexico City, Guadalajara, and Monterrey, with matches starting from June 11.

Mexico City (MMMX/Mexico City, Estadio Azteca) will see the biggest spikes around:

• June 11 Kickoff match
• June 17 Group stage
• June 24 Group stage
• June 30 Knockouts
• July 5 Knockouts

Guadalajara (MMGL/Guadalajara, Estadio Akron) is busiest during the group stage:

• June 11-26 Group stage

Monterrey (MMMY/Monterrey, Estadio BBVA) runs heavy activity through the group stage, followed by a key knockout match:

• June 14-24 Group stage
• June 29 Knockouts

Mexico airports: BizAv practicality

For most BizAv ops, the strategy is simple: avoid MMMX unless absolutely unavoidable and build plans around airports that you can realistically get to.

• MMMX/Mexico City: Not an option for BizAv. Only commercial, military, and government flights are permitted.
• MMSM/Felipe Angeles: Set to play an important role for large-body ops, with approved overnight parking available for wide-body aircraft.
• MMTO/Toluca: The go-to BizAv airport for Mexico City positioning, open H24.
• MMGL/Guadalajara: Capacity is improving. Universal opened a new FBO on April 1, with expanded ramp space and private CIQ.
• MMMY/Monterrey: The main BizAv airport for Monterrey ops.
• MMAN/Del Norte: Closer to the Monterrey venue than Saltillo, but more complex under military control.
• MMIO/Saltillo: Around one hour from Monterrey and the best geographic BizAv alternate after MMMY and MMAN. The longer ground transfer may be an issue though.

USA

The US will handle most of the tournament traffic, with matches across 11 host cities.

CBP and eAPIS submissions need to be accurate. Double-check pax data and docs before filing. At busy airports, expect tighter CBP availability, especially on match days and during knockout rounds. Once traffic builds, last-minute changes will be difficult.

Security will be more visible than usual. Expect increased TSA ramp presence, credential checks, and stronger local law enforcement around stadium areas.

Slot/PPR controls are likely at major airports including KJFK/John F Kennedy, KEWR/Newark, KLAX/Los Angeles, KATL/Atlanta, and KMIA/Miami, particularly around key match days.

Expect FAA traffic management initiatives throughout the tournament, especially during the knockout stages. Depending on traffic and weather, you may run into delays, reroutes, flow programs, and temporary TFRs around stadiums on match days. See NBAA guidance here.

Also worth knowing: at many US airports, handling or facility fees may be waived if you take a minimum fuel uplift.

Tournament timeline

New York/New Jersey (KEWR/Newark, KJFK/John F. Kennedy – MetLife Stadium) will be the toughest place to operate during the tournament, especially around the Final on July 19. Expect the biggest spikes around:

• June 13-27 Group stage
• June 30 Knockouts
• July 5 Knockouts
• July 19 Final

Alternates include KTEB/Teterboro and KHPN/White Plains.

Around the Final, assume KEWR and KJFK will be at capacity unless parking is confirmed well in advance. If you are flexible, position early to alternates.

Slot and parking pressure will build in the days leading up to July 19.

Demand will stay high across all US host cities once the knockout rounds begin. The US has significant infrastructure and capacity, but flexibility will tighten during peak periods.

Below is a simplified operational view by city:

Atlanta (KATL/Atlanta – Mercedes-Benz Stadium)

• June 15-27 Group stage
• July 1, 7, 15 Knockouts

Boston (KBOS/ Boston Logan – Gillette Stadium)

• June 13-26 Group stage
• June 29 Knockouts
• July 9 Quarterfinal

Dallas (KDFW/Dallas Fort Worth, KDAL/Dallas Love Field – AT&T Stadium)

• June 14-27 Group stage
• June 30 – July 14 Knockouts including a semifinal

Houston (KIAH/Houston George Bush, KHOU/Houston Hobby – NRG Stadium)

• June 14-26 Group stage
• June 29, July 4 Knockouts

Kansas City (KMCI/Kansas City – GEHA Field at Arrowhead Stadium)

• June 16-27 Group stage
• July 3 Knockouts
• July 11 Quarterfinal

Los Angeles (KLAX/Los Angeles – SoFi Stadium)

• June 12-25 Group stage
• June 28, July 2, 10 Knockouts

Miami (KMIA/Miami – Hard Rock Stadium)

• June 15-27 Group stage
• July 3, 11 Knockouts
• July 18 Third-place match

Philadelphia (KPHL/Philadelphia – Lincoln Financial Field)

• June 14-27 Group stage
• July 4 Knockouts

San Francisco Bay Area (KSFO/San Francisco – Levi’s Stadium)

• June 13-25 Group stage
• July 1 Knockouts

Seattle (KSEA/Seattle – Lumen Field)

• June 15-26 Group stage
• July 1, 6 Knockouts

FIFA PASS: helpful, but not a free pass

The US government and FIFA have rolled out FIFA PASS, a priority visa appointment system for World Cup 2026 ticket holders travelling to US host cities. In simple terms, it gives eligible passengers a faster way to secure their visa interview ahead of the tournament.

For BizAv operators, this may help reduce visa lead times during peak travel periods. It does not replace standard US entry requirements, so visa status should still be verified carefully. Think of it as helpful, but not guaranteed.

Special event fees

Special event fees will be in place at most US airports during the tournament, especially in cities hosting knockout matches and the Final.

We’ve put together a dedicated World Cup special event fees tracker, including some known fees for every match throughout the tournament. The tracker makes it easy to see which match days are likely to be the most expensive, compare nearby airport options, and identify where fees increase significantly for high-demand games involving teams such as the US or other major football nations.

We update the tracker regularly as new info comes in. If you hear about confirmed fees or local restrictions that are not yet on the list, let us know so we can share the update with everyone.

Member update: Not every FBO is introducing World Cup surcharges. Clay Lacy Aviation says it does not currently plan to apply special event fees at its California and Connecticut locations during the tournament.

Member update: Special event fees are showing up in Canada too. Members have told us that both Skyservice and Signature at CYYZ/Toronto are charging additional World Cup fees, currently around CAD 750-1500 on the day before, day of, and day after matches. Slot reservations also require a small booking fee and a larger temporary hold, with possible penalties for operating without a slot. Last-minute booking fees may apply as well.

Canada

Canada hosts fewer matches than the US, but it can be a useful pressure valve.

If you’re arriving from Europe or repositioning between venues, Toronto and Vancouver offer a practical place to park without jumping straight into the busiest US airspace. It can work well as a staging point while you wait for a better slot window south of the border.

Factor in customs. Most BizAv arrivals require CANPASS coordination, so passenger data and timing need to be accurate.

Tournament timeline

Canada’s host cities are Toronto and Vancouver. Match activity begins early in the tournament, so expect demand from mid-June onward, even if overall traffic levels remain lower than the busiest US venues.

Toronto (CYYZ/Toronto Pearson – BMO Field) will see activity around:

• June 12, 17, 20, 23, 26 Group stage
• July 2 Knockouts

Vancouver (CYVR/Vancouver – BC Place) will see activity around:

• June 13, 18, 21, 24, 26 Group stage
• July 2 Knockouts
• July 7 Quarterfinal

Share your experience

Are you already arranging services at any World Cup host airport? Have you run into anything unusual, unexpected, or worth flagging to other operators?

We would love to hear from you! Drop us a note at team@ops.group and let us know what you are seeing on the ground.

It has been a busy year of change for Greenland’s airports. Here is the current operational picture for the main NAT alternates as of June 2026.

BGQO/Qaqortoq

BGQO/Qaqortoq is now operational and has replaced BGBW/Narsarsuaq as the main airport in southern Greenland. After some early teething issues, security approval for international flights has been granted and the Notam restricting GA/BizAv traffic has been cancelled.

Basic info:

• Runway: 1501 x 30m (asphalt, Code 3C)
• Approaches: RNP LNAV/VNAV only (no precision)
• Airspace: AFIS, Class G with 20NM RMZ
• Fire cover: up to CAT 7 (with prior notice for larger aircraft)
• Fuel: Jet A1 and AvGas available

You can find full info on BGQO in the AIP here.

All non-scheduled flights require PPR at least 12 hours before arrival. A local agent advises that slots may be limited initially as the airport ramps up operations. This is not the usual Greenland “call ahead and hope” setup. Expect to provide accurate ETAs and obtain approval in advance, including for alternate use. Published hours are Mon-Sat 0900-1800z, closed Sundays and holidays. If you operate there, we’d appreciate an Airport Spy report!

BGBW/Narsarsuaq

Narsarsuaq closed to fixed-wing traffic on 17 Apr 2026 (when BGQO/Qaqortoq was supposed to become operational). So arrivals and departures are no longer accepted and the airport has transitioned to heliport-only ops for the local community.

Operationally, nothing has changed:

• Runway: 1800m
• Approaches: non-precision only
• Frequent poor weather and terrain constraints

BGSF/Sondrestrom

Plans to downgrade Sondrestrom from ATC to AFIS have been cancelled. In one of the shortest AICs we’ve ever seen, Naviair confirmed that BGSF would remain fully controlled until further notice.

Word from behind the scenes is that it was recently evaluated that ongoing demand for BGSF was solid enough to warrant full ATC.

Operationally, this is still the most reliable Greenland alternate:

• Runway: 2800m
• Fewer terrain issues than coastal airports
• Generally more stable weather

If you want something predictable in central Greenland, this is still the go-to.

BGGH/Nuuk

Nuuk is now fully established as a jet-capable airport with a 2200m runway, ILS approaches at both ends, and regular airline traffic. On paper, it is now a very capable NAT alternate.

The only current Notam limitation is that parking on all aprons is limited to a maximum of 72 hours (PERM Notam).

The bigger thing to watch now is a coming airspace change, from 14 May 2026:

• A TMA (Class C) when Nuuk Approach is active (roughly 08-23 local)
• ADS-B required for all flights in the TMA up to FL195 during those hours
• Outside those hours, airspace reverts to Class G
• At night, ADS-B not required, but prior coordination with Nuuk ATC is required

See AIC 1-26 for full details of all that.

So the picture at BGGH/Nuuk is much better than it was a few months ago – but it’s still not totally straightforward. It is usable again, but with tighter airspace rules and some practical limits like the 72-hour parking cap.

Nuuk has been significantly expanded to accommodate large jet aircraft.

BGJN/Ilulissat

The new 2200m runway at BGJN/Ilulissat is still due to open in Fall 2026. Once open, this will give northern Greenland another serious jet-capable airport, broadly similar to BGGH/Nuuk.

A reminder about after-hours fees

Look out for surprise fees if you use BGBW/Narsarsuaq or BGSF/Sondrestrom as alternates after hours (overnight 20-11z or anytime on Sundays). You will be charged the better part of $3000 USD to keep standby equipment on watch, and runways clear of snow.

Some insider advice – advance notice reduces the cost. If you need one of these cheaper outside of normal operating hours, provide at least 24 hours’ notice.

Bottom line

Greenland is mid-transition right now, but with a bigger gap than expected:

• BGQO has opened
• BGBW has closed
• BGGH is now the main southern option and generally dependable, but with some airspace and parking limitations
• BGSF remains the most reliable and predictable option overall

A special thanks to our agent in the field

Spare a thought for the unsung hero of this article. Apparently, high quality jackets for the Greenland winters are no joke – as evidenced below. Thank you for your help assembling this article!

Eurocontrol has put out a new two-page CPDLC cheat sheet for European operations. It’s short, non-technical and really useful – especially if you don’t use CPDLC everyday.

You can download the PDF on the Eurocontrol site here (best place to go in case they update it again), or if that doesn’t work, here’s one we downloaded earlier!

The interesting part isn’t the basics though. Most crew already know that CPDLC is mandatory in much of Europe. What’s more juicy is the human factors stuff – the small misunderstandings and bad habits that are still creating problems out there.

This guidance serves as a reminder of some persistent errors. Here is a brief summary of those.

CLEARED TO vs. PROCEED DIRECT TO

Make sure you follow the clearance correctly.

EUROCONTROL points out that a CPDLC uplink saying “CLEARED TO [WAYPOINT D] VIA [A B C] is a route clearance, not a direct-to shortcut.

Those are issued by the phrase “PROCEED DIRECT TO.” Apparently enough of us are still getting this wrong to be specifically mentioned in the bulletin.

Assigned speeds don’t just disappear

The guide warns crew not to assume a CPDLC speed restriction quietly disappears just because the aircraft later gets another route or level clearance. It’s no different to a voice clearance, an assigned speed sticks unless you are told otherwise.

Why would this be happening? A few suggestions.

It’s possible that pilots load the route amendment but miss the associated speed. Mixed voice and CPDLC environments can also create ambiguity about which clearance is ‘current’ – more on that in moment.

Then there’s workload – especially in dense European airspace. When we get busy, it can be easy to overlook an old datalink clearance sitting in the message stack.

Don’t deliberately log-off

This is a biggie.

EUROCONTROL reminds us that a CPDLC clearance holds the same value as a voice clearance. Deliberately disconnecting or turning off CPDLC is akin to turning off your radios. Just don’t do it. Why would crew be doing this? We don’t know – but reverting yourself to voice is no-bueno.

Why do we still get voice clearances, even when fully logged on?

Some clearances are too urgent – voice is just quicker, especially in the case of level changes. Switching to voice rather than waiting for a CPDLC message to be sent and received can avoid an unnecessary level-off.

Then there’s network performance – no technology is perfect 100% all of the time, and things can slow down.

And simple practicality for the controller. It may just be easier to hop on voice.

Failed Log Ons

We’ve all been there – a logon simply refuses to work without explanation. It’s extremely frustrating!

In many cases the problem comes down to small setup errors – the wrong logon code, an outdated flight plan after an aircraft swap, or trying to connect to a sector that’s not included in your filed route.

Even something as simple as the wrong callsign format or VHF3 not being set to DATA can stop the connection. The fall back is to immediately revert to voice, but this adds workload for all concerned.

It’s not complicated, just human

There’s nothing terribly difficult or technical in Eurocontrol’s new guidance, but it does highlight how CPDLC introduces its own traps – especially in busy, unfamiliar airspace where crews may switch between voice and CPDLC several times in just one flight.

The guide is a useful reminder that getting the basics right with CPDLC is just as important as good radio discipline.

One extra point (especially for US operators)

Europe is a little different when it comes to CPDLC. Much of the network uses the ATN system over VHF datalink rather than the FANS over SATCOM/HF more commonly associated with oceanic ops. So in practical terms, losing the aircraft’s VHF datalink capability will often mean losing European ATN CPDLC capability as well.

The transition from oceanic to European airspace can also be a little confusing! In many cases, ATC systems handle the transfer between oceanic FANS services and European ATN CPDLC automatically, and crews should avoid manually logging off unless instructed by ATC or unless the handover has clearly failed.

NATS has told us that unnecessary crew logoffs near FIR boundaries can create additional ATC workload and may interfere with automatic handovers between current and next data authorities.

That said, datalink issues during the oceanic-to-European transition still generate plenty of pilot reports – particularly among operators less familiar with European ATN operations. Different avionics setups can also behave differently during the transition, which can occasionally catch crews out.

Bottom line – monitor the aircraft’s CPDLC status during the transition into Europe, and follow ATC instructions before manually disconnecting or attempting a new logon.

EASA has issued a new Safety Information Bulletin (SIB) warning operators about the potential introduction of Jet A fuel at European airports that have historically supplied only Jet A-1.

As supply chain pressure builds from the ongoing crisis in the Middle East, suppliers and airports may increasingly begin to consider the wider use of Jet A to help bridge the gap.

It’s not that Jet A is any more dangerous. Far from it – it’s the standard offering throughout North America. But for European ops, this matters because most procedures, assumptions and fuel handling systems have been built around Jet A-1 for decades. And EASA are concerned that this may introduce new risk for operators.

Jet A vs Jet A-1

It helps to frame a little context here, – I mean jet fuel is just jet fuel, right?

Well, not really. And this is where the danger lies.

But for starters, it isn’t about quality. There’s very little difference in the actual refining process. Jet A and Jet A-1 both come from the same level of refinement, known as a ‘kerosene fraction.’

The key operational difference is freezing point – how cold than can get before they start to wax up and stop flowing properly.

Jet A begins to freeze at -40°C, compared with -47°C for Jet A-1.

Jet A-1 has a lower freezing point, typically favoured for high-latitude, long haul operations.

Jet A-1 is refined to handle colder temperatures than Jet A, which is why it became the standard for international and long haul flying – especially on routes through very cold airspace.

There are a couple of other smaller differences too. Jet A-1 normally includes an anti-static additive, and the two fuels are certified under slightly different standards in the US versus the rest of the world.

But let’s cut to the chase. Operationally, pilots and dispatchers mainly care about freezing point, availability and whether an aircraft is approved for one or both fuels.

Right, onto the EASA bulletin…

What are EASA worried about?

Essentially, the risk of ‘fuel grade confusion’ between suppliers, operators, dispatchers and flight crew.

One example in the bulletin is especially concerning: an aircraft may receive Jet A, but the electronic fuel ticket incorrectly identifies it as Jet A-1. In that case, crews could unknowingly operate outside safe fuel temp margins.

There’s also a broader operational issue. If some airports in a region switch to Jet A, while others remain Jet A-1 only, crews and dispatchers may have to start tracking fuel grade availability as part of normal flight planning. EASA says this may affect route planning, alternate selection, fuel contingency margins, cold weather ops and overall crew workload – ie. it has potential to become a fuel-induced can of worms.

Then there’s the issue of commingling, and it’s sadly not as fun as it sounds! EASA are concerned about mixing of the two fuels. If they are combined in airport systems, operators may need to apply more conservative operating assumptions unless aircraft manufacturers provide clearer guidance. In other words, assume the more restrictive limitations apply.

If the two fuels are mixed, it’s important to use the more restrictive limitation: a -40 degree freezing point.

As we touched upon before, EASA is also warning against the dangerous assumption that ‘jet fuel is jet fuel.’ For crew, the practical takeaway is that fuel grade can no longer be treated as background information.

Operators should expect greater emphasis on checking Notams and AIPs carefully for fuel grade info, verifying what fuel was actually uplifted, and paying closer attention to fuel temperature margins on long/cold sectors.

And to connect all the dots – dispatch, fuel providers and flight crew all need to make sure they’re all working off the same page.

So is this all just plain dangerous?

No. The bulletin stops short of calling this an unsafe condition, or issuing mandatory action. What they are saying that Jet A can be used safely in Europe if the transition is properly managed.

EASA has essentially issued a warning that Europe and other traditionally Jet A-1 regions are entering unfamiliar territory operationally. The biggest risk is not the fuel itself – it’s confusion, assumptions and mismatched procedures during the transition.

Here’s a miserable little thing we hadn’t heard about in years and had hoped had quietly gone away… but hasn’t! Portugal is apparently still catching some operators out with EORI requirements, including for certain private flights / tech stops.

So what’s actually happening?

An EORI (Economic Operator Registration and Identification) number is an identification number used by customs authorities across the European Union.

The system itself is EU-wide and not specific to Portugal. It’s normally linked to import/export activities, customs declarations, and commercial ops, so if you mainly operate private flights, it’s probably not something you’ve ever needed to think about before.

But if you’re heading to Portugal or the Azores, you may now be asked to obtain an EORI number, even on clearly private flights.

One OPSGROUP member recently shared that they were unable to plan a tech stop at LPAZ/Santa Maria without getting an EORI number. Their flight was private, but that apparently made no difference.

Several members also noted they had previously transited the Azores without ever needing an EORI number, suggesting this might be a relatively recent operational change.

The reports we’ve received so far mainly involve non-EU operators, which also aligns with Portugal’s published EORI guidance.

What handlers in Portugal are saying

We checked with several handlers across Portugal and the Azores to see how this is working in practice. The picture is becoming clearer, although enforcement still does not seem completely consistent everywhere.

From the feedback we received, the issue is linked to Portugal’s SiMTeM customs system, which is used to electronically register aircraft arrivals and departures.

Even when no cargo is carried, flights still need to be entered into the system. In those cases, a NIL cargo declaration and passenger info may still need to be filed electronically.

The important part is that SiMTeM processing now appears closely tied to EORI identification. So even for a private flight or simple tech stop, crews may still be asked to obtain one before the flight can be processed.

Teams at LPPT/Lisbon, LPFR/Faro, LPPR/Porto and LPAZ/Santa Maria told us they are now consistently seeing EORI numbers requested, including for private flights and tech stops.

At the same time, not everyone is seeing this applied in exactly the same way yet. One team in LPCS/Cascais said they have not encountered EORI-related issues in day-to-day ops, while another Azores-based provider told us they do not currently request EORI numbers for tech stops.

So for now, enforcement may still vary depending on the airport or provider, but the overall trend is fairly clear: if you are planning to transit Portugal or the Azores, best bet is to just get an EORI number in advance.

How non-EU operators can get a Portugal EORI number

Good news is that getting a Portugal EORI number is free. For the process itself, follow these steps…

Step 1 – Register online

Start at the official Portuguese customs portal: https://aduaneiro.portaldasfinancas.gov.pt/eori/registry

If you are a non-EU operator, select “EU Third Country” and complete the online form.

Make sure all details (company name, address, country codes, dates, etc) match the supporting docs you will submit later.

Step 2 – Complete the additional form

At the end of the online registration, you will be given a document to download. It may look optional, but in practice it is required.

Fill it out, sign it, and scan it as a PDF. Your signature should match the one in your passport.

Step 3 – Send supporting docs

Send the completed form and supporting docs to: dsra-eori@at.gov.pt

Supporting docs will typically include company formation docs, tax ID confirmation, a copy of the contact person’s passport including the signature page.

Step 4 – Wait for approval

If everything is correct, the process usually takes around 2-3 days. In some cases, once the documentation was accepted, the EORI was issued within 24 hours.

For full step-by-step details from one of our members who went through the process, check the forum post in your members dashboard.

And if you encounter similar EORI issues, let us know at team@ops.group!

The NTSB has released its final report into the crash of a Bombardier CL-600 that lost both engines on approach to KAPF/Naples on Feb 9, 2024. The trigger was corrosion in the engines’ airflow control system caused by long-term exposure to salt.

This wasn’t a freak chain of events. It was a pretty familiar BizAv setup: coastal operations, recurring maintenance snags, and two identical engines exposed to the same environment – both failing within seconds during a critical phase of flight.

A lot of US bizjets spend their lives operating around salt air on the Atlantic, Gulf and Pacific coasts – and over time, that can become a real maintenance issue.

And it’s not just about salt. The report also highlights how important it is to pay attention to early warning signs, and what can happen when recurring symptoms are treated as isolated problems instead of part of a bigger picture.

The Accident Aircraft

The CL-600 involved in the accident had spent its life operating near the ocean.

Built in 2004, it was based in Bridgetown in Barbados until 2020, before moving to a new owner in the Fort Lauderdale area.

The aircraft was maintained under an FAA-approved airworthiness maintenance program. Its engines were operated on an ‘on-condition’ basis, meaning they stayed in service as long as inspections and performance monitoring showed no issues – rather than being removed at fixed overhaul intervals.

Early Warning Signs

Twenty-five days before the accident, the pilots reported intermittent hung starts on both engines. A review of the aircraft’s history later found at least seven similar events over the previous ten years.

Maintenance troubleshooting focused on fuel and ignition issues using a flow chart with nearly thirty YES/NO steps. The following day, both engines started normally, which met the criteria to stop troubleshooting.

Critically, the check that would have identified the real issue (that salt corrosion was preventing the compressor vanes from moving freely) was never reached.

On Feb 9, both engines would later fail on approach leading to the loss of the aircraft.

Important to note from the report that it doesn’t point to pilot error as the primary cause, but it does highlight a few other things worth knowing…

Salt Exposure

For aircraft spending years operating near the ocean, salt exposure can quietly become a real maintenance problem. Corrosion inside the engine may not show up during routine inspections until something else starts going wrong.

Engines frequently exposed to high salt environments may require more thorough inspections including borescopes.

Start faults aren’t normal. Modern turbine engines are extremely reliable, so recurring hung starts should be treated as a warning sign – not just a minor fuel or ignition issue.

In this case, the abnormal starts were one of the few early clues that something deeper was wrong with the engine airflow system.

Catastrophic failures are rare – even in this case, both engines were still rotating on impact. Minor or sporadic indications may be the only warning we get, so don’t just write them off.

Abnormal starts can be an indicator of something more sinister than just fuel and ignition.

Maintenance Trap

Troubleshooting doesn’t always lead to the right answer. One important note from this accident is that an ‘approved’ maintenance program doesn’t mean ‘fail-safe.’

In this case, the variable geometry pressure test sat so late in the troubleshooting flow chart that it was missed when the engines were successfully started.

In business aviation especially, limited maintenance support and pressure to get the aircraft flying again can make it tempting to stop troubleshooting as soon as the manual allows.

Vulnerable on Approach

This happened on approach at low power, where compressor stability margins are already tighter.

On approach, at low power and close to the ground, there isn’t much margin for airflow problems.

The accident is a reminder that salt-related corrosion can stay hidden until it shows up at the worst possible moment.

Updated Guidance

In its report, the NTSB described the troubleshooting guidance as “inadequate.” Since the accident, the engine manufacturer has already revised its procedures.

The FAA has also proposed mandatory inspections of GE CF34-3 engines fitted to over a thousand US-registered aircraft (including the Challenger 600 family). Comments on this are open until June, with an official AD likely to follow.

For smaller BizAv operators especially, it’s another example of why recurring ‘minor’ faults probably deserve a closer look – particularly on aircraft spending their lives around salt air.

Another nationwide strike is taking place in Belgium on Tuesday, 12 May, and it is expected to cause major issues at the country’s main airports EBBR/Brussels and EBCI/Charleroi.

The last major strike on 12 March did not involve ATC, but airport ops were still heavily affected. Airlines had to cancel all departures and in some cases arrivals at both EBBR and EBCI. BizAv at Brussels saw only minor delays to services, while at Charleroi availability was still being evaluated on the day.

For the upcoming strike on 12 May, the situation appears similar in terms of airport staffing. ATC involvement has not been reported, so BizAv services should remain largely unaffected despite the wider airport disruptions.

Here’s what we currently know about the impact of the strike at the main airports:

EBBR/Brussels

Notam issued restricting departing passenger flights:

A1334/26 - AD LTD DUE TO INDUSTRIAL ACTION. FORCE MAJEURE. 
ACFT OPERATORS ARE TO CANCEL 60 PCT OF THEIR DEP PASSENGER FLIGHTS. 
GENAV/CARGO FLIGHTS EXC.

The airport has announced that airlines are required to cancel 60% of departing passenger flights due to severely reduced staffing levels, including security personnel participating in the strike. Cargo flights and ferry flights are exempt from the restrictions and are expected to continue operating normally.

For BizAv, the outlook is better. Local handlers report no expected disruption, as ATC is not expected to be affected by the strike.

Contact: hostess.belgium@execujet.com.

EBCI/Charleroi

The airport has confirmed a full cancellation of both arrivals and departures for airline traffic on 12 May due to strike-related staffing shortages:

A1428/26 - DUE TO A NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL ACTION - FORCE MAJEURE, STAFFING
LEVEL OF MANY OPR PARTNERS WILL BE SEVERELY IMPACTED. 100 PERCENT
REDUCTION FOR ARRIVING AND DEPARTING FLIGHTS IS REQUIRED. AIRLINES
ARE REQUIRED TO CANCEL THEIR ARRIVING AND DEPARTING FLIGHTS IN THIS
TIMEFRAME.

All commercial flights will be cancelled for the day. However, based on previous similar strikes, BizAv movements may still be able to operate through the executive terminal, provided ATC remains operational.

Contact: general.aviation@charleroi-airport.com

The latest edition (2026) of the NAT Guide (“My First North Atlantic Flight is Tomorrow”) has now been published. This 21-page guide is for pilots and dispatchers, to help you understand the basics of North Atlantic flying.

Contents:

1. What’s different about the NAT?
2. What’s changed? Recent updates (2026 → 2016), including datalink, tracks, comms, and procedures.
3. (Updated 2026) Circle of Entry: what you actually need to enter different parts of NAT airspace (now reflects current surveillance and corridor logic).
4. NAT Quick Map: Gander and Shanwick boundaries, plus updated routing overview.
5. Routine Flight Example: Brussels to JFK (step-by-step): HLA requirements, flight planning, paperwork, RCL vs clearance, oceanic entry, weather deviations, contingencies.
6. Non-Routine Flights: what you can do without: PBCS, RVSM, RNP4 / RNAV 10, HF, 1 LRNS, HLA approval, ETOPS, TCAS, datalink – including the Iceland-Greenland corridor workaround.
7. VHF Coverage Maps – FL100 / 200 / 300 across the NAT
8. Diversion Airports Guide: practical notes on key alternates from Keflavik and Shannon to Goose Bay and Bermuda.
9. Airport Data: updated list including Keflavik, Shannon, Gander, Goose Bay, plus revised Greenland options (BGGH, BGQO, etc).
10. Special NAT Procedures: Mach number technique, SLOP, comms, transition areas, exits, and common mistakes.
11. North Atlantic ATC Contacts: Shanwick, Gander, Iceland, Bodo, Santa Maria, New York, plus adjacent domestic units.
12. NAT FPL Codes and Flight Levels: what to file and how.
13. Contingency Procedures: weather deviations and in-flight emergencies.
14. Oceanic Clearance vs RCL: who does what now, including timing windows and differences between FIRs.
15. Common Gotchas: real-world mistakes and lessons from OPSGROUP members.
16. GNSS Interference / Spoofing: what to expect and what to do.
17. Links, Questions, Guidance

There are two options to download a copy of the NAT Guide 2026:

OPSGROUP Members

You can get it in your Member Dashboard, under Briefings and Guides.

Not a member?

• Option 1: Buy a copy in the store ($25)
• Option 2: Apply to join OPSGROUP, and get it for free!

With an OPSGROUP membership, all publications like this from the group are free of charge and all available through the Member Dashboard. Join with an individual, team, or airline/dept membership, and connect with over 8000 other pilot, dispatch, ATC, and operations members.

What’s changed?

Now for a quick look at what’s changed since last year. We’ve updated the guide to match how the NAT is actually operating today, and cleaned up a few areas that have changed or still catch people out!

OCR vs RCL – what’s actually happening now

We’ve updated the oceanic clearance section to reflect how things actually work now. Gander, Bodo and Santa Maria use RCL, Shanwick still issues clearances the old way, and Reykjavik and New York don’t require one at all. We’ve also added the actual RCL timing windows, so it’s clearer when to send requests.

Blue Spruce gone, Iceland-Greenland corridor explained properly

The old Blue Spruce routes are gone! So we’ve replaced these with a clearer explanation of the Iceland-Greenland corridor instead. It reflects how these routes actually work today – using VHF and ADS-B surveillance instead of HF or datalink.

GNSS interference now a common concern

GNSS jamming and spoofing now get a bit more attention, with practical guidance on what to do if you’ve already had issues before entering the NAT. We’ve also added info on the “CONFIRM RNP” message, which more crews are now seeing.

Datalink and surveillance logic cleaned up

The datalink section has been simplified to make it easier to understand where it’s required, where it isn’t, and how surveillance-based operations (like the corridor or GOTA) fit in.

Greenland alternates brought up to date

The alternates section now reflects the latest changes in Greenland. BGBW is no longer in use, BGGH is now a jet-capable option, and BGQO has been added as a new southern alternate. It’s a more current picture of what’s available on the ground.

General tidy-up

• Removed a bunch of older wording that didn’t quite match how things are done now.
• Added a clearer explanation of NAT Tracks and how they’re actually used.
• Navigation specs have been standardized to RNAV 10 (RNP 10), in line with ICAO PBN terminology, just to keep everything consistent.
• Updated waypoint naming, including half-degree fixes.
• Tidied up the airport data and Greenland alternates.
• Added a few extra real-world notes (like squawk exceptions and small ops details).
• Other bits and pieces that we’ve forgotten about.

We hope you find the guide useful! 👨🏻‍✈️✈️👨‍✈️ᯓ ✈︎

If you want the full background on the recent NAT changes behind all this, it’s worth checking these too:

• March 2026 changes here.
• The full NAT timeline of all changes going back to the dawn of time.

The FAA is investigating a serious runway incursion at KLAX/Los Angeles on April 8.

A Boeing 777 rejected its take-off roll on Runway 24L at low speed when a Gulfstream G650 crossed the runway after being instructed to hold short following landing on the parallel Runway 24R.

This was a high-risk event, with very little margin. Runway warning lights reportedly alerted the 777 crew to the incursion. The key point is this wasn’t just a one-off. It was a known LAX trap that had already been flagged.

Buried in a long list of nearly 100 airport Notams is LTA-LAX-21 – a Letter to Airmen titled ‘Runway Incursions on LAX’s North Complex.’ It describes exactly this scenario, almost step by step.

If you operate in the US and don’t routinely check LTAs, this is a timely example of why they matter.

The Actual Trap at LAX

If you land on Runway 24R and exit via one of the common high-speed turnoffs like V, W or Y, you’re typically only 1,000 to 2,000 ft from the hold short for Runway 24L.

That distance disappears fast. You’re still decelerating and just getting into the post-landing flow when the hold short line is already there. You’re effectively still in the landing phase when you’re already at the next runway. And it’s easy to assume you’re clear once off the landing runway.

That’s where crews are getting caught out – by rolling past the stop bars and onto the parallel active runway.

The FAA’s Letter to Airmen (LTA)

On May 22 last year, LTA-LAX-21 was issued to highlight this exact risk.

It’s short, but the message is clear – this is happening repeatedly and it’s a safety issue. It directs crew to review runway holding position markings in the AIM and includes a diagram showing the layout.

What to do

If you’re heading into LAX, and landing on 24R, expect a very quick hold short. Brief it properly before you get there.

After landing, don’t go heads-down too early. Consider delaying non-essential tasks like cleanup until you’re clear of both runways. The priority is spotting the hold short markings, the stop bars, and confirming your clearance.

More on LTAs

The FAA regularly issues Letters to Airmen, but they’re easy to miss.

They often contain important operational detail that doesn’t fit in standard Notams – often explaining the why behind them, and sometimes safety-critical information like this.

You’ll find them on the FAA Notam site for your airport or FIR – look under the Class column for ‘LTA.’

ForeFlight users can also find them under the airport procedures page – just scroll down.

April 2026 Update:

It’s been three years since we originally published this article on the inherent dangers of circling approaches. New data from the Aviation Safety Information Analysis and Sharing program (ASIAS) – a big US aviation data-sharing system run by the FAA and industry partners – shows that we’re still getting these approaches dangerously wrong.

The report links circling to loss of control and CFIT accidents among Part 91 and 135 operators, with 17 fatalities between 2008 and 2023.

Here’s what they found, and why it still matters.

The ASIAS report.

The study used real-world accident data along with FOQA reports to analyse circling-to-land accidents and incidents, not just theory. The bottom line is that circling approaches are still catching crew out. They keep showing up in loss-of-control, CFIT, and unstable approach events. And the pattern is consistent.

What’s actually going wrong.

The big one – leaving circling area. Crews are ending up outside of the protected areas by either flying too wide, too far or too fast. Once you’re outside, there’s no more obstacle clearance. It’s safety critical that you know your approach category, and the circling area that applies i.e. PANS OPS or TERPS. If you’re not familiar with these terms, we cover them in detail in the original article below.

The unstable approach ‘chain’ rarely starts with just one mistake. A typical sequence might include being high or fast, leading to a rushed visual segment and unstable approach. From there, continuation bias can take the controls leading to attempt to salvage a landing, rather than go-around.

Ever heard of ‘the six P’s?’ Chances are we’ve all grappled with it at one stage or another in our careers: ‘Prior Preparation Prevents P*** Poor Performance.’ It’s crude way of saying we fly better when we are prepared. The ASIAS report identifies that poor set up before circling is leading to accidents. This includes inadequate briefing, no clear plan for the manoeuvre and no defined escape/go-around point. In other words, crew are ‘figuring it out’ while already low.

Our eyes play tricks on us. Circling at night or in reduced visibility, sloping terrain, black hole effect and even workload at low levels makes it easy for us to misjudge distance, height and turn radius.

Worryingly, this isn’t just about accidents. The data also shows numerous unstable circling events that didn’t end a crash. So the risk is bigger than accident stats suggest.

Practical Takeaways

Circling isn’t routine, treat it as high risk. If there’s a straight-in option, take it. If you do need to circle, it’s essential to plan it properly before you start, stay within the circling area and if’s not working, go around. At night or in marginal VMC the risk increases dramatically.

Original Article:

Here’s a startling statistic – according to the Flight Safety Foundation, straight-in approaches are twenty-five times safer than circling ones. Twenty-five times!

It’s no wonder then that the NTSB are concerned. In fact, they identified that there were ten major accidents involving Part 91 and 135 operators between 2008 and 2023 while flying a circling approach.

We smell risk, and so does the NTSB. Which is why in March 2023 they issued a new safety alert. Asides from the obvious risks of operating a high-performance aircraft at low speed and altitude in poor visibility, there appears to be another threat too – key differences between ICAO PANS-OPS and US TERPS.

Let’s take a closer look…

The NTSB Alert

The NTSB’s key takeaway seems to be this: you don’t need to circle. You can also request a runway aligned approach, or if that isn’t practical, a diversion.

Of course, if a straight-in approach isn’t available, a diversion for a commercial operator would likely be a tough sell when there is a legal and procedural approach to the runway in front you.

But if you do, it implores you to understand and thoroughly brief the risks.

The reality is that circling approaches are far riskier. They involve manoeuvring an aircraft low to ground, and low in energy in marginal conditions. This opens the door to two major dangers – loss of control, and collision with the hard stuff.

They’re also not particularly conducive to a stabilised approach, which typically involves being runway aligned by 500’ off the deck in VMC conditions, or higher in the soup.

Then there is the elephant in the room – our own limitations. As pilots we are responsible for setting our own personal limits. More often than not, these rest within the ones defined by law. Familiarity, experience and conditions all come into play when assessing our appetite for risk.

In other words, just because a procedure is legal doesn’t mean we should fly it.

The NTSB also identifies that training (or lack of) is an issue. When was the last time you circled in the simulator? To fly circling approaches safely, we need to be practicing them in our re-currents regularly and in different conditions.

This is where the NTSB alert ends, but there may also be more to it than that – the way circling procedures are designed may also be partially to blame…

The PANS-OPS versus TERPS Conundrum

It will likely be no surprise that instrument approach and departure procedures are designed to keep aircraft safely away from terrain and obstacles to internationally accepted standards.

To make this happen, there are two main sets of procedures:

1. ICAO Procedures for Air Navigation Services (PANS-OPS) used throughout Europe and in many other parts of the world. You can these in ICAO Doc 8168.
2. United States Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS) used throughout the US, Canada and in some other countries such as Korea and Taiwan. Those details are in FAA Order 8260.3D1.

When we circle, we need to understand how the procedure was designed (PANS-OPS or TERPS) and what the differences are, which can be significant.

The reality is that under TERPS, in some cases aircraft are required to fly slower, with higher angles of bank in more restrictive circling areas despite improvements made back in 2013. And all of this can happen in lower visibility than in PANS-OPS procedures.

Could this be one of the contributing factors to circling accidents in the US and Canada? Possibly.

What are the differences?

In both systems, a radius is drawn from the centre of the threshold for a particular runway inside of which obstacle clearance has been assessed. It’s known as a circling area, or domain.

Protected areas are drawn from arcs from the center of each threshold. Courtesy: Boldmethod

The size of this area increases with aircraft category – essentially if you’re heavier, you need to fly faster which means your turn radius increases, and you need more room to circle. This is taken into account using TAS and bank angle when the procedure is designed – along with a healthy dose of mathematical wizardry.

But herein lies an essential difference.

PANS-OPS bases TAS on altitude and circling IAS. TERPS on the other hand bases this on altitude and IAS at threshold. The result is a much smaller circling area, and in some cases higher bank angles.

The maths behind circling approaches is complicated, but the key difference between PANS-OPS and TERPS is IAS.

Take a Category C aircraft for instance (threshold speed 121 – 141 kts). Under PANS-OPS the circling area for an approach would extend to 4.2nm, while under TERPS (with an MDA of less than 1000’) the same area would extend only as far as 2.7 nm. For lower category aircraft, this also increases minimum bank angle beyond 20 degrees. Things can start to get tight.

In a nutshell, because ICAO uses higher IAS for its TAS calculations, and assumes a lesser angle of bank, its circling areas are far roomier.

International operators in particular may be at risk of straying outside of the circling area if they are not familiar with the more restrictive TERPS procedures. To make matters worse, some countries may not be 100% one way or the other. A straight-in approach may be designed to PANS OPS, while the circling approach is designed to keep you within a TERPS assessed area – Mexico and Chile being examples.

And in some cases, all of this can happen down to a minimum visibility of just 1.5 miles (2.4km) under TERPS, versus 2.3 miles (3.7km) under PANS-OPS.

How do I know what kind of procedure I’m flying?

Get your magnifying glass out. It will be written in the margin of your chart. If you’re using Jeppesen, have a look at the bottom left-hand side, written vertically. It’s far from obvious.

Once you’ve established what type of approach you’ll be flying, you’ll need to think about speed, your circling area, and whether the visibility is appropriate. We’ve put together a little cheat sheet that may help…

OPSGROUP members: Click to download PDF.

The Stats Don’t Lie

We’re getting circling approaches tragically wrong. What the industry is currently teaching pilots doesn’t seem to be cutting the mustard – and the Flight Safety Foundation agrees. Pilots need to be more aware of the design criteria used for circling approaches, and the limitations that places on their aircraft. This also needs to be made far clearer on approach charts if we’re to reduce risk on these challenging manoeuvres.

Key Points

• The EU is rolling out two new border systems that affect passenger flights into the Schengen Area: EES and ETIAS. These change how certain travellers are checked before departure. Both are run by eu-LISA, the EU agency responsible for large-scale border IT systems.
• The most important date was 10 April 2026. From then, operators must check short-stay Schengen visa holders via the eu-LISA carrier interface before departure, confirming they still have valid entries remaining. From the same date, EES went live across Schengen external borders, replacing passport stamping with digital entry/exit records. However, the rollout has been a bit bumpy so far, with delays of up to several hours reported at some airports, and some locations scaling back or temporarily reverting to manual processing.
• Visa-free travellers are not affected yet. Checks for them will come later under ETIAS, currently expected in late 2026.

EES

Think of EES as the EU’s digital replacement for passport stamping.

Instead of relying only on stamps, border authorities will now record entries and exits electronically when travellers cross the external Schengen border.

For operators, the main operational change is the pre-departure visa check.

If you are bringing passengers into the Schengen Area from outside Europe, you must query the eu-LISA carrier interface before departure to confirm that travellers holding short-stay Schengen visas (single or double-entry) still have valid entries remaining.

If a passenger without valid authorisation is transported, the operator may face penalties and could be required to return the passenger.

These checks become mandatory from 10 April 2026.

They only apply to travellers holding short-stay visas. Visa-exempt travellers (like US passengers) are not included in this step.

The query can be made any time within 48 hours before departure. In practice, some operators are reporting delays in getting set up on the system, so it’s worth allowing extra time if you’re not already registered.

The system currently covers 29 European countries participating in the EES programme:

ETIAS

ETIAS is a separate system that will apply to visa-exempt travellers.

It will apply to 30 European countries (the 29 EES countries plus Cyprus).

It is essentially the EU’s version of the US ESTA: a short online travel authorisation required before travelling.

When ETIAS launches (currently expected late 2026), operators bringing passengers into the Schengen Area will need to verify that travellers who require ETIAS have a valid approval before boarding.

Operators will perform this check through the same eu-LISA carrier interface used for EES.

As with EES, the verification query can be made within 48 hours before departure.

ETIAS is expected to include a transition period followed by a grace period, meaning enforcement will ramp up gradually after launch.

The ETIAS fee will be €20, waived for travellers under 18 or over 70.

For more info on all the basic stuff of EES and ETIAS, check out the homepage here.

Are private flights exempt?

Since 2024 we have asked eu-LISA this question many times, in different ways. Their position had always been the same. They told us that EES and ETIAS apply to commercial flights, not private flights.

They confirmed that:

• Private flights with non fee paying passengers are out of scope for EES and ETIAS.
• This remains the case even if the pilots are paid to operate the aircraft.
• Operators using privately owned aircraft for private purposes are not considered “carriers” and do not need to connect to the carrier interface.
• Company owned and operated aircraft flying to the EU for private purposes also fall under the private flight definition.

Based on this, the industry understanding was simple: private flights did not need to do EES or ETIAS.

However!

In Jan 2026, eu-LISA refined this position, with a new and much narrower distinction. They told us the following:

Privately operated flights that are not open for public use, with a crew hired directly by the aircraft owner, do not need to comply with EES and ETIAS obligations, therefore, no need to register with eu-LISA and query the travellers in scope of EES and ETIAS.

Flights of private aircrafts managed by a professional operator (crew, maintenance, handling, etc.), or managed by a commercial charter operator, even if the flights are not open for public use, need to comply with EES and ETIAS obligations, therefore, the operator needs to register with eu-LISA and query the carrier interface.

In other words:

Owner-operated private flights with owner-hired crew = no EES / ETIAS.
Professionally managed or charter-operated private flights = EES / ETIAS required.

This explains why two aircraft that both look like “single owner private flights” can now fall on opposite sides of the rule, depending on how the aircraft and crew are managed.

Why some private flights are registering anyway

Several OPSGROUP members who do purely owner-operated private flights have told us that they have registered for the system anyway. The benefit of doing this is that you will be able to confirm prior to the flight that your pax have all the proper documentation they need – potentially avoiding any nasty surprises on arrival.

With the EES system, passports will eventually no longer be stamped. For visas that allow only a limited number of entries, operators will otherwise have no easy way to confirm whether those entries have already been used unless they query the system.

Also, similar story when ETIAS starts. Though there will be a website to confirm a passenger has an approved ETIAS, eu-LISA says there are a lot of reasons for an ETIAS to be revoked, so checking the system prior to the flight will help make sure the ETIAS is still valid.

More info for operators

Operator Guide PDF: If you’re trying to get your head around how all this actually works in practice, PNRGO have put together a solid step-by-step operator guide you can download here. It walks through the carrier interface, how the queries work, and some of the edge cases you’re likely to run into.

For more info, you can check the eu-LISA homepage for operators here.

For answers to pretty much all the questions we can think of, including how to actually use the system as an operator, check this FAQ document provided by eu-LISA.

Night ops around London are a bit of a nightmare for BizAv. Heathrow and Gatwick almost never issue night slots, and Stansted has tightened things this summer with no movements allowed between 2330-0600. Luton is making a small exception with a handful of night movements for quieter aircraft, but availability is extremely limited.

All times shown below are local time!

EGLL/Heathrow & EGKK/Gatwick

Slots for BizAv flights are almost never issued at night, as there is a noise quota system in place between 2300-0700. There might be a few daytime slots available – best bet is to contact a local handler and they will try to sort you out. There’s only one FBO at these airports, both Signature: lhr@signatureflight.co.uk and lgw@signatureflight.co.uk

EGGW/Luton

• Signature: ltn@signatureflight.co.uk
• Harrods: ltnops@harrodsaviation.com

EGSS/Stansted

BizAv night ops are restricted during the summer period, with no slots available between 2330-0600. This is a change from last summer, when a limited number of night slots were available.

• Inflite Jet Centre: operations@inflite.co.uk
• Universal: uk@universalaviation.aero
• Harrods: stnops@harrodsaviation.com (Harrods operate two FBOs here: The Knightsbridge and The Brompton)

EGLC/London City

Open: 0630-2130 weekdays, 0630-1230 Sat and 1230-2130 Sun. There are slots available between these times. jetcentre@londoncityairport.com are who you need to speak to for handling and slot assistance there.

EGTK/London Oxford

Open: 0630-2230 and up to 2359 on request, seven days a week.

The thing you probably want to know about Oxford is while it takes just over an hour to drive to London, making it the furthest away of all the “London” airports, it also charges much less in handling fees. You can contact the FBO at ops@londonoxfordairport.com

EGLF/Farnborough

Open: 0700-2200 weekdays, 0800-2000 weekends – but no extensions possible. Farnborough is a dedicated business aviation airport and can be contacted at ops@farnboroughairport.com

EGKB/Biggin Hill

Open: 0630-2300 weekdays, 0800-2200 weekends. On UK bank holidays, weekend hours apply. Biggin Hill is one to consider for smaller charter ops. A dedicated BizAv airport, only 12 miles outside of central London, and no slots required. A couple of FBOs to choose from:

• Executive Handling: handling@bigginhillairport.com
• Jetex: fbo-bqh@jetex.com

EGWU/Northolt

Normally open: Monday to Friday 0800-2000, weekends and public holidays 1000-1700. So not great for night flights, but pretty handy otherwise as Northolt is one of the closest BizAv-accessible airports to central London, as well as the closest airport to Heathrow (8 miles away).

Universal is the FBO here: northolt@universalaviation.aero.

EGMC/Southend

Open daily from 0600-0130. Extensions may be possible until 0230 under special conditions, subject to coordination with the local handler. Operations outside these hours are not permitted.

You can contact London Southend Jet Centre FBO here: ops@londonsjc.com

EGBB/Birmingham

Correct, not a London airport! Just a bonus one for you, because outside of all those listed above, this is probably the next closest airport to London that is open at night. Two FBO options here, both open H24 – but night time ops are available on request and subject to additional out-of-hours fees:

• XLR Executive Jet Centre: jetcentre@xlrbirmingham.com
• Signature: bhx@signatureflight.co.uk

Send us your spy reports!

Send us your Airport Spy reports for all these airports so we can share the gotchas, the things to know, contacts to contact and anything else useful.

What’s Airport Spy? Well, you write a quick little postcard with “what happened” when you went to some airport somewhere. Then you, and others (that’s the magic), can refer to your notes for future flights to the same place.

On March 31, the FAA announced an important update for ops at KSFO/San Francisco.

The big news is that once work is complete on Runway 01R/19L, side-by-side parallel visual approaches will be permanently banned due to concerns over separation.

In fair weather conditions, this will effectively almost halve arrival rates. If you’re used to carrying a little less fuel to the Golden City when the sun is out, now is the time consider more.

Here is the background to this significant change to NORCAL ops.

FAA warning.

A new statement issued by the FAA warns operators of airborne delays.  The first reason is straight forward – Runway 01R/19L is currently closed until October due to repaving work.

But this isn’t temporary.

When re-opened, the FAA will introduce a new safety measure which will prohibit side-by-side approaches to the parallel east-west runways in clear weather. Even if pilots acknowledge having each other in sight.

From October, visual approaches to parallel runways will be staggered.

Instead, approaches will be staggered, with one aircraft offset from the aircraft on the parallel runway.

This will essentially reduce arrival rates in VMC conditions to those typically experienced in IMC – from approx. 54 to 36 per hour.  It’s an issue the FAA concedes will persist, at least until safer solutions are found.

But why the change?

A spokesman for the FAA confirmed that the change of rule came about from a regular quarterly quality-assurance review.

The core issue is that the runway spacing is too tight.

The parallel runways are only 750 ft apart. That’s too close for independent parallel approaches under current FAA/ICAO standards.

So that leaves three options – space the runways out more (not practical), run precision monitoring systems (such as PRM) or, in the case of SFO, employ a workaround – the ol’ visual pairing trick – dependent visual approaches.

In other words, pilots maintain visual separation from the aircraft ahead and adjacent.

In good weather, ATC have historically run these side-by side. This boosts capacity but pushes separation responsibility onto pilots rather than ATC systems.

With its announcement, the FAA is finally saying that the workaround doesn’t meet modern safety standards anymore.

More broadly, the FAA’s safety philosophy is shifting away from ‘see-and-avoid’ in high-density terminal airspace towards more reliance on automatic ATC-based separation.

It seems that a human-dependent workaround to help mitigate struggling infrastructure is no longer an acceptable answer.

Under the new rule, VMC arrival rates will be akin to IMC rates.

What is the practical impact?

Essentially, this is the end of SFO’s visual ‘capacity boost.’

In good weather, expect things to slow down much more than you’re used to. This includes longer finals, lengthier vectors, speed control and a greater chance of holding.

These impacts won’t be evenly spread. Expect the biggest delays during peak arrival periods, late afternoons/evenings or adjacent to weather related disruptions as it will be harder for ATC to play catch up when the weather improves.

For planning purposes, the main takeaways are to carry more fuel in fair weather conditions, and not to underestimate potential for delays. This is especially relevant for BizAv ops that have historically relied on visual arrivals to ‘keep things tight.’

Where to from here?

In its statement, the FAA confirmed that it is actively seeking new ways to boost arrival flows safely – we’ll need to wait a little longer for those.

Planning a BizAv flight to Tashkent? There’s a new rule to know about. BizAv operators are now required to use UZTP/Tashkent East instead of the main airport UZTT/Tashkent.

So if your flight plan still says UZTT for a bizjet, it’s probably time to change it. Uzbekistan has designated UZTP as the city’s dedicated BizAv airport, separating corporate and VIP traffic from the busy airline ops at the main field. The two airports are about 15 km apart, so ground transport shouldn’t change much.

What to expect at UZTP

UZTP is already up and running and can handle international BizAv flights, with customs and immigration available on site.

The airport has a single runway (08/26), 4000 m/13,123 ft, with ILS on both ends.

A few practical details:

• Airport hours: 24/7
• Customs and immigration: available 24/7
• Fuel: TS-1 available (Standard jet fuel used across much of the former Soviet region. It’s broadly similar to Jet A-1 and widely used in Central Asia, so most aircraft operating in the region can use it without issues).
• ICAO fire category: 9

Another nice surprise is that there are currently no slot or PPR requirements, which makes planning a lot simpler.

You will still need the usual Uzbekistan landing permit, the same as for any other airport in the country. These are typically issued within about 24 hours.

Occasionally the airport may ask you to adjust your schedule if a state or diplomatic flight is planned, so it’s worth keeping a little flexibility in your timing.

One small quirk for now: TAF and METAR may not yet appear in some flight planning systems. If you need weather info, the local handler can provide it on request.

Handling at UZTP

Handling can be arranged through Flight Consulting Group.

• Email: uztp@fcg.aero
• Phone: +7 727 357 4064
• Payment options include credit cards, online payments, and credit facilities.

New ICAO codes and transition levels

One more Uzbekistan update worth keeping in mind. The country recently made some bigger airspace changes as well, including switching from the old UT ICAO prefix to UZ and introducing a new transition altitude of 13,000 ft and transition level of FL150 across the country. For more info, check our article.

We recently received a report from an OPSGROUP member of a surprise ramp check at LFPB/Le Bourget.

Police attended the aircraft after boarding and requested fuel receipts and questioned if the passenger was also the aircraft owner.

This did not appear to be a routine SAFA check, so we reached out to the group for more info and it turns out this isn’t uncommon.

France has always been strict with its enforcement of charter rules, but subsequent reports from members indicate an uptick in active enforcement lately – not just a random one-off.

The responses we received confused us a little, until we realised there are two independent and distinct issues authorities are checking:

🔍 Illegal charter flights disguised as private flights.

🔍 False declarations to reduce fuel tax.

Here is a closer look at both of these issues, so you can have your paperwork in order when next les forces de l’ordre come a knockin at your jet.

Is this really a private flight?

This one has to do with the charter pax levy.

In France, if you are operating a charter, air taxi or any other commercial flight departing the country under Part 135, it is treated the same as an airline flight.

Three taxes are applied to these flights per passenger.

The first is the Civil Aviation Tax (TAC). This varies between €4-9 depending on whether you flight is short haul or long haul. Think of this like a standard departure tax.

The second is Airport Tax (Taxe d’Aéroport). The charge is between €10 – 18 depending on the airport class. Big Class 1 airports (like Le Bourget) are the most expensive. This is used to find things like RFF, security and airport infrastructure.

Lastly, there’s Solidarity Tax (the big one). This is what most people mean when they refer to ‘Charter Tax.’ This increased massively in 2025. A typical BizAv charter flight would incur a charge of €420 per passenger for flights within Europe, or up to €2100 per passenger for longer-haul flights.

No wonder authorities are checking you’ve paid it, and it’s the one causing all the noise.

Bottom line (and try saying this quickly three times over) – when departing France under Part 135, expect a per-pax tax stack.

On rare occasions, charter operators have declared their flights as private to avoid these charges. It seems authorities are clamping down on these ‘fake’ private flights.

For this issue, authorities are checking who actually owns or controls the aircraft. The red flags they’re looking for include passengers who are not registered owners or share holders, complex ownership structures (such as trusts) with no clear links, passengers who appear to be ‘clients,’ and empty legs that aren’t truly private repositioning.

Hence why the passenger in the report was asked if he was the owner of the aircraft.

VAT on Fuel

It’s an entirely separate issue.

In France, VAT is paid on fuel as you buy it – but whether you can re-claim it depends on your operation. Because of this, France is one of the more expensive countries to uplift.

Flights operated under an AOC (charter, airline etc) are exempt and can seek reimbursement later.

Private and non-commercial flights aren’t, meaning VAT becomes a real cost (typically around 20%).

The gap is significant, and so there is an incentive to mis-declare a private flight as commercial.

In France, flights operated under an AOC (charter, airline etc) are exempt from VAT.

When authorities board your aircraft, they want to check your fuel uplift receipts and other docs.

Red flags include using an AOC number that doesn’t match the actual flight, inconsistencies in your flight plan (G vs N), AOC status or a paper trail that leads to an invalid AOC.

Penalties can include back payment of VAT and fines.

So why are they sniffing around so much at Le Bourget?

These issues aren’t new, but it appears the frequency of enforcement is.

LFPB/Le Bourget is Europe’s busiest business aviation airport. It receives a huge volume of private aircraft, with very little airline traffic to dilute the numbers.

Recent tax increases (especially the solidarity tax) have unashamedly targeted premium travel, private jets and high-emission-per-passenger ops.

Le Bourget fits the profile perfectly for active enforcement. It isn’t being singled out by name in the rules, it’s just the biggest, most concentrated, and most unavoidable BizAv hub in the country.

If you operate there, the safest approach is to assume you will be checked.

Singapore plans to introduce a mandatory Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF) on all departing flights from WSSS/Changi and WSSL/Seletar, but the start date has slipped from Oct 2026 to Jan 2027 after authorities delayed it due to higher fuel costs and disruption linked to the Middle East conflict.

This applies to airlines, cargo, and business aviation – effectively every departure from Singapore.

This isn’t a fuel mandate in the traditional sense. Operators are not required to physically uplift SAF. Instead, the government will buy SAF centrally and recover the cost through a levy applied to every flight.

Airlines will pass this on per passenger (based on distance and cabin), while BizAv operators will be charged per aircraft per departure.

The key difference: you’re paying for SAF whether you uplift it or not.

How the levy works for BizAv

For business aviation, the charge is simple on paper but has a few operational gotchas.

The levy is:

• Charged per aircraft, per departure
• Based on aircraft size (ICAO A-F)
• Based on the next destination, not the final destination

That last bit matters. If you’re flying Singapore-Japan-US, you pay Band II (Japan), not Band IV (US).

The bands are as follows:

And the way they charge for BizAv flights works like this:

So costs scale quickly with size and distance. The table above shows everything in Singapore dollars. Converting into USD, a G650 (Code C) would pay the following:

• Band I (S$190) = $140 USD
• Band II (S$530) = $390 USD
• Band III (S$1,200) = $890 USD
• Band IV (S$1,950) = $1,440 USD

So long-haul departures are where you’ll feel it most.

A few practical points:

• This will likely show up buried in handling or fuel invoices
• It’s predictable, so you can plan for it
• Technical stops, diversions, and some non-revenue flights are exempt

Bottom line: not huge money, but another fixed cost to factor into every Singapore departure.

How this compares to the rest of the world

Singapore’s approach is unusual. Most countries are doing this a different way.

Across Europe and the UK, governments have introduced SAF blending mandates. Fuel suppliers are required to mix a minimum percentage of SAF into jet fuel at airports – starting around 2% today and rising over time.

That means:

• You physically uplift a blended fuel
• The SAF cost is built into the fuel price
• You pay more per ton of Jet A1, rather than a separate fee

Same end result (ie. you pay!) just packaged differently.

And the cost impact is real. Airlines have warned that SAF-related compliance costs in Europe have already pushed fuel prices higher due to limited supply.

This model is spreading globally. More regions are introducing mandates or targets, with governments pushing for increasing SAF percentages over time.

What’s driving all this

The push is simple: aviation is hard to decarbonise, and SAF is currently the only drop-in solution that works with today’s aircraft.

Governments see SAF as one of the main ways to cut aviation emissions in the near term, and are using mandates and levies to force uptake and scale production. In Europe, that means minimum SAF blending targets starting at 2% in 2025 and rising steeply over time.

In reality, it works like this:

• SAF is much more expensive than conventional jet fuel
• There isn’t enough supply yet
• So governments step in and mandate usage or recover the cost through schemes like this
• Operators end up paying, either through higher fuel prices or direct charges

Singapore has just chosen the most transparent version of that model – a visible line item instead of hidden fuel pricing.

Either way, the direction of travel is clear – more SAF, more cost, and more of this coming globally.