What’s Changing on the North Atlantic?

written by David Mumford | 9 January, 2026
Update Jan 2026

If you’re crossing the NAT in mid-January, expect a temporary change to how OTS tracks are built.

From Jan 12-25, Gander and Shanwick will include half-degree coordinates in some daily tracks to test whether operators can reliably file and fly them.

Nothing else changes: you still plan the NAT the same way and PBCS tracks stay labelled as normal. The goal is to see if wider use of half-degree points can give more flexibility in OTS design and free up more random-route airspace. Make sure your flight planning system and FMS handle half-degree coordinates properly, and check this doc for more info.

Update Nov 2025

There’s a special ICAO group called the NAT SPG – the North Atlantic Systems Planning Group. They meet once a year to decide what’s next for the North Atlantic, and then publish a big summary of what was agreed. It’s one of the few places you can actually see what changes are being planned before they hit the real world.

Download PDF.

Their latest meeting was in Paris in June 2025, and here’s what’s coming that will actually matter to operators crossing the NAT…

RCL messages are on the way out

Iceland and Gander both intend to discontinue the RCL (Request Clearance) message as soon as possible.

The NAT SPG report mentioned possible timelines from late 2025, but when we contacted both ANSPs they said no firm dates have been set yet. Other NAT centres haven’t announced plans to follow, so expect mixed procedures for some time.

This is the next big step in the ongoing Oceanic Clearance Removal rollout, aimed at simplifying procedures and cutting down on confusion.

OCR still needs work

The Oceanic Clearance Removal (OCR) rollout in 2024 caused more trouble than expected. Crews struggled with CPDLC message formats, leading to route errors, incorrect clearances, and heavy ATC workload.

The NAT SPG wants ICAO to remind States to tighten up crew training and operator procedures for OCR. Iceland and Gander are taking the next step by planning to drop the RCL message altogether, which should help simplify things once everyone is ready!

For the absolute latest on where we are right now with the whole OCR/RCL thing, and what crews need to do, check here ⬇️

GNSS interference now a serious NAT issue

Reports of GNSS jamming and spoofing keep rising, and some aircraft still can’t recover once affected.

The NAT SPG wants more crew training and better tools for ATC to spot and manage affected flights. We’ve already had a NAT Ops Bulletin from ICAO on this – if you missed it, we covered what to do if spoofed before the NAT.

Key takeaway: if your aircraft experiences any kind of GPS interference, you must tell the first NAT ANSP in your RCL, even if everything seems to have recovered.

For our full article on what to do if spoofed/jammed before entering the NAT, check here ⬇️

Possible end of HLA approval requirement

Iceland has reviewed the old MNPS/HLA approval system and says it may no longer be needed.

The reason: the navigation performance standards that used to be covered by an HLA approval are now built into other rules (mainly the modern PBN requirements for RNP 10 or RNP 4 operations). In other words, if an aircraft already meets current NAT HLA standards, the separate “HLA approval” adds little value.

Iceland plans to complete a safety assessment on removing the HLA approval requirement and present it to the NAT Safety Oversight Group (SOG) in Dec 2025 (that’s the NAT team that reviews safety cases before any major change goes live). The UK, US, and Spain have said they’d prefer to keep the approval requirement for now, so this is still very much under discussion rather than a confirmed change.

Safety models might be getting an upgrade

A semi-interesting one. So the NAT’s current collision risk figures look worse than reality because they use 1960s-era maths. New modelling is coming that reflects today’s surveillance environment, which should better represent actual safety levels.

It won’t change anything for crews right now, but it sets the stage for the future – once the numbers catch up with reality, we could possibly see tighter spacing or more flexible routing across the ocean.

Commercial space launches are still disrupting routes

Rocket launches are becoming a regular headache, forcing reroutes and last-minute airspace closures.

The NAT SPG is planning a workshop in late 2025 or early 2026 to develop a common approach, since there’s still no global standard on coordination or cost recovery.

Document updates inbound…

Hooray! Everyone loves document updates!

NAT Doc 007 (Operations and Airspace Manual) and NAT Doc 003 (HF Management Guidance) will both be updated soon to reflect current procedures and OCR changes – plus probably a bunch of other stuff, who knows…

In previous years this has normally happened every March, but sometimes we get a cheeky update in Jan or Feb – so stay tuned!

ADS-B now mandatory everywhere in Iceland

Here’s one that’s not actually in the NAT SPG report, but still worth mentioning! As of 1 July 2025, Iceland made ADS-B mandatory for all IFR flights in the BIRD/Reykjavik FIR. 

So now the NAT datalink/ADS-B rules look something like this:

The rule applies to every aircraft flying IFR, at any altitude. Exemptions include flights to maintenance, export deliveries, or aircraft that will retire by 31 Oct 2025. If your ADS-B system fails, you can still operate for up to three days while it’s being repaired. You can check AIC 1-2025 for more info.

Give me ALL the NAT updates in one place!

Sure thing, friendo. For a nice/concise timeline of NAT changes stretching back to the dawn of time, check here ⬇️

And barring any more North Atlantic related changes in the next couple of months, we’ll see all you NAT addicts again in 2026!



GAR Procedure for UK Flights

written by David Mumford | 9 January, 2026
Update Jan 2026

The UK’s Electronic Travel Authorisation (ETA) scheme enters full enforcement on 25 Feb 2026. From this date, when submitting a General Aviation Report (GAR), all pax must hold valid permission to travel, either a UK/Irish passport, valid visa, or a valid ETA. GAR submissions may now return a “No Record of Valid Permission to Travel” response if this requirement isn’t met. There are some crew exemptions, but these are complicated so review the latest UK Home Office FAQ for details. Ensure all documentation is checked in advance to avoid delays or denied entry, and remember the fine for a GAR screw up is hefty and falls onto the PIC!

Update Sep 2025

Since April 2024, there have been major changes to the UK’s General Aviation Report (GAR) submission for international flights. Here’s a reminder of what you need to know.

  • The GAR form is now required for departures (not just arrivals).
  • You have to submit it via an online portal, or through a third-party app (no longer directly to UK Border Force via email).
  • If you get it wrong, you can now get fined up to £10,000 (there were no fines before). These apply to both the operator AND the captain.

These rules apply to all international flights arriving/departing the UK (including within the Common Travel Area: Ireland, the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands). Details on how the rules work within the CTA are explained below.

You can read the rules in full on the UK Government website, but here’s a summary of the main points:

How to submit the GAR

You need to submit info online about the flight and crew/pax, no earlier than 48 hours and no later than 2 hours prior to the expected time of departure. There are 3 ways to do this:

1. The government’s free-to-use online portal.
Alternatively, you can download this GAR template (Excel doc), complete it electronically and upload it to the portal.

2. Approved third-party applications: Rocket Route, OnlineGAR

3. Direct connections: FB01, Streamlane, Mobile-Edge, PnrGo

More info on the UK government site here.

After you submit the GAR, you should get a response telling you whether that crew/pax is allowed to travel. It will be one of the following (thanks to our friends at FlyingInIreland for this table):

Response Message Action
Valid permission to travel The Home Office can find a valid permission to travel for the person. Pilots, operators and agents are not required to check visas, but Passport or Travel Document checks still apply. They must check that the passport or travel document presented is genuine and valid, and that the person is the rightful holder.

For more information on checking passports and travel documents click here Guidance on examining identity documents (publishing.service.gov.uk)
Authority to carry granted Pilots, operators and agents are required to check visas for Visa Nationals. Passport or Travel Document checks apply for all passengers. They must check that the passport or travel document presented is genuine and valid and that the person is the rightful holder.

For more information on checking passports and travel documents click here Guidance on examining identity documents (publishing.service.gov.uk) Follow this link to check visa requirements Check if you need a UK visa – GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)
Authority to carry refused. DO NOT BOARD. This response message will not be displayed on the screen. Pilots, operators and agents will be instructed not to board an individual (NO BOARD) via a call and email when Authority to Carry (ATC) has been refused.

Because fines apply if the GAR is submitted incorrectly, many handling agents may no longer be willing to do it on your behalf.

If you’re not already using a third-party application, the safest option is to set up an online account and handle the submission yourself.

Common Travel Area flights (Ireland, Channel Islands, Isle of Man, Northern Ireland)

Flying within the CTA is where GAR rules can catch people out. On top of the standard UK GAR, there are two extra layers to watch.

First, some destinations have their own local GAR forms. The Channel Islands (EGJJ/Jersey, EGJBGuernsey) require local GARs inbound and outbound, and the Isle of Man/EGNS has its own form too. Requirements can vary, so best practice is to confirm with your local handler. Opsgroup member report: At EGJJ/Jersey, Border Force has at times required full residential addresses for crew and pax, and commercial operators also need local permits separate from UK CAA permits.

Second, the 12-hour police rule. If you are flying to or from the CTA and using a UK aerodrome that is not police-designated, extra steps apply. For private flights, you need to notify the local police at least 12 hours in advance. For commercial flights, it’s stricter: you must obtain prior police approval before operating from a non-designated aerodrome. Opsgroup member report: A flight originally planned from EGKB/Biggin Hill to EGJJ/Jersey made a last-minute stop in EGTK/Oxford. Because Oxford is not police-designated, the 12-hour rule kicked in. The crew had filed a GAR only a few hours before departure, so Border Police enforced the rule and the jet was stuck in Oxford overnight.

For Northern Ireland, the designated ports are EGAC/Belfast City, EGAA/Belfast Intl, and EGAE/City of Derry. If you use any other airport, you must notify the local police at least 12 hrs in advance (GAR@psni.pnn.police.uk).

You can find the full list of police-designated aerodromes in Annex A of the official UK GAR guidance.

Getting it wrong

Again, check the official guidance on this, but here’s what “getting it wrong” basically means:

  • Failing to provide correct info about the flight and people on board.
  • Not submitting it within the required timeframe (no earlier than 48 hours and no later than 2 hours prior to the expected time of departure).
  • Not doing it in the fight format (i.e. through the web portal or via an approved third party).

The big things to know / watch out for:

  • Fines: Getting it wrong could mean a fine for the “owner or agent and captain”. So that means the operator AND captain are subject to enforcement action and fines. These start at £5,000 for first-time offenders (ouch!), subsequent breaches start at £7500, followed by the maximum of £10,000.
  • Errors on the GAR submission: Watch out for incorrect spelling of names, omitting middle names, not using the full names exactly as shown on passports, and incorrect crew assignment (which pilot is the PIC). Anything like this is likely to get you a “warning” from UK Customs on arrival, and potentially a fine if it happens again. Opsgroup member report: At EGPH/Edinburgh, Border Force issued a non-compliance report because a crew member’s middle name was missing from the GAR, even though it appeared on the GenDec. All given names (including middle names) must be included in GAR submissions. When using the GAR portal, enter the middle name(s) in the “Given name(s)” field along with the first name. 
  • Last minute changes: Bad news. If you get an extra passenger last minute, or someone shows up with a different passport than the one you sent on the GAR submission, you have to file a new GAR and then wait 2 hours until you depart. Same applies if you change your arrival airport in the UK. One exception here: if a passenger was provided on the GAR and they do not travel, a new GAR is not required to be submitted.
  • Diverts: If you have to divert due to weather, that’s fine. If this happens, UK Border Force want you to call them if you can, on +44 300 123 2012. Make sure you’re diverting to the alternate listed on your flight plan (should also be an international airport with Customs). If you’re diverting somewhere other than what’s listed on your flight plan (i.e. it’s an emergency), call UK Border Force after you land to explain.
  • Late departures: If the flight will operate on the same day, albeit later, no new GAR submission is required. If a flight is delayed to the next calendar day, a new GAR must be submitted.
  • Early departures: If you depart early headed to the UK, don’t update the GAR! Opsgroup member report: We had a flight to UK that departed 45 mins early, so we thought it wise to update the GAR to correct ETA. This resulted in a UK Customs warning for ‘submitting’ a GAR once flight airborne (8hr leg). We’ve been told that we should not have updated the ETA and it is UK Customs’ responsibility to keep up to date with the ETA.
More info

Check out this page from PnrGo. It has a bunch more info for pilots and operators, including a recent webinar recording plus an extensive Q&A on this topic.



Venezuela & Caribbean Airspace Update

written by David Mumford | 9 January, 2026

It’s been a busy few days across Venezuelan and Caribbean airspace.

On Jan 3, the US FAA issued a temporary flight ban for US operators in Venezuela’s SVZM/Maiquetia FIR, the TJZS/San Juan and TNCF/Curacao FIRs, plus the TTZP/Piarco FIR west of 57W – which in practice covers the entire eastern Caribbean island chain.

The move followed US airstrikes in Venezuela and was driven by safety-of-flight concerns linked to military activity and misidentification risk.

That prohibition was short-lived. Within hours, the FAA lifted the ban and reverted to advisory Notams, returning to earlier guidance for US operators to exercise caution at all altitudes in the affected FIRs.

While the temporary FAA ban has ended, airspace warnings still remain in place. The US, Canada, EASA and several European states continue to advise avoiding Venezuelan airspace and to exercise caution across the surrounding region.

These sit on top of earlier warnings from late 2025 flagging GPS interference, reduced ATC visibility, and unpredictable traffic. Operators have been reporting these issues for months, with no clear indication they’ve fully gone away.

On safeairspace.net, we continue to list Venezuela as Level 1: Do Not Fly.

For several days after Jan 3, departures from parts of the eastern Caribbean were heavily delayed, with aircraft held on the ground due to parking constraints and ATC flow controls. Most of that disruption has now cleared. FAA flow programs are no longer active and the situation at the airports has largely returned to normal. The main exception is TNCM/St Maarten, where ramp congestion continues to limit GA flights through Jan 12 as per the current Notam.

If you’re operating in the area and have updates to share with OPSGROUP members, please email news@ops.group and we’ll update this article as things change.



ReFuelEU: Europe’s new anti-tankering rules explained

written by David Mumford | 9 January, 2026
Jan 2026 update:

ReFuelEU Aviation now also applies at LSZH/Zurich and LSGG/Geneva. Switzerland isn’t in the EU, but it has chosen to adopt the rules, which means both airports are treated just like Union airports. The official list is attached if you want to double-check. It does look like the Swiss ICAO codes are wrong, but it’s just a typo. Zurich and Geneva are clearly intended and this should be fixed in a future update.

Jan 2025 update:
  • New anti-tankering rules came into force on Jan 1 2025, heavily restricting large commercial operators from tankering fuel into or within Europe.
  • The first annual reporting deadline fell in March 2025, marking the first real compliance test for operators.

There’s a still relatively new framework in Europe called ReFuelEU, and it looks like it’s going to be a real headache for operators.

Since January 2025, the rules have applied to all large commercial operators (those doing 500+ flights from EU airports each year). Over the course of a calendar year, operators must ensure that, on average, 90% of the fuel required for flights departing from a specific EU airport is uplifted at that airport. The reporting is done annually, so it’s about maintaining compliance as a yearly average rather than for each individual flight.

These rules applies to all commercial operators – both EU-based and non-EU-based. Private flights and all non-commercial operations are exempt.

This whole ReFuelEU thing is being run by the EU. They claim it’s part of the general push to “make things more green”. Maybe. Or maybe these anti-tankering rules are actually more to do with the EU getting fed up with big airlines blazing into Europe with their tanks still half-full of the cheap fuel they brought from “home”. European airports, unable to sell as much of their expensive fuel, have been missing out.

But remember – the rules apply to intra-EU flights as well! So it’s not just all those Middle East to Europe flights that are affected. For example, a flight from Bulgaria (cheap fuel) to Germany (expensive fuel) will not be allowed to tanker either.

Politics aside, these new rules are going to be disproportionately tough on bizjet operators with unscheduled, last-minute flights. Whilst one could claim this whole thing might make some sense for airlines, it will make planning extremely tricky for other large non-scheduled commercial operators who don’t necessarily know what they’ll be doing next week, let alone across the entire year! Also, there’s really not so much value on the “make things more green” front either. 777s, A380s and A380s often tanker tonnes of fuel; Citations, Falcons and Gulfstreams – not so much. Then there’s the added complexities with reporting, reduced fuel flexibility, and even potential safety risks if operators start running tighter fuel margins.

Reporting rules for operators

Welcome to hell. We’re not going to dive deep down into this basket of snakes here, but just to give a rough outline of what operators have to do…

1. Prepare an annual report. 

This should include:

  • The yearly aviation fuel required (trip and taxi fuel for all flights departing from a given EU airport).
  • The yearly aviation fuel uplifted at that airport.
  • Any fuel shortfalls below the 90% requirement, with justifications (e.g., safety or other exemptions).

2. Pay to get the report verified.

The verifier will ensure the report is accurate, complete, and compliant with the rules. They will review the operator’s data, including:

  • Fuel uplift records.
  • Supporting docs (e.g. flight logs, fuel invoices, operational flight plans) to justify fuel usage, especially for exemptions.
  • Justifications for exemptions (if applicable). If operators want an exemption, they have to justify it with detailed reasons (e.g. safety concerns, operational difficulties) and provide evidence to the authorities.

Any discrepancies or missing data must be resolved before the report is finalized.

3. Submit the report.

  • After verification, the report has to be submitted to the competent authority of the Member State responsible for the operator, as well as the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA).
  • The report must follow a specific format (specified in Annex II). This includes tables and fields for annual aviation fuel required, fuel uplifted, and justifications for exemptions.

Key dates for reporting.

The reporting period is the calendar year, from January 1 to December 31. So the key dates for this are as follows:

  • January 1 – December 31: Reporting period.
  • (following year) January – March: Verification by an independent verifier, with March 31 submission deadline to competent authorities and EASA.

The first annual report was due by March 31 2025, covering the reporting period from Jan 1 to Dec 31 2024.

What airports in the EU are impacted?

Not all of them!

The rules apply to “Union Airports” that meet certain thresholds – mainly those where pax traffic exceeds 800,000 passengers annually. Smaller airports that do not meet these thresholds are excluded to avoid placing “undue operational and financial burdens” on them.

Also, airports in “Outermost Regions” (e.g. the Azores, Madeira, Canary Islands, and French overseas territories) are generally excluded too, due to their geographic and logistical challenges. These airports can opt-in to the rules if they like though.

The EU publishes and updates an annual list of airports that fall under the scope of these rules. You can access it here.

Other concerns for Business Aviation

The European Business Aviation Association (EBAA) are currently working on presenting some of the issues to the EU. But ultimately, they highlight three big issues:

  1. Lack of flexibility. Business aviation’s dynamic and diverse operations require more flexibility than what the anti-tankering rule allows.
  2. Administrative Burden. Reporting requirements, including detailed fuel data, create significant workload and could divert resources away from safety-critical tasks.
  3. Safety Risks. Increased risks include in-flight fuel emergencies, crew fatigue, missed ATC slots, fueling-related hazards, and more. There are also concerns about compromised fuel quality and strained infrastructure due to increased refueling requirements.

For more info on all this, check the ReFuelEU website. It includes the list of airports affected, plus the official rules in full (Article 5) – check the docs at the bottom of the webpage.



US CBP biometrics: BizAv rollout still unclear

written by David Mumford | 9 January, 2026
Update Jan 2026

Universal is reporting a clarification from US CBP that the widely cited 26 Dec 2025 date is not an implementation deadline for BizAv operations. (Note: CBP uses the broader term General Aviation, but for the purposes of this article we’re sticking with BizAv!)

Although CBP now has legal authority to collect biometric entry and exit data from non-US citizens, it has not yet defined how this will work for BizAv, and no operational rollout has been announced. Until CBP publishes specific guidance in the Federal Register, BizAv flights will carry on as they did before. Much of the confusion comes from treating the rule’s effective date as if it were an enforcement date – which CBP is now saying it isn’t.

What’s changing

From 26 Dec 2025, a rule took effect that gives CBP legal authority to collect facial biometrics from all non-US passengers and crew entering or exiting the US, across all modes of travel, including BizAv. This is a legal change, not an operational one. The rule removes previous limitations on who CBP may collect biometrics from, including exemptions that applied to certain nationalities and categories such as many Canadian nationals and diplomats.

What’s actually new

CBP has collected biometric data on entry for years, and biometric exit already exists for airline flights at many airports. What’s new is the legal scope, not the process. The rule makes biometric entry and exit a nationwide requirement in law for all non-US nationals, regardless of how they travel. For BizAv, the unresolved issue is how this will be applied in practice, particularly on departure, where biometric exit has not previously been routine.

Airport reality and BizAv impact

OPSGROUP members report that there’s no single way biometrics are handled today. Sometimes CBP clears passengers onboard using a mobile device, sometimes everyone goes into the CBP office, and sometimes it depends entirely on the officer. With no BizAv guidance published yet, that variability isn’t likely to go away any time soon.

What operators should do now

For now, don’t treat 26 Dec 2025 as an enforcement deadline for BizAv. No immediate operational changes are required. Continue normal CBP arrival and departure procedures as before!

Separate proposal: ESTA changes under review

CBP has published a separate proposal to significantly change how the ESTA works for non US travellers. These changes are not final and are open for public comment until 9 Feb 2026. You can check the official proposal here, and send an email to CBP_PRA@cbp.dhs.gov if you want to submit any comments.

If adopted, ESTA would become far more app based and data heavy. Proposals include a mobile app only ESTA, mandatory live selfies, and a big expansion in the personal info travellers must provide. That includes several years of social media history, along with phone numbers, emails, and family and business contacts. Yes, they really want the socials!

There is also a proposal to let travellers confirm their departure via a CBP app using a selfie and location data. That would help CBP close long standing exit gaps, but it sounds like it wouldn’t remove any existing operator admin.

Bottom line, these are proposals, not requirements. If adopted, ESTA would push more work onto pax and add more ways for trips to get stuck before departure! Expect more chasing pax for app downloads, selfies, and old social accounts. Yay! 😁



Milan targets business jets with 650% rate increase

written by David Mumford | 9 January, 2026
Jan 2026 update:

Effective 1 Jan 2026, Milan parking fees have been cut back after the sharp increases introduced in July 2025. But rates are still well above 2024 levels, especially for longer BizAv stays at both LIML/Linate and LIMC/Malpensa.

The first two hours remain free, but after that costs add up quickly. Under the new Jan 2026 rates, parking a 50-ton aircraft for more than 72 hours now runs at around €1,000 per day at Linate and roughly €600 per day at Malpensa. That’s down from the 2025 peak, but still several times higher than pre-2025 pricing – don’t be fooled, Milan parking is not “cheap” again!

You can check out the new rates here.

July 2025 update:
  • Milan’s LIML/Linate and LIMC/Malpensa airports have hiked Business Aviation parking rates by up to 650%, effective 1 July 2025.
  • The changes apply to both private and commercial flights, and were published without prior notice.
  • A large business jet crew reports pays nearly €29,000 for three weeks on the ground – previously around €6,800.

Without warning, Milan’s airport authorities have slapped a massive increase on General Aviation parking fees at LIML/Linate and LIMC/Malpensa – a change that’s already catching operators off guard and racking up huge costs.

One OPSGROUP member told us their aircraft, parked at Linate for a three-week stay, saw the bill shoot up from a previously quoted €6,800 to nearly €29,000, following the new rate introduction on July 1.

Local handlers confirm the price hike. One local FBO outlined the new pricing structure, which now uses a tiered pricing model based on duration, with rates charged per ton per hour:

Linate (LIML):

  • 0–24h: €0.57 / ton / hr
  • 24–72h: €0.80 / ton / hr
  • Over 72h: €1.09 / ton / hr
    (Old rate: €0.15)

Malpensa (LIMC):

  • 0–24h: €0.44 / ton / hr
  • 24–72h: €0.52 / ton / hr
  • Over 72h: €0.77 / ton / hr
    (Old rate: €0.13)

The first two hours are still free, but that’s about the only mercy left in this new setup.

This means parking a 50-ton aircraft at Linate for more than 72 hours now costs €1300 per day – a whopping 650% increase from the old rate. At Malpensa, the impact is slightly less brutal but still substantial, with costs up nearly 500% in some cases.

The airport authority has offered absolutely nothing in the way of explanation, but handlers suspect the move is part of a strategy to discourage long-term “empty leg” parking and reserve space for active operations. No consultation, no warning – just a new tariff sheet published in July and backdated to take effect immediately. (You can see the old tariffs from 2024 here).

Some large operators are already lodging complaints. Whether those efforts will gain traction remains to be seen. In the meantime, if you’re flying into Milan for anything longer than a fuel stop, you might want to seriously reconsider!

Also watch out for landing fees

Both LIML/Linate and LIMC/Malpensa charge higher landing fees for non-AOC flights.

Commercial flights (Part 135) get the standard rate, while private flights (Part 91) pay about 1.5–2× more for the same landing and take-off. The gap grows with aircraft size – large jets can see several thousand euros extra per stop.

Be clear about your flight type when booking handling and have your AOC ready if you have one!

Other airports to consider in the region

LIMP/Parma

Parma is a bizjet-friendly airport with a 2,100m (6,900ft) runway, a dedicated GA apron, no slot restrictions, and full handling support – so this can be a pretty decent alternative to Milan’s airports if they have the space.

You can check the parking costs at Parma here. Parking is charged at €0.60 per hour per ton of MTOW, starting from the third hour, with the first two hours free. So a 50-ton aircraft parked for 24 hours would pay €660, which is similar to the cost at Linate, but the key difference here is that the rate stays flat for longer stays!

LIPO/Brescia

Brescia is another decent option, with a 2,990m (9,800ft) runway, dedicated GA facilities, and no slot restrictions.

Charges are published here. Parking is charged at €0.07 per hour per ton of MTOW, starting from the third hour, with the first two hours free. If our calculations are correct, that means a 50-ton aircraft parked for 24 hours would pay just €77 – making it one of the most affordable options in the region.

LIME/Bergamo

Bergamo has a 2,990m (9,800ft) runway, full GA handling, no slot restrictions, and is the closest of the three alternatives to Milan—just about an hour’s drive from the city centre—so you might even be able to drop your passengers here directly, rather than using LIML/LIMC and repositioning elsewhere for parking.

Charges are published here. Parking is charged at €0.17 per hour per ton of MTOW, with the first two hours free. So that means a 50-ton aircraft parked for 24 hours would pay €187 – still significantly cheaper than Milan’s new rates.



2025 Flight Ops Changes: The Big Ones

written by Kateřina Michalská | 9 January, 2026

Another year, another wave of changes across international flight operations. Here are some of the key ones from 2025…

January

  • Cuba overflights still aren’t free: Some Cuban overwater routes don’t need a permit, but NAV fees still apply. Miss them and you may get blocked later. Read
  • Palm Beach TFRs are back: With Trump back in office, TFRs around KPBI/Palm Beach will be frequent again. Expect TSA screening and gateway airport rules. Read
  • New NAT GPS guidance published: A new NAT Ops Bulletin explains what to do after GPS jamming or spoofing. Tell ATC early in your RCL. Read
  • NAT fire diversion planning needs care: Not all alternates have strong fire cover or night ops. Some even need advance payment. Read
  • Mexico paperwork rules tighten again: Some airports now demand original AIU documents from your first Mexico entry. Copies may not be accepted. Read
  • Antigua nav fees move online: Low-level flights below FL245 now use a new site to pay nav fees. Mainly affects TKPK/St Kitts ops. Read
  • UK ETA expands further: From Jan 8, most non-European visa-exempt passengers need a UK ETA. Crew are exempt. Read
  • EASA warns against western Russia: After a shootdown near URMG/Grozny, EASA flagged high misidentification risk from air defence systems. Read
  • EU anti-tankering rules arrive: New ReFuelEU rules restrict tankering for large commercial operators and add heavy reporting duties. Read
  • Iceland joins Eurocontrol: All flights into Icelandic airspace now need Eurocontrol IFPS validation. Watch for rejects. Read
  • Israel updates entry rules: ETA is now mandatory for visa-exempt passengers, plus a new approved airport list for the LLLL/Tel Aviv FIR. Read

February

  • EASA flags bad SAF risk: EASA warned about out-of-spec sustainable fuel entering the market. Double-check suppliers and be cautious with new ones. Read
  • UK warns naughty charter operators: Flying charter to the UK without a Foreign Carrier Permit can lead to bans and big penalties. Calling it “private” won’t help. Read
  • Myanmar airspace warning updated: New guidance for the VYYF/Yangon FIR advises staying at or above FL260, with limited alternates due to ongoing conflict. Read
  • Qatar moves permits online: From Feb 20, all Qatar landing and overflight permits must go through the new CAA portal. Email is out. Read
  • Saudi crew visas get easier: Some BizAv crew are now being issued six-month multiple-entry visas instead of the old 72-hour limit. Read
  • New FAA LOA guide available: A fresh, practical guide explains how to get FAA LOAs approved. Free for OPSGROUP members. Read

March

  • Blue Spruce Routes officially disappear: A new ICAO NAT Doc 007 took effect on Mar 20, removing the Blue Spruce Routes. You can still cross the North Atlantic, but what you can file now depends on your aircraft equipage. Read
  • False TCAS alerts raise eyebrows: False alerts near KDCA/Washington sparked fresh debate about TCAS and cyber resilience. Read
  • Mexico shuts 1,500 smaller airports: Over 1,500 private use airports are now restricted to owners only. Major AIP airports are unaffected. Read
  • ADC numbers are a must in South Asia: Flying through ADIZ airspace in India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Myanmar, or Nepal? No ADC number can mean delays or denied entry. Read
  • Europe approves ACAS Xa: Europe now allows ACAS Xa alongside ACAS II for larger aircraft. Another step toward next-gen collision avoidance. Read
  • EASA brings in ground handling safety rules: EASA has rolled out its first ground handling safety rules. Handlers have three years to comply, with new training and safety systems coming in. Aircraft safety still stays with the operator. Read
  • France’s higher passenger tax goes live: The new tax started Mar 1. Private flights are exempt, but commercial operators need to plan for it, including overseas territories. Read
  • France tightens CPDLC access: Most French airspace now requires Logon List registration to get CPDLC. Read
  • China opens an English AIP portal: China quietly launched a useful English AIP portal with routes and Notams. Read
  • Singapore eyes stricter rules for foreign AOCs: Singapore plans to expand permit rules to include ferry flights and add higher penalties. Foreign AOC holders should get ahead of it. Read

April

  • Mali and Algeria impose airspace bans: Reciprocal bans between Mali and Algeria are forcing longer routings across parts of Africa. Read
  • FAA tackles mixed traffic collision risk: The FAA is tightening rules where helicopters and airplanes share busy airspace, including Washington, Las Vegas, LA, and the Gulf Coast. More changes are coming. Read
  • US special event fees are here to stay: Temporary FBO surcharges around major US events are no longer rare surprises. With fees popping up more often and further ahead of time, they have become a real planning cost for many US destinations. Read
  • US visa and ESTA rules reinforced: Only Visa Waiver Program signatory operators can carry ESTA passengers into the US. If not, visas are required. Read
  • Brazil brings back visas for some visitors: US, Canadian, and Australian citizens now need a visa to enter Brazil. Crew exemptions exist. Read
  • Mexico customs rules get trickier: New checks on pills, vapes, and electronics are catching crews out at Mexican customs. Read
  • UK ETA expands to Europe: From Apr 2, most European visitors will need a UK ETA. Crew are exempt, but passengers must have approval before flying. Read
  • Hong Kong adds mandatory BizAv APIS: From Apr 29, all BizAv flights to VHHH/Hong Kong must file APIS for crew and pax, including transit passengers. Operators must file themselves. Read
  • Thailand goes digital for arrivals: From May 1, non-Thai arrivals must submit the Thailand Digital Arrival Card online. Crew likely included. Read

May

  • US tightens dog import rules: New US requirements now apply for importing dogs, including vet certificates and air waybills. Missing paperwork can stop entry. Read
  • Visual approaches get a safety warning: A new FAA alert reminds crews that visual approaches can reduce safety margins in busy airspace. Saying “unable” earlier is sometimes the safer call. Read
  • India and Pakistan extend airspace bans: Both countries prolonged their reciprocal bans. Border areas remain sensitive, with advice to avoid parts of the region below FL260. Read
  • Saudi Arabia allows domestic charter flights: Saudi Arabia lifted cabotage restrictions, opening the door to approved domestic charter legs. Read
  • Fuel limits affect flights to Israel: Turkish airports are no longer fuelling aircraft heading to Israel, adding routing and fuel planning constraints. Read
  • Europe updates lost comms procedures: New SERA rules for lost comms, emergency descents, and transponder codes apply across Europe from May 1. Read
  • Le Bourget enforces APU limits: Strict APU time limits at LFPB/Le Bourget are now actively enforced, with fines possible. Read

June

  • FAA requires a US address for foreign licence holders: Foreign FAA certificate holders must now list a US physical address. Read
  • Lithium battery fire risk keeps climbing: Incidents involving vapes, power banks and laptops continue to rise. New FAA and EASA alerts confirm this is now a standing cabin safety issue for BizAv. Read
  • Congo DRC airspace risk remains localized but serious: Canada narrowed its warning for the FZZA/Kinshasa FIR to eastern regions, advising flight at or above FL260 due to anti-aircraft fire risk. Read
  • South Africa mandates ADS-B: From Jun 12, ADS-B is required in RVSM and Class A airspace. No exemptions published. Read
  • Sydney BizAv fees rise: Sydney rolled out higher BizAv charges across parking, runway and ground services. Some free parking time remains, but costs climb fast. Read

July

  • Blue Spruce Routes are gone, but crossings are still possible: The Blue Spruce Routes were removed in March, but operators without full equipage still have ways to cross the North Atlantic. What you can file depends on what is on board. Read
  • FAA updates its oceanic guides: The FAA refreshed its guidance for the North Atlantic, Pacific, and WAT airspace, reflecting how oceanic ops are now being flown. Read
  • US eAPIS now supports border overflight exemptions: Operators can now apply for and renew US border overflight exemptions via eAPIS, with faster and more predictable processing. Read
  • More bizjets qualify for US domestic CPDLC: The FAA expanded its CPDLC list, bringing more business jet types into domestic datacom and PDC availability. Read
  • FAA cleans up charts and foreign procedure approvals: The FAA is removing clutter from approach charts and stepping back from approving foreign instrument procedures. Operators need to rely more on local state data. Read
  • Afghanistan overflight rules extended: The FAA extended Afghanistan overflight rules to Jul 2028, allowing US operators to overfly at high levels while highlighting ongoing risk. Read
  • China tightens power bank rules: China banned uncertified power banks on domestic flights, with possible knock on effects for departures. Read
  • Ceasefire eases tensions on the Cambodia-Thailand border: A ceasefire began on Jul 28 after days of fighting. Read
  • West Africa routing options keep shrinking: Closures, bans, and conflict zones are making routings into West Africa longer and more complex. Read
  • South Africa permits remain a moving target: Any change to a South Africa permit now requires full revalidation, often taking days. Confusion over rules continues to delay flights. Read
  • Cape Verde permits required despite AIP wording: Cape Verde requires permits for all overflights and landings, even though the AIP suggests otherwise. Read
  • Germany sneaky bizjet checks continue: Unannounced security checks on bizjets are still happening in Germany. Read
  • Heat and APU limits raise risk at Nice: Reports from LFMN/Nice link summer heat, strict APU limits, and weak GPUs to aircraft damage and electrical issues. Read
  • Milan ramps up fees for business jets: Private flights at LIML/Linate and LIMC/Malpensa are seeing steep increases in landing and parking fees, in some cases by hundreds of percent. Read

August

  • Cuba remains off limits for most private jets: Most private flights still cannot operate to Cuba. Any US registered aircraft needs a license that is rarely granted, and commercial ops face strict OFAC exposure tied to US people and payments. Read
  • US CBP updates add cost and admin friction: CBP rolled out new rules for Border Overflight Exemptions and small fee increases from Oct 1. Nothing dramatic, but it all adds up. Read
  • EU commercial ops still need a TCO: Commercial flights into the EU require a Third Country Operator approval. It is free and straightforward, but needs to be sorted early. Read
  • LFPM offers a calmer way into Paris: LFPM/Villaroche offers 24/7 ops with fewer restrictions than Le Bourget. It is Schengen only, but can be a smooth option for the right trip. Read
  • Phnom Penh switches to a new airport: VDTI/Techo opens on Sep 9, replacing VDPP/Phnom Penh for civil traffic. A permanent change for Cambodia operations. Read
  • Thailand adds another compliance trap for charters: Commercial charter operators flying regularly or staying over a month in Thailand now need a Foreign Aircraft Operator Security Programme. Miss it and permits can stall. Read
  • South Korea launches overnight CPDLC: From Sep 3, optional CPDLC is available above FL160 during overnight hours for non urgent messages. Correct equipage and flight plan coding are required. Read
  • Cybersecurity is now a real flight ops risk: BizAv is no longer flying under the radar. From hacked EFBs to leaked data, Part 91 and 135 operators are real targets and should treat cyber risk as an ops issue. Read
  • BizAv safety lessons go practical: The 2025 Nimbl safety report turns real BizAv reports into practical lessons on handling, approaches, fatigue, and GPS interference. Read

September

  • Russia sanctions remain a hard operational barrier: Overflights remain off limits for most operators, with rules differing between the EU, UK, and US. Expect ongoing paperwork and no quick easing. Read
  • Eastern Europe spillover risk continues to grow: Russian drones and aircraft have violated airspace over Poland, Romania, and Estonia, triggering NATO intercepts. Read
  • US aircraft trash rules keep catching operators out: Some US CBP ports still treat arrivals from Canada as regulated trash flights, even though Canada is exempt. Local interpretation varies, so check port requirements in advance to avoid fines. Read
  • Mexico introduces double APIS submission: From Sep 17, flights to Mexico must submit APIS twice, before departure and again after doors close. Easy to miss and still catching crews out. Read
  • UK GAR rules clarified: No GAR is needed for domestic UK flights, but trips to the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man still need both a UK GAR and a local one. Read
  • Qatar simplifies northern FIR overflights: The northern Doha FIR now requires a flight notification instead of a permit, while the southern FIR still needs a permit. A lasting change for routine routings. Read
  • Balloon and kite hazards return at Sao Paulo: Crews reported balloon and kite strings on landing gear at SBGR/Sao Paulo, with objects seen as high as FL150. A real hazard despite no Notams or ATIS warnings. Read

October

  • Europe’s datalink rules become a hard filing requirement: From Nov 4 2025, IFPS will reject flight plans above FL285 if CPDLC is not filed correctly. Read
  • Europe’s EU-LISA Entry Exit System starts going live: The EU Entry Exit System is rolling out now, with full expansion through Apr 2026. New checks and registrations are coming for commercial flights, with ETIAS next. Read
  • EASA keeps Middle East airspace risk guidance locked away: EASA has extended its Israel and Iran airspace Information Notes to end Jan 2026, with no change in content. The guidance remains non-public, covering the LLLL/Tel Aviv FIR and nearby airspace, and the entire OIIX/Tehran FIR. For non EU operators, official risk guidance stays hard to access, while N-reg aircraft remain banned from Iranian airspace. Read
  • EASA warns crews about QNH errors: After a near miss linked to incorrect QNH, EASA reminded crews how easy it is to end up low on final. Simple altimeter cross checks still matter. Read
  • Haiti airspace warning extended into 2026: The FAA extended its Haiti warning through Mar 2026. Restrictions remain below 10,000 ft near MTPP/Port au Prince due to ongoing security risks. This remains a planning constraint. Read
  • North Atlantic crews face extra checks after GPS interference: GPS spoofing and jamming continue to affect NAT flights. If you have GNSS issues before entry, Shanwick wants to know early. Include it in your RCL to avoid delays or reroutes. Read
  • US tightens rules on where crew visas are issued: Crew must now apply for US visas in their home country or country of residence, not third countries. This may affect renewal timelines. Read
  • Toronto tightens BizAv slot tolerance: From Oct 21, CYYZ/Toronto requires slots via the Global OCS Portal and cuts tolerance to plus or minus 30 minutes. Register early if you are not set up. Read
  • Saudi Arabia introduces optional CPDLC: From Oct 2, optional CPDLC is available above FL290 in the OEJD/Jeddah FIR for FANS 1/A aircraft. Voice remains required for urgent traffic. Read
  • Uzbekistan updates ICAO codes and transition levels: Uzbekistan has switched from UT to UZ ICAO codes and raised the transition altitude to 13,000 ft or FL150. The change simplifies cross border ops and better aligns with neighbours. Read
  • Pilot age limits clarified: A new guide confirms the basics. Commercial international flying stops at 65, private flying does not. Country specific rules still matter and can catch crews out. Read

November

  • Sudan risk remains: After an aircraft was reportedly shot down, Sudan’s airspace remains closed and nearby routings rely on narrow contingencies. Extra caution is needed when flying near Northeast Africa. Read
  • Somalia permit confusion continues in the north: Conflicting instructions between Somalia and Somaliland continue near HCSM/Mogadishu FIR. Read
  • GPS interference near Delhi triggers new reporting steps: After spoofing events near VIDP/Delhi, authorities introduced a new pilot reporting procedure. Crews should expect continued GNSS issues and follow the updated process. Read
  • North Atlantic procedures keep evolving: Iceland and Gander plan to drop RCL messages, GNSS interference reports are increasing, and the old HLA approval concept may be phased out. NAT planning continues to move away from legacy processes. Read
  • FAA restores BizAv access after US shutdown: On Nov 17, the FAA lifted flight reduction limits and cancelled Notams that had blocked bizjets at 12 major US airports. BizAv access is open again. Read
  • Paper Jepp charts head for retirement: Jeppesen confirmed that paper charts will be retired by Oct next year. Operators still using paper will need to complete the shift to digital and make sure compliance and crew readiness are covered. Read
  • UK GAR moves to One Login: The UK GAR site now uses One Login and old accounts no longer work. Operators need to set up new access and recheck their data before filing. Read
  • New runway opens at OKKK/Kuwait: Runway 16/34 is now open, with SID changes and a new Ground West frequency. Crews report runway confusion at night, so confirm assignments carefully. Read
  • Tahiti BizAv access is more restricted than it looks: Peak hour limits and alternate constraints mean Tahiti requires careful timing and backup planning. It is not a simple H24 stop. Read

December (and beyond!)

  • Airport incursions become a real European disruption risk: Drones and balloons have already forced airport closures and diversions across Europe Read
  • Venezuela best avoided: The FAA advisory still stands and the SVZM/Maiquetia FIR remains unstable and best avoided. Read
  • UK ETA checks move toward full enforcement: From Feb 25 2026, UK GAR submissions will actively check passenger permission to travel. Missing ETA or visas can trigger a “No Record” response. Read
  • UK confirms higher Air Passenger Duty for BizAv: From Apr 2027, higher APD will apply to business jets from 5.7 tonnes. On long haul flights, the cost per passenger will be significant. This is a future cost to plan for now. Read
  • Biometric border controls become mandatory for all non-US citizens: From Dec 26, facial biometric scanning is required for all non US citizens entering or leaving the US, including private aircraft. Most exemptions are being removed and refusal may mean denied boarding or entry. This is now standard US ops compliance. Read
  • US Special Event Fees stretch into 2026: The updated Special Event Fees Tracker shows FBO surcharges already published well into 2025 and 2026. These fees are now a regular planning cost, not a surprise. Read
  • Greenland keeps changing the NAT alternate picture: BGSF/Sondrestrom remains fully controlled, BGGH/Nuuk is upgraded but still restricted for BizAv, and BGBW/Narsarsuaq is heading toward closure. Greenland alternates remain a moving target. Read
  • NAT trials half degree coordinates on daily tracks: In mid January, some OTS tracks will use half degree coordinates. Planning stays the same, but it is another step toward more flexible NAT routing. Make sure your systems handle half degree points correctly. Read
  • Seletar reinforces VFR arrival discipline: After a runway misalignment incident, new guidance reinforces strict VFR arrivals at WSSL/Seletar. Visual GPS aids and strong situational awareness are now essential. Read
  • Uzbekistan opens a new BizAv tech stop: UZTP/Vostochny is now operational near UZTT/Tashkent with a long runway and full services. It is expected to take over most BizAv traffic and becomes a solid new Europe Asia tech stop. Read
  • South Pacific crossings demand serious prep: Flights between Australia and South America mean long legs, limited alternates and thin island support. Crews report this is a route where preparation really matters. Read

As the year wraps up, a huge thank you to everyone in OPSGROUP for being part of it, for sharing insights, experiences, and real-world stories, and for helping keep the whole community informed and safer throughout the year.

We’ll be taking a short break from the Daily Brief and Weekly Bulletin emails over the holidays. Our last day in the office will be Monday 22nd Dec, and we’ll be back on Friday 2nd Jan. Until then, happy holidays to all, enjoy the break, and see you in 2026! ❤️⚡✈️🧑‍✈️



Mexico Customs Surprises: Pills, Vapes, and Laptop Rules

written by Kateřina Michalská | 9 January, 2026
Key Points
  • Crew warning: AFAC officials at MMSD asked a crew member to carry unknown pills back to the U.S. – possible setup. Decline, document, and don’t touch.
  • Vapes banned: Mexico officially outlawed vapes in January 2025. A new federal law now criminalises almost any activity involving them, including production, storage or transport for commercial purposes. Penalties can exceed USD 14,000 or result in prison sentences of up to eight years. Since the law does not define what counts as commercial activity, authorities may treat multiple devices as intent to distribute.
  • Device limits: Customs is enforcing a one-laptop/tablet rule per person. Extra devices may be taxed at 19% – no crew exemptions.

Flying to Mexico has always come with a few quirks, but there have been a few notable developments recently that crews should be aware of. Here’s a quick look at some of the latest updates – from strange inspections to unexpected customs issues. Might be worth a heads-up to your team before your next trip south.

The “would you mind taking this bag?” situation

A recent report out of MMSD/San José del Cabo raised eyebrows. After clearing customs and immigration without issue, a crew member was asked to step into the AFAC office. There, officials presented them with a ziplock bag full of prescription pill bottles and asked if they could take it back to the U.S. The crew member wisely declined.

Was it a test? A setup? It’s unclear – but it looked staged, and could easily have ended badly. If something like this happens to you, the advice is simple: stay calm, politely say no, ask for everything in writing, and don’t touch anything you haven’t personally verified. Accepting unknown items could lead to serious legal trouble or even aircraft seizure.

Vapes are banned. Like, officially.

Mexico has not only banned the import and use of vapes. A new federal law now makes almost anything involving them a criminal offence. It covers acquiring them, storing them, transporting them and selling them, and it uses the term “for commercial purposes” without explaining what that actually means. Because the wording is so vague, authorities can interpret it as they see fit. Penalties can reach fines of around USD 14,000 and prison sentences of up to eight years.

This vagueness is the real issue. You may think that bringing a few vapes clearly counts as personal use, but an inspecting officer may reach a different conclusion. There is no defined threshold, so the final judgement is entirely in the hands of the person checking your bags.

The message for passengers and crew is simple: do not bring any vapes to Mexico. Even someone who believes they are carrying only harmless extras can suddenly find themselves facing a much more serious problem.

It is much easier to avoid the situation completely and leave them at home.

That laptop in your flight bag might cost you

Mexico has a long-standing rule that only one laptop or tablet is allowed per person when entering the country. We’ve heard from members that customs officers are starting to enforce this again. One crew reported being stopped at MMSP/La Paz because they had more than one device and were told they’d be charged 19% of the declared value.

And no – aircraft iPads, iPhones or EFBs don’t get special treatment. The rule applies per person, regardless of what the devices are used for. Declaring them as commercial equipment can actually make things worse. So best to split up the gear among the crew and passengers or avoid overpacking the electronics.

If you have been to Mexico recently and have a story to share – please do! Reports like these are super useful for everyone in the group. File an Airport Spy report anonymously here.



Crossing the Quiet South: From Australia to Argentina

written by Kateřina Michalská | 9 January, 2026

Every so often, a question drops into our inbox that reminds us just how big and how quiet parts of the world still are.

Not long ago, someone asked about flying from Australia to the southern tip of Argentina. It’s a trip across one of the most isolated parts of the planet: long stretches of ocean, few places to land, and very little room for error if something changes. There isn’t much written about it, and only a small number of crews have done it.

We checked with the OPSGROUP community and heard back from several operators and trip support teams who have made the crossing. They shared where they routed, where they stopped, and what they learned along the way.

This short guide brings together what we know so far, and we’ll keep adding to it as more of you share your experiences. If you’ve flown anywhere in this region, we’d love to hear from you at team@ops.group.

Few Places to Land

Once you leave Australia and head east across the South Pacific, things get quiet very quickly. It is a huge region with many small nations and islands, but only a few airports have long enough runways and operate around the clock. Many smaller fields have little or no parking, and fuel is not always guaranteed. Communication can also be slow, as email exchanges with local FBOs or authorities often take time, so it helps to plan well ahead.

Finding suitable alternates is another key challenge. Distances between usable airports are long, and ETOPS planning can be complex. Some crews recommend keeping about five degrees of spacing between waypoints to make navigation and decision-making easier. There are also a few US military airfields in the region, such as PGUA/Guam and PKWA/Kwajalein, but these are not open to civilian traffic.

SCIP/Easter Island is the only true mid-ocean option. To the west lies NZAA/Auckland, and to the east SCCI/Punta Arenas marks the entry into South America. Antarctica may look close on a map, but it is not a realistic option because there is no fuel or services, and diversions there are reserved for real emergencies.

Most operators who have crossed the Pacific follow a similar island-hopping route:

YSSY/Sydney → NTAA/Tahiti → SCIP/Easter Island → South America (SADF, SCCI, SUMU)

Trans-polar routing is not practical for most bizjets, so this Polynesian path remains the preferred choice.

Many of the islands that can handle larger bizjets are not open 24 hours and often require slots or PPR. Last-minute diversions are rarely possible, especially in Polynesia. Even the main stops such as NTAA/Tahiti and SCIP/Easter Island can face full airport or runway closures at times. On Easter Island, handling is provided by a single agent with limited services, and cash may be preferred. Other alternates, including NCRG/Rarotonga, have similarly tight hours, so it’s best to check schedules and requirements well in advance.

Fuel shortages are uncommon (except for NCRG/Rarotonga, which has one now and then when the fuel tanker is late to arrive at the island), but arranging fuel releases in advance is always sensible. Permits and visas can also take extra time depending on the country, so it helps to build that into your schedule.

Comms and datalink are generally reliable, although one crew reported a four-hour satellite internet dropout west of Easter Island. Light turbulence can occur in the low 40s, especially during the Southern Hemisphere winter.

Once you reach the mainland, things become much easier. Handling in Chile and Argentina is efficient, fuel is reliable, and services are good. On the islands, operations are simpler but still manageable with good coordination.

How different aircraft made the trip

Several long-range bizjets have flown this route. Here are examples of routings that worked in practice.

Challenger 350

SADF/San Fernando → SCIP/Easter Island → NTAA/Tahiti
NTAA/Tahiti → SCIP/Easter Island → SADF/San Fernando
Possible with careful planning around alternates and timing.

Falcon 7X

SABE/Buenos Aires → SCIP/Easter Island → NZAA/Auckland 
YSSY/Sydney → NTAA/Tahiti → SABE/Buenos Aires
SADF/San Fernando → SCIP/Easter Island → NFFN/Nadi
NFFN/Nadi → SCIP/Easter Island → SADF/San Fernando
A flexible option with enough range to connect Polynesia with South America comfortably.

Global Express

SAVT/Trelew → NFFN/Nadi
Has no trouble with the longer Pacific legs, and Fiji works well as a fuel stop.

Gulfstream G550/G650

YSSY/Sydney → NTAA/Tahiti → SADF/San Fernando, SCCI/Punta Arenas
A straightforward option via Tahiti that keeps legs comfortable.

Airports along the way

A quick look at the key tech-stops, listed east to west, from Australia/New Zealand toward South America.

🇦🇺 YSSY/Sydney – Australia

The airport runs H24, though there is a strict 2300-0600 LT curfew. Handlers can request exceptions, but these are not guaranteed. FBOs can usually arrange CIQ directly on site. Fuel is tanker only, so plan large uplifts in advance. Slots are required. Expect standard Australian disinsection rules and have the empty spray can ready on arrival.

Jet Aviation closed its doors permanently on Nov 30, so ExecuJet is now the only FBO at the field moving forward.

FBO contact: fbo.yssy@execujet.com

🇳🇿 NZAA/Auckland – New Zealand

Another solid H24 tech stop just across the Tasman. The airport stays open all day, with short runway maintenance early on Monday and Saturday from 0130-0430 LT, which sometimes does not appear in Notams. Private flights under Part 91 do not need permits, while charter flights under Part 135 require CAA approval. CIQ operates around the clock, and fuel is available with notice, although last-minute uplifts can be slow during busy hours. New Zealand enforces strict biosecurity, and cabin disinsection is mandatory, but quarantine staff can handle it on arrival if needed.

FBO contact: fbo.nzaa@execujet.com, anz_info.s.e.a@swissport.com

🇫🇯 NFFN/Nadi – Fiji

A smooth 24-hour tech stop and refuel point midway between Polynesia and South America. The airport and customs run H24, fuel and handling are reliable, and turnarounds are quick. Wildlife can be active at dawn and dusk, but otherwise ops are straightforward.

FBO contact: info@fijiairports.com.fj, fbo@ats.com.fj

🇵🇫 NTAA/Tahiti – French Polynesia

The only international airport in French Polynesia and the main South Pacific stop. NTAA runs H24, though through early February non-based BizAv (private and charter flights) face limited operating windows matching airline peaks. Movements in those periods need airport manager approval, and use as a diversion is restricted to locally based or pre-scheduled aircraft.

For example, TASC FBO confirmed full 24/7 support on the north side, including CIQ pre-clearance on arrival. They handle disinsection if needed and provide fuel exclusively under the Petropol ExxonMobil brand. Occasionally, filing flight plans through the ARO can be difficult, so it’s recommended to send the FPL by email to seac-pf-bria-bf@aviation-civile.gouv.fr and wait for confirmation.

Landing permits must be requested by operators via the French Polynesia CAA portal (72 hours for private flights, 14 days for charter). Nearby NTTB/Bora Bora  and NTTR/Raiatea are domestic with limited hours and fuel, making NTAA the only reliable international option in the region.

For details on current NTAA restrictions and seasonal procedures, see our dedicated article here.

FBO contact: nuutea@tascfbo.com, ops.ei@airtahiti.pf, ulric.allard@airtahiti.pf

🇨🇰 NCRG/Rarotonga – Cook Islands

A small but reliable entry point between French Polynesia and South America. ATC hours rotate and are published by Notam, with controllers available on request for diversions at +682 25890 or +682 71439. A landing permit is required about 14 days in advance via the CAA, and CIQ is available anytime by prior arrangement. Most nationalities receive a 30-day visa on arrival. Fuel is supplied by Pacific Energy and currently limited for non-scheduled flights. There are two international stands, and overnight parking requires a towbar.

FBO contact: ross.warwick@airraro.com, savage@airportauthority.gov.ck, nikautangaroa@airportauthority.gov.ck

🇨🇱 SCIP/Easter Island – Chile

A key mid-Pacific stop that works well for fuel and rest but needs careful planning. The airport operates roughly 0900-1700 LT on weekdays with shorter weekend hours. A landing permit is required, and once approved, it also serves as parking authorization. Fuel from WFS must be requested 24 hours in advance, and all arrivals must complete cabin disinsection and show the empty spray can as proof. Instrument approaches are often unavailable by Notam, so be ready for visual arrivals and plan alternates carefully. Parking is very limited, usually one stand overnight, and the single handler provides basic services, often accepting only cash.

FBO contact: punavai949@gmail.com, edmundserviceseirl@gmail.com

🇨🇱 SCCI/Punta Arenas – Chile

A reliable southern mainland stop. The airport operates H24 with full CIQ coverage. Three runways provide flexibility, the main one being RWY 07/25 (2790 m / 9154 ft). Fuel is available, and parking can be arranged but must be requested in advance due to limited capacity. No slot requirement.

FBO contact: fbo@aviasur.com, ygonzalez@aviasur.com

🇨🇱 SCEL/Santiago – Chile

Another entry point into South America with reliable services and straightforward procedures. The airport operates H24 with CIQ available around the clock. Parking for BizAv is generally available, fuel is offered H24, and there are no slot or PPR requirements.

FBO contact: fbo@aviasur.com, psaavedra@aviasur.com

🇦🇷 SABE/Buenos Aires – Argentina

Busy city entry point operating H24 with full CIQ coverage. According to the FBO, ramp parking is limited to about two hours, so hangar space should be arranged in advance. Fuel is available.

FBO contact: comercial@royalclass.global, info@royalclass.com.ar

🇦🇷 SADF/San Fernando – Argentina

The other BizAv option for Buenos Aires. H24 with no slots, customs available, easy parking, and fuel on site. The single runway 05/23 is shorter at 1690 m (5545 ft), but ops are smooth, making it a popular alternative to SABE.

FBO contact: fbo@flyzar.com

🇦🇷 SAVT/Trelew – Argentina

A useful southern stop when routing toward Patagonia or Chile. The airport is open H24 with fuel available, and customs work on request with a 48-hour PPR, so it’s best to plan ahead to make sure everything is ready on arrival.

FBO contact: ops@aerowise.aero

🇺🇾 SUMU/Montevideo – Uruguay

A solid H24 option for tech stops or entry into Uruguay. The airport offers full customs, long runways, and reliable support, though most parking stands have specific wingspan and pushback limits, so it’s best to confirm space in advance. Fuel is available. Note local noise restrictions prohibiting departures over Montevideo between 2100-0700 LT, except for emergencies or weather-related operations.

FBO contact: fbo@fbo.com.uy, ops@aerowise.aero

Flying between Australia and Argentina is very doable, just not the kind of trip you improvise! The distances are huge, the alternates are few, and every good piece of info makes a real difference.

If you’ve been through any of these airports recently, we’d love to hear your story. You can share it with the community by submitting an Airport Spy Report. It’s basically a little postcard about what happened on the ground so the next crew knows what to expect. Your notes help everyone who sets out across the quiet South.



Major runway shutdowns ahead at KVNY/Van Nuys

written by David Mumford | 9 January, 2026

KVNY/Van Nuys will shut 16R/34L for multiple 80-hour blocks plus recurring night closures through February 2026, so expect serious disruption to operations.

Here’s what’s currently planned:

Those big 80-hour closure blocks are the ones to really watch out for. They start Sundays at 2230 and end Thursdays at 0600 local time, so the runway is effectively unavailable all day Mon/Tue/Wed during those periods. You can check the airport advisories for any changes to these planned times (due to weather), but the easiest place to view them is the calendar on the airport website here.

Based on the Notams available right now, the short runway 16L/34R has no closures planned. But watch out here – it’s only 4000ft long, is limited to a single wheel configuration with a max weight of about 14000 lbs, so it will not be an option for most BizAv aircraft during the closures.

In terms of where else to consider, KBUR/Burbank and KLAX/Los Angeles are likely to be the main two contenders. We checked with the local handlers at both – no closure or restrictions are planned, so these should hopefully stay fully usable during the KVNY closures. Contact deets for both:

KBUR/Burbank
Hollywood Burbank Jet Center: csr@hbjetcenter.com
Atlantic Aviation: burfrontdesk@atlanticaviation.com

KLAX/Los Angeles
Signature Aviation: LAXFBO@signatureaviation.com
Atlantic Aviation: laxfrontdesk@atlanticaviation.com



New FAA Airspace Warnings for Venezuela and Puerto Rico

written by David Mumford | 9 January, 2026
Key Points
  • The FAA has issued new airspace warnings for both the TJZS/San Juan and SVZM/Maiquetia FIRs, following a sharp rise in state aircraft activity across the southern Caribbean.
  • SVZM is the main concern: the FAA cites a worsening security picture, GPS interference, and increased Venezuelan military mobilisation, including air-defence capability that raises the overflight risk.
  • Airlines have already suspended flights to Venezuela and are routing around the SVZM FIR via Colombia and neighbouring FIRs.
  • Avoid SVZM unless absolutely necessary. The risk level for overflights is higher than usual.
  • TJZS remains open, but expect more state traffic, occasional non-standard ATC coordination, and busier airspace as military activity increases near Puerto Rico.

Puerto Rico: New FAA warning for the TJZS/San Juan FIR

On 18 November, the FAA issued KICZ A0010/25, advising extreme caution at all levels in the TJZS FIR because of an increase in state aircraft operations. They don’t say who these aircraft are, but the language almost always means military traffic that may not be working standard civil ATC.

That matches what’s happening: more US reconnaissance, tanker and transport flights, plus a larger naval presence in nearby waters. The US has also carried out strikes on suspected drug-smuggling boats. Venezuela has publicly objected to the buildup, raising tension across the wider region.

For crews, the key point is that TJZS may now see unpredictable state movements and non-standard ATC interactions.

Venezuela: A much stronger FAA warning

On 21 November, the FAA issued the more serious KICZ A0012/25 for the entire SVZM FIR. It cites a worsening security situation and increased military activity, and requires 72 hours’ advance notice from US operators planning to enter the FIR.

The FAA’s Background Note backs this up: crews have reported GPS interference in the SVZM FIR with effects that can extend 250 nm from the source, and Venezuela has stepped up its military posture with mass mobilisation and air-defence systems that can reach civil levels. There’s also a low-altitude risk from MANPADS. Venezuela isn’t threatening civil aviation, but the overall environment means the risk level for overflights is higher than usual.

Spain and Portugal have also issued their own near-identical warnings for Venezuelan airspace. Both tell crews to avoid the SVZM/Maiquetia FIR until early December. They cite increased military activity, air-defence systems active at all levels, and poor coordination between parties in the area. This matches the FAA’s view and adds two more state recommendations to stay clear of Venezuelan airspace.

Airlines are already pulling back

In the past few days, several airlines have suspended services to Venezuela (the ones we know about so far: Iberia, Air Europa, Plus Ultra, TAP, LATAM, Avianca, GOL, Caribbean Airlines and Turkish Airlines).

It looks like most overflights are now adopting the same strategy: avoid SVZM completely and route via Colombia or neighbouring FIRs, rather than cut across Venezuelan airspace.

Venezuela’s civil aviation authority INAC has announced that it revoked operating permits for six foreign airlines on 26 Nov 2025: Iberia, TAP Air Portugal, Avianca, LATAM Airlines Colombia, Turkish Airlines and GOL. INAC said the decision followed the airlines’ move to suspend their services to and from Venezuela after recent air safety alerts issued by the US and Spain. IATA has urged the Venezuelan authorities to reconsider the move.

Why all this is happening

The FAA hasn’t given a detailed explanation, but recent US military activity in the region gives plenty of context. Public reporting shows:

  • The USS Gerald R. Ford carrier group and several destroyers off northern South America.
  • USAF heavy bomber flights along the Venezuelan coast.
  • Multiple recent strikes on suspected drug-smuggling boats.
  • Venezuela condemning the buildup and calling the US presence a direct threat.

All of this is happening in airspace corridors used by civil traffic, which explains the new warnings.

What crews need to watch for

Three main things:

  1. GPS interference is active. Crews have reported GNSS issues in SVZM with lingering effects after exit.
  2. Military traffic is up and less predictable. State aircraft may not be on civil ATC, may appear without ADS-B, and may manoeuvre unexpectedly – particularly in TJZS and on the northern edge of SVZM.
  3. Avoid SVZM unless absolutely necessary. Airlines are already doing this, and the FAA warning together with Venezuela’s current military activity makes overflight risk higher than usual.

For more info on these airspace warnings, check safeairspace.net – our conflict zone and risk database. And if you have any info you’d like to share with us, please get in touch via news@ops.group.



Tahiti BizAv Restrictions: Peak-Time Bans and Alternate Rules

written by Kateřina Michalská | 9 January, 2026

If you are planning a long hop across the South Pacific, NTAA/Tahiti is the obvious dot in the middle of the map. It is the only international airport in French Polynesia, the main South Pacific stop.

Right now though, it is not quite the simple H24 option it appears to be on paper. Airport and ATC capacity are stretched, airlines get priority, and BizAv has to fit around some fairly tight restrictions.

This is a quick guide to what is going on, and how to make NTAA/Tahiti work for you without nasty surprises.

The Not-So-Simple BizAv Reality at NTAA

For non-based BizAv, Tahiti has some quiet “avoid these hours” rules. Several daily blackout windows line up with the airline rush. During those peak periods, visiting non-scheduled flights cannot arrive or depart unless the airport manager approves it. These limits are not seasonal and seem driven by local capacity pressure during the busiest airline banks. Handlers say the squeeze has been noticeable since mid-2025.

The restrictions currently run into early June 2026. The exact hours vary by day and are published in rolling Notams, so you need to check the current version before planning.

Tahiti also has limits as a diversion alternate. During busy periods, aircraft not based locally or already scheduled at NTAA generally need approval to file it as an alternate. Medevac flights are the standing exception. These diversion limits currently run into early April 2026.

For South Pacific crossings, this turns NTAA into an airport with practical operating hours. If it’s in your plan as a destination or alternate, check the Notams carefully, in local time and UTC.

Another thing to watch out for: the ATS reporting office is not operating normally. Non-scheduled flight plans must be sent by email to SEAC-PF-BRIA-BF@aviation-civile.gouv.fr, and you should wait for acknowledgement before assuming you are filed.

What Local Handlers Say

Local handlers in Tahiti gave us a very helpful look at how things work in practice, and their insight fills in a lot of the gaps that the Notams leave out.

NTAA is H24 and fully equipped for any bizjet, but its daily rhythm follows the airline peaks. Outside the restricted hours you still get full international services, including fuel, CIQ and parking support.

Nearby NTTB/Bora Bora and NTTR/Raiatea are domestic only, with shorter hours, no CIQ and limited fuel at NTTB. They are not suitable as international alternates and cannot replace NTAA if you need a reliable option in the middle of the Pacific.

CIQ pre-clearance: TASC FBO told us they can arrange full CIQ pre-clearance before arrival. The process is simple. You send inbound and outbound GENDECs together with passport scans for all crew and passengers, and everyone fills out an immigration card in advance. Immigration then pre-clears the names and meets the aircraft on arrival for a quick visual check and passport stamp. When the paperwork is sent early enough, the entire process can be as fast as loading the bags into the car. For tight turnarounds this is a major time-saver.

Biosecurity rules: French Polynesia is strict on biosecurity, similar to Australia or New Zealand. Cabin disinsection with an approved spray is mandatory at top of descent. Plant and animal products and any live animals need prior approval. Weapons and ammunition require separate permission. Cash over 10,000 EUR equivalent must be declared. In short, paperwork matters here.

Fuel: NTAA has unlimited Jet A1 for normal bizjet demand. Fuel is supplied through different arrangements depending on the handler. For example, TASC FBO provides fueling exclusively under the Petropol (ExxonMobil) brand, which means the fuel release must be issued under Petropol for them to accept it. Releases from other suppliers cannot be used with this setup. If you arrive without a release, major credit cards such as Amex, Visa or MasterCard are accepted. Because Tahiti is such an important mid-Pacific fuel stop, sending the correct fuel release ahead of time is very helpful.

Permits: Landing permits must be requested directly by the operator through the French Polynesia CAA portal. Private flights should apply at least 72 hours ahead. Commercial and charter flights need at least 14 days. Handlers cannot apply on your behalf, but they can guide you through the process. In the portal you can nominate your preferred handling agent so everyone sees the same set of documents.

If the portal is unavailable for any reason, requests can also be submitted by email. Include:

  • Full schedule
  • Tail number
  • Aircraft type
  • MTOW
  • Company name and address
  • GENDEC
  • Name of your handling agent

Send email requests to seac-pf-sna-preflight-ld@aviation-civile.gouv.fr, ideally copying your handler so they can follow and support the request.

FBO contacts: 

Tahiti is still the key South Pacific stop for long-range BizAv, but it is a “plan it properly or it will not work” kind of place. If you plan around the peak-time restrictions and sort permits and fuel early, NTAA works smoothly. Treat it like a simple H24 diversion and it may catch you out.

If you have recent experience here, please send us an Airport Spy Report. A short postcard-style note is enough and it helps everyone flying the same route.



Delhi GPS Interference: New Pilot Reporting Procedure

written by Chris Shieff | 9 January, 2026

India’s DGCA has issued new pilot reporting rules after a week of GPS interference in the Delhi area.

In early November, crews approaching VIDP/Delhi saw navigation anomalies including false EGPWS warnings, incorrect position data and altitude errors – consistent with GPS spoofing.

Image the work of GPSwise and SkAI Data Services.

Hundreds of flights were affected. ADS-B integrity in the Delhi TMA briefly dropped to zero, leaving ATC unable to rely on GPS-based surveillance.

The timing coincided with the temporary withdrawal of ILS for runway 10/28, which increased reliance on RNAV procedures.

The paperwork trail

DGCA first outlined its GNSS-interference reporting process in a 2023 Advisory Circular.

On 10 Nov 2025, they followed up with a new SOP on GNSS Spoofing – which included the “report within 10 minutes” requirement.

Crews flagged parts of it as unclear, so on Nov 17, DGCA issued an Addendum to clarify exactly what pilots and operators must do!

What pilots need to do

If interference is detected before top of descent:

  1. Tell ATC as soon as possible.
  2. Notify your operator’s post holder (responsible manager) by any available means.
  3. The post holder must then notify DGCA immediately using the form below.

If interference is detected after top of descent, or only discovered after landing:

  1. Report it to the post holder as part of normal post-flight duties.
  2. The post holder must then notify DGCA using the same form.

DGCA emphasises that the goal is timely reporting, not enforcement!

Click for PDF.

What to expect

A reminder that GPSwise (powered by the experts at SkAI Data Services) provides a real time GPS Spoofing and Jamming map spanning the globe. You can access it here.

Their current data shows a steady interference patch northwest of Delhi. It isn’t constant, but it’s there often enough that crews should expect occasional GNSS issues when routing through that area and be ready to cross-check and revert to conventional procedures.



New RISK WARNING: Somalia ATC Conflict

written by OPSGROUP Team | 9 January, 2026
Update Nov 2025: Somalia-Somaliland Airspace and Permit Dispute 

Be aware of an ongoing authority dispute in the north of the HCSM/Mogadishu FIR. Both Somalia and the self-declared state of Somaliland have issued conflicting instructions for overflights. From Nov 10, Somaliland says all flights require PPR from its own CAA, while Somalia has reaffirmed through an AIC that it controls the entire FIR and operators should follow its AIP.

Expect mixed messages on permit requirements near northern Somalia and the Hargeisa region. The Somali CAA remains the only internationally recognised authority for all Class A airspace above FL245 – be cautious of conflicting or unauthorised clearances.

For background on this long-running dispute and its impact on ATC safety, see safeairspace.net.

Ongoing since Feb 2024: ATC Conflict in Somalia

Key information for Flight Crew

Over the weekend, OPSGROUP has received at least 10 reports of aircraft within the Mogadishu FIR being contacted by a ‘fake controller’ on the same frequency, issuing conflicting instructions.

Crews have been issued climb and descent clearances that are not from the sector controller. Incidents have been reported mostly in the northern part of Mogadishu airspace.

The situation emanates from a political dispute between Somaliland and Somalia, two different countries, though the former does not have international recognition. Both countries now claim authority over the Mogadishu FIR.  

Quick Summary – ATC Conflict in Somalia

  • This affects aircraft transiting the Mogadishu FIR
  • Enroute aircraft are being addressed by competing ATC units on the same frequency.
  • Numerous aircraft have received climb/descent instructions from unauthorized ATC units.
  • Location: Primarily within radio range of Hargeisa (VHF 132.5), also via HF (11300)

OPSGROUP Members

In your Dashboard you’ll find the full Risk Warning, including Crew Reports, Maps, Analysis, and Guidance. If you can’t access, just email the team and we’ll send you a copy.

Download the Risk Warning (PDF, 9 pages, 2Mb) 

Analysis

(Excerpt from the Risk Warning in your dashboard)

The background to the situation is an escalating political dispute between Somaliland and Somalia. Somaliland has been an independent country since 1991, but without international recognition. Somaliland has to date maintained control over its airports, but Somalia controls the upper airspace from Mogadishu.

In January 2024, Ethiopia signed an agreement with Somaliland, essentially exchanging port rights on the Red Sea for recognition of their country. This was met with condemnation by Somalia. Somalia, in response, began restricting movements into Somaliland by way of denying airspace entry to the Mogadishu FIR in some instances. This has led to Somaliland declaring its right to exercise control over their airspace.

The net result is an airspace dispute between the two territories. Both Somalia and Somaliland now claim the right to control traffic. This is why crews have been contacted by other “controllers” on 132.5 (VHF) and 11300 (HF). Although it is likely that these other “controllers” are genuine Air Traffic Controllers, they are operating outside their area of jurisdiction as things stand.

Currently, the authority over the entire Mogadishu FIR is Mogadishu Control. They remain the sole authority to control, coordinate, and provide ATS services in the Upper FIR. The secondary transmissions are coming from Hargeisa in Somaliland. Although the motive for these transmissions can be understood, they present clear danger to enroute traffic. The transmissions appear to attempt to mimic Mogadishu rather than present as “Hargeisa Control”, “Somaliland Control”, or any clear differentiator from Mogadishu.

It would also appear from the reports that we have received, that the control instructions are not being issued to de-conflict traffic, but rather to create confusion. This may be an effort to draw attention to the airspace issue, but could have tragic consequences. For flight crews, we follow with some guidance to mitigate the situation.

The situation is volatile and may escalate. On Sunday, February 18, an AIS Officer from Somaliland, working in Mogadishu, was found dead at his home. His death appears related to this situation.

Avoidance of Mogadishu airspace would provide ultimate safety, and if the situation continues, would be wise.

[Excerpt, see full Risk Warning for crew reports received, maps, guidance] 



US Shutdown Ends and FAA Lifts Flight Restrictions

written by David Mumford | 9 January, 2026
Update Nov 17:
  • The US shutdown is over and the FAA says it will end the emergency order at 0600 EST on Nov 17, which means the nationwide flight-reduction limits on the US NAS are being cancelled.
  • That opens the door for airlines to get back to normal schedules. In fact, most of them had already started running full programs over the weekend because they expected the cuts to be cancelled. The system coped, but it will still need a bit of time to fully settle after weeks of strain.
  • And the big news for BizAv: the Notams that shut out GA at the 12 major airports have now been cancelled, so access is open again.
Original story from Nov 11:
  • Congress passed a funding bill late on Nov 10 that’s expected to end the shutdown once signed into law.
  • The FAA hasn’t lifted any of its traffic limits or BizAv bans yet, so everything below still applies until official guidance changes.
  • ATC recovery won’t be instant. Weeks of six-day schedules, long shifts, and financial strain have left facilities short-staffed. Even after the shutdown ends, it will take time for the FAA to rebuild staffing, lift flight-reduction orders, and restore normal capacity. Expect ongoing delays and flow programs in the meantime.

ATC staffing shortages caused by the shutdown have already changed how the country’s busiest airports are operating. Delays have surged, major metro areas are tightening up, and the FAA has put formal limits in place to keep traffic manageable. With the funding deal now in place, these measures should begin to unwind once staffing stabilises – but for now, they remain fully in force.

These limits arrived in two steps:

Nov 7: An Emergency Order issued on Nov 7 reduces airline traffic at 40 major airports and gives the FAA the option to restrict BizAv flights when staffing becomes too thin.

Nov 10: A series of Notams went further, temporarily banning most domestic BizAv flights at 12 of those same airports. These Notams effectively strengthened the restriction powers created under the Emergency Order.

Confusing! Yes indeed. Finer details as follows…

The Nov 7 Emergency Order reducing airline flights at 40 airports

You can view this here.

This applies only to Part 121 airlines and to commuter or scheduled Part 135 carriers, (and for simplicity, let’s just call these guys airlines for the rest of this article).

So, airlines must now reduce their scheduled domestic flights at 40 “High Impact Airports” during the daytime hours of 0600-2200 local. The reduction rises from 4% on Nov 7, to 10% by Nov 14.

On-demand Part 135 flights and private Part 91 flights are not part of the mandatory cuts (and again for simplicity, let’s just call these guys BizAv for the rest of this article!)

The Order also gave the FAA the option to reduce BizAv activity at these airports if staffing levels drop further – which is what then happened with the Notam splurge on Nov 10! (see below for info on that)

The forty airports listed in the Emergency Order are:

  • KANC/Anchorage
  • KATL/Atlanta
  • KBOS/Boston
  • KBWI/Baltimore
  • KCLT/Charlotte
  • KCVG/Cincinnati
  • KDAL/Dallas Love
  • KDCA/Washington National
  • KDEN/Denver
  • KDFW/Dallas Fort Worth
  • KDTW/Detroit
  • KEWR/Newark
  • KFLL/Fort Lauderdale
  • KHNL/Honolulu
  • KHOU/Houston Hobby
  • KIAD/Washington Dulles
  • KIAH/Houston Intercontinental
  • KIND/Indianapolis
  • KJFK/New York JFK
  • KLAS/Las Vegas
  • KLAX/Los Angeles
  • KLGA/New York LaGuardia
  • KMCO/Orlando
  • KMDW/Chicago Midway
  • KMEM/Memphis
  • KMIA/Miami
  • KMSP/Minneapolis St Paul
  • KOAK/Oakland
  • KONT/Ontario
  • KORD/Chicago O’Hare
  • KPDX/Portland
  • KPHL/Philadelphia
  • KPHX/Phoenix
  • KSAN/San Diego
  • KSDF/Louisville
  • KSEA/Seattle Tacoma
  • KSFO/San Francisco
  • KSLC/Salt Lake City
  • KTEB/Teterboro
  • KTPA/Tampa

The Nov 10 BizAv restrictions at 12 major hubs

Three days later, the FAA issued a much stronger measure: Notams at 12 major hubs that temporarily prohibit most BizAv flights (ie. private Part 91 and on-demand Part 135). You can view the list of Notams here.

These Notams apply only to airports already in the Emergency Order list, which shows they are a targeted escalation rather than a separate policy. Only based aircraft, emergency or public-service flights, or operations authorised by the ATCSCC may use these airports.

The twelve airports with these BizAv restrictions are:

  • KORD/Chicago O’Hare
  • KDFW/Dallas Fort Worth
  • KDEN/Denver
  • KBOS/Boston
  • KIAH/Houston Intercontinental
  • KATL/Atlanta
  • KJFK/New York JFK
  • KLAX/Los Angeles
  • KEWR/Newark
  • KPHX/Phoenix
  • KDCA/Washington National
  • KSEA/Seattle Tacoma

This means the FAA has used the BizAv-reduction authority provided in the Emergency Order and applied the most restrictive version of it at these 12 hubs. Instead of trimming activity, BizAv access has been mostly removed – for now.

The National Air Transportation Association (NATA) has since reported that the FAA told them these restrictions only apply to domestic non-scheduled flights. According to NATA, international Part 135 operations may still be approved with prior coordination through the FAA Command Center. This hasn’t been formally confirmed, so treat it cautiously until the FAA issues official guidance.

Operational impact for BizAv

40 High Impact Airports: Although most BizAv flights are not part of the mandatory Airline reductions, they are still affected by the resulting compression. Expect more flow programs and occasional reroutes at the 40 High Impact Airports.

12 specific BizAv-restricted airports: Access is effectively unavailable for domestic flights unless you meet an exemption. NATA says international Part 135 operations may still be possible with prior coordination through the FAA Command Center, but this has not been formally confirmed. Surrounding satellite airports will likely absorb the displaced traffic, so expect parking shortages there too.

What happens next?

Now that funding’s been approved, the shutdown should finally end – but things won’t bounce back right away. The FAA still has to rebuild staffing, unwind the flight-reduction orders, and reopen the restricted airports.

It’s a familiar story. During the 2018-19 shutdown, a single LaGuardia ground stop sparked nationwide delays and helped force a deal in Washington. This time, the same pattern has played out: rising ATC strain, mounting cancellations, and political pressure finally pushed Congress to act.

Expect a slow return to normal. Delays, flow programs, and limited capacity will likely continue for weeks as the system stabilises. We’ll keep tracking Notams and any FAA updates to the Emergency Order as the situation evolves.



Sudan Risk Update: Aircraft Shot Down

written by Chris Shieff | 9 January, 2026
Key Points
  • Following a military coup in April 2023, Sudan airspace remains closed to all civilian flights.
  • An Il-76 was reportedly shot down by a surface-to-air missile near Babanusa on Nov 4.
  • Multiple conflict-zone warnings exist due to the risk of anti-aircraft fire. The country should be considered dangerous at all levels.
  • A Contingency Plan provides limited overflight options via HSPN/Port Sudan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and South Sudan (where ATC remains suspended above FL245).

Sudan’s airspace (the HSSS/Khartoum FIR) has been largely shut since 2023 and the risk profile has only worsened. Fighting around Khartoum continues, and the reported shootdown near Babanusa shows that overflights remain exposed. A US-backed truce has not reduced the threat environment.

Most operators are now avoiding Sudan entirely, routing through the published contingency corridors or staying in neighbouring FIRs. The lack of ATC above FL245 in South Sudan adds another layer of complexity for anyone trying to cross the region.

Here’s the updated risk briefing…

Context

Sudan remains in a state of civil war between two major powers that used to rule together – the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) who control Port Sudan, and a paramilitary group called the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) who control most of Khartoum. You can read more about the background here.

Sudan, a country divided. Image courtesy of the BBC. 

The US Government (along with Saudi Arabia, UAE and several other states ) has been actively pursuing a truce that aims to stop the fighting, open humanitarian corridors and rebuild political stability.

Both SAF and RSF have said yes in principle, but not it seems in practice.

And that means risk to civil aviation will persist. There are several sticking points – SAF wants RSF withdrawn from major cities before anything starts. RSF wants overflight guarantees without any kind of intereference. Any neither is willing to budge yet.

Aircraft Shot Down

On Nov 4, 2025 an Il-76 transport plane of the Sudanese Armed Forces was reportedly shot down in West Kordofan state, southern Sudan by the RSF.

While the armed forces have indicated a structural failure of the aircraft’s wing was to blame, video footage appears to support the RSF’s claim that it was shot down using a short range air defence system of foreign origin.

If proven true, the incident underpins the presence of anti-aircraft weaponry in Sudanese contested airspace, and that even large transport aircraft are not immune to the risks of mistaken identity. Some intelligence suggests that this includes missile systems capable of reaching aircraft as high as FL500.

Conflicting claims about the incident show how unclear the situation is. Based on what we know, the highest risk is during daylight and in areas close to active fighting.

Recent Drone Strikes

On Nov 7, 2025 the RSF launched coordinated drone attacks against at least four cities: Atbara (River Nile State), El-Obeid, Al-Dailang and Omdurman (west Khartoum). Anti-aircraft fire was also reported.

This indicates that flight operations, especially arrivals and departures near the Khartoum region, face an elevated risk of indirect fire and missile activity. Secondary effects such as air-defence responses and unexpected diversions are also possible, particularly at low levels.

Bottom line: treat Khartoum/Omdurman and nearby airports as high-threat airspace. Even if an airport is “open” for domestic traffic, risk in the surrounding airspace remains dynamic.

Contingency Routes

Following the military coup in April 2023, Sudan remains almost entirely closed to all civilian flights.

Sudan has declared its entire sovereign airspace a single restricted area called “HSR5”, and published contingency procedures for civil traffic. It contains three main options for overflights:

  1. One north-south overflight route in the far east of the country down over HSPN/Port Sudan airport.
  2. Some north-south diversionary corridors available via Egypt and Saudi over the Red Sea.
  3. Some east-west routes over South Sudan.

#1: North-South overflight route over HSPN/Port Sudan airport

They call this route ‘CR6’ – and it’s the only published track through Sudan’s restricted area HSR5.

It links the Addis and Cairo FIRs via ALRAP-KSL-PSD-P751-ALEBA. Levels are fixed for safety, FL320 northbound and FL330 southbound. There is no ATC separation, and prior permission is required.

Think of this as a narrow humanitarian corridor – it’s available but not intended to carry normal traffic.

The contingency plan points you to the Sudan AIP (GEN 1.2) for how to get permission, but the short version is this: operators must secure diplomatic clearance before the flight, and you can’t ask airborne. If you are allowed in, make sure you stick to CR6 like glue.

While technically possible, we advise extreme caution. What we don’t know are the safety margins applied to the contingency route or what may be unfolding beneath it.

#2 Red Sea Diversionary Corridors

These allow north-south traffic to move between the HECC/Cairo and OEJD/Jeddah FIRs without touching Sudan at all. They are the safest and cleanest option right now because you stay entirely within Egyptian and Saudi Arabian airspace, skirting the Sudanese coastline.

#3 South Sudan (KFOSS Routes)

KFOSS stands for ‘Khartoum FIR Over South Sudan’ and apply above FL245.

These routes allow for a safe(-ish) east-west crossing of South Sudan without entering Sudan itself. They’re RNAV 5, and mostly bi-directional. You report regularly, keep ADS-B and your transponder on and maintain 15-minute spacing.

One big caveat though – KFOSS routes are uncontrolled. Juba provides traffic advisories only.

Airspace Warnings

Several states (including the UK, France, Canada and Germany) maintain active airspace warnings that advise against entering the HSSS/Khartoum FIR at all levels due to risk of anti-aircraft fire and military activity.

For some reason, US operators technically have no legal restrictions as at the time of writing the FAA has issued no airspace advisories (Notams or SFARs) for Sudanese airspace.

Stay Updated

We will continue to report on any changes to the situation in Sudan as it develops. This includes our Safe Airspace website where you can view all active airspace warnings, along with those that exist in adjacent airspace. Our team keeps this updated around-the-clock.



Farewell, Paper Jepps

written by Chris Shieff | 9 January, 2026

It’s the end of an era. After nearly a century of keeping pilots flipping, folding and cursing in cramped cockpits, Jeppesen is calling it a day on its paper chart service.

It will be retired by 31 Oct 2026, closing a chapter that began when Elrey Jeppesen first sold his little black book of hand-drawn airfield notes in the 1930s.

For many, it’s like losing an old friend. One that was heavy, expensive and always due an update. But it never froze, crashed or ran out of battery.

If you still like the feel of paper in hand, Jeppesen says a few options will remain…

Why end a good thing?

Essentially, cost. Paper chart operations aren’t cheap – printing, shipping, updates and physical inventory are all expensive. Something that Jeppesen itself refers to as the ‘growing costs of managing paper.’

The industry has overwhelmingly transitioned to digital charts thanks to the proliferation of EFBs, tablets and integrated avionics. And all good things must come to an end.

Jeppesen’s legacy paper chart service will end Oct next year.

But what is the operational impact of this change? And how will you be affected if still using paper in the flight deck?

Operational Impact

If your operation still relies on paper Jepps, now is the time to plan ahead. The exact impact depends on what part of the law you operate under.

Part 91:

With the exception of Part 91K, Part 91 operators can switch from paper to digital charts without FAA authorisation.

But there are a few caveats:

  • The PIC must ensure that the electronic charts being used are current and accurate.
  • You’ll also need a backup (a second device or app). Printed charts also count (but obviously, you’ll soon need to print them yourself).

In other words, you can switch at your own discretion as long as you cover the basics above.

Parts 91K, 125, and 135:

The ‘pathway to paperless’ is a little more complicated.

All require OpSpec A061 that authorises EFB use. You’ll need to adequately show that there are procedures and training in place for crew, and that there is a backup plan for failures.

There will also need to be procedures in place for device mounting, power compliance and the update process.

For Part 91K operators, the lead time is typically 1-3 months. In the case of Part 135, this is longer. Most go through a ‘paperless transition’ period – operating with both paper and electronic charts until fully approved.

Part 121:

Most (if not all) are likely already approved for EFB use.

If there are any outliers still out there, a full formal approval is required. This typically takes 3-6 months.

This involves the airline submitting a detailed EFB program to the FAA’s Principal Operations Inspector.

The process is structured and lengthy and includes factors like power/heat analysis, training and other risk assessments. So much so that airlines have entire manuals dedicated to their EFB operations.

Only (most) Part 91 operators can avoid regulatory approval to transition to digital charts.

Jeppesen itself also provides solid guidance on this process.

I still want paper!

Fear not – it can still be done, just with a little more elbow grease.

Jeppesen will continue to sell it’s (blank) 7 hole-punch paper via its online store here.

Most popular EFB services (including ForeFlight and FD Pro) support user printing.

The big man himself, Elrey Jeppesen.



Beware Below: New Warning on QNH Errors

written by Chris Shieff | 9 January, 2026

Two years have passed since we published our original piece on QNH errors, and the issue hasn’t gone away. In fact, there have been more serious incidents linked to incorrect altimeter settings below transition. Here’s what’s happened since then.

The Paris Near Miss

The final report is out on a serious incident at LFPG/Paris Charles de Gaulle in May 2022. An A320 was flying an RNP approach (LNAV/VNAV minima) in IMC when ATC passed the wrong QNH – 1011 instead of 1001, a 10 hPa difference.

That mistake meant the aircraft flew the approach about 280 feet lower than it should have. A ground proximity alert went off in the tower, but the controller got no reply from the crew.

At minima, with no runway in sight, the crew went around. The aircraft’s radio altimeter later showed a minimum height of just six feet – one mile short of the threshold.

The crew never realised. The wrong QNH made their instruments show they were higher than they actually were, so everything looked normal. The heights matched the chart, and EGPWS didn’t trigger.

They tried again, still with the wrong QNH set. This time they broke out and landed safely, again passing within a few feet of the surface before the threshold.

The aircraft reached a minimum height of just 6 feet, almost a mile from the threshold.

You can read the full report and safety recommendations here.

Updated EASA Guidance

On October 22, EASA reissued its Safety Information Bulletin (SIB) on incorrect barometric altimeter settings. You can download it here. It warns that QNH errors can not only lead to CFIT but also reduce separation from other aircraft, increasing the risk of midair collision.

This applies to all phases of an instrument approach, including the missed approach.

The SIB points out that QNH errors can creep in at several points – from how meteorologists determine it, to how ATC passes it, to what the crew actually sets.

The SIB contains some valuable recommendations for operators:

  • Develop SOPs to make sure pilots cross-check QNH from at least two independent sources (for example, ATIS and ATC). Don’t rely on handwriting or word-of-mouth!!
  • Assess these procedures, and hunt for ways in which errors may still occur. Then continue to refine them.
  • Use FDM or FOQA data to flag and investigate any altimeter mis-sets and learn from them.
Our Original Article

If you fly any baro-based approach (that’s most of them except ILS, GLS, or RNP to LPV) you need to know how a simple QNH mistake can put you below profile without you realising it.

Back in 2023, ICAO put out a warning about this. Here’s the quick version:

Key Points

  • QNH errors have led to several serious approach incidents.
  • Affected approaches: VOR, NDB, LOC, RNP, and RNP AR.
  • Main causes: bad data, misheard ATC calls, and cockpit workload.
  • Fix: raise minima, stick to SOPs, cross-check QNH from two sources, and speak up if it sounds wrong.

A Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing

An innocuous QNH error can easily place your aircraft hundreds of feet below profile in the final approach segment of a non-precision approach. And there may be very few signs – save for our eyeballs, our radio altimeter, or ultimately our EGPWS.

And perhaps the approaches most vulnerable to this threat are those which use BARO-VNAV – in other words, the use of our aircraft’s barometric altitude information to compute the aircraft’s vertical guidance.

The problem is that to fly these approaches safely, our altimeters must be accurate. That entirely depends on pilots setting the correct QNH. It is a simple task riddled with potential for insidious errors – something that no pilot (or controller) is immune to.

Which is why ICAO recently published a new Ops Bulletin on this very problem. They can’t fix it, but they can help mitigate it. Here’s a run-down on what they had to say.

Risky Business

If you’re reading this, chances are you have a reasonable idea about how an altimeter works. In the most basic sense, we calibrate these pressure-sensitive devices to provide an altitude above whatever datum we need them for – in most cases, sea level.

This essentially creates potential for two errors:

  1. Temperature: although this is less of an issue, because we can anticipate and correct for it.
  2. A mis-set: or in other words, rubbish in rubbish out. The altimeter doesn’t know if it’s telling you lies. In the same sense that a conventional clock doesn’t know that it’s wrong – it just runs from whatever time you set it to. The consequences of this type of error are far worse.

Final Approach

ICAO’s Bulletin focuses on the final approach (inside the FAF) simply because this is where altimeter errors become most critical.

In this segment, ICAO-compliant procedures only guarantee a smidge less than 300 feet of obstacle clearance (ICAO Doc 8168 Vol II if you’re feeling bold). Interestingly, this almost perfectly correlates to an altimeter error of 10hPa…

Are you sure that 1023 QNH you just heard on that scratchy ATIS wasn’t actually 1013?

…it’s easy to see how critical errors can become. Like the example below:

Which approaches are affected?

It can be easy to get lost in the sea of acronyms out there. So let’s keep it simple:

Not vulnerable: ILS, GLS, and RNP to LPV minima. In other words, approaches that do not rely on barometric altitude to fly the correct profile. One gotcha tho – DA is still based on your altimeter. You may therefore go around early or late with an incorrect QNH but the profile itself will still be correct.

Vulnerable: Everything else – including VOR, NDB, LOC, RNP, and RNP (AR).

Why are QNH errors happening?

ICAO has some ideas:

Bogus Data: This may be incorrect information supplied by a met service provider, corrupt hardware on the ground or even by assuming area QNH will be close enough to airport QNH.

Chinese Whispers:Don’t underestimate the power of what you think you heard. This can happen anytime we are relying on voice to communicate safety critical information. It’s not just pilots either – ATC may not pick up that your read-back was incorrect. If you fly internationally, the language barrier can also be a challenge. Even domestically we form habits of talking at speed on the radio. If there is any doubt, use the phrase “Say Again Slowly.”

Workload: Have you ever been in this boat? You’re passing through transition, changing to an approach frequency, slowing to 250kts, securing the cabin and trying to run an approach checklist….all at the same time. Depending on where the transition level is (for example, FL110 in Australia) it can clash with your other flight deck duties. Crew confusion, miscommunication and even finger trouble can come into play here.

What can we do about it?

Consider other approaches: iI there’s an ILS or similar available and conditions are poor, consider using it instead.

Think about minimas: ICAO suggest raising your minima particularly if you are unfamiliar with an approach type.

Stick to the SOPs: and cross check. Treat QNH like that stove you think you left on every time you leave for a multi-day trip. Become paranoid and find that error. Cross-check the QNH across multiple sources – at least two independent ones for each and every approach.

Don’t forget to ask yourself – is it sensible? A good way to cross check this is by comparing the ATIS QNH to the TAF or METAR QNH. If there is any doubt, confirm it with ATC.

Be especially suspicious of anything hand-written: If you’ve obtained a QNH by voice, make sure you have both independently heard it.

Be careful with anything hand written. Is our arrival info Q 1014 or could it be O 1019?

Don’t forget other sensibility checks: Terrain permitting, your radio altimeter may give you an early clue that all is not right – especially if you’re over flat terrain or water.

ICAO also suggests that ATCOs and ANSPs have a role to play too: It’s little beyond the scope of this article, but you can find that info in the very same bulletin.

Have a story to tell?

Please share it with us in confidence. You can reach us on team@ops.group.



Spoofed Before the NAT? Here’s What to Do

written by Chris Shieff | 9 January, 2026

An OPSGROUP member on a recent westbound NAT flight from the Middle East received the following message via CPDLC:

The crew contacted Shanwick via HF, who requested their RNP capability and operational status.

The controller explained that due to their point of departure (OMAA/Abu Dhabi) they wanted to be certain the aircraft had not been contaminated by GPS jamming or spoofing before it entered oceanic airspace.

It’s been a while since we wrote about this procedure, and since then we’ve had this NAT Ops Bulletin published by ICAO telling operators what to do on the NAT if they’ve experienced jamming/spoofing, so we reached out to NATS directly for an update. Here’s what they had to say…

Defensive Measures

NATS reported they continue to receive a large number of flights every day that have been impacted by GPS interference prior to oceanic boundaries.

The issue is that once an aircraft’s navigation system has been ‘contaminated’ by bad GPS data, it may not be possible to recover full RNP capability in flight, even if the normal GPS signal is restored.

These aircraft may no longer meet RNP 4/10 accuracy required in the NAT HLA, even long after the trigger event occurred.

The NAT Ops Bulletin which was published back in Jan 2025 requires crew of NAT-bound aircraft that have encountered GPS interference to notify their first NAT ANSP via RCL. Even if your aircraft shows no lingering effects, ATC still want to know.

NATS advise that late notification by pilots of a RNP degradation (such as approaching an oceanic entry point) greatly increases controller workload. They often need to move other aircraft out of the way to provide increased separation (in some cases from 14nm to 10 minutes), it’s a big deal.

As a result, they are employing defensive controlling measures. Based on previously spoofed/jammed flights and regions of known risks, they may proactively contact flights assessed as higher risk to confirm status before entry – although the exact selection criteria isn’t public. Increased separation will be applied until normal navigation performance is confirmed by the pilots.

In a nutshell, this is why the OPSGROUP member received the message above.

A special thank you to NATS for their help in answering this question.

Jammed or spoofed? You need to let your NAT ANSP know

The NAT Ops Bulletin we keep mentioning – this provides the guidance for NAT traffic on how to manage GNSS interference. Here it is again, so you can’t miss it! ⬇️

Key takeaway from this: If you suspect or know that your aircraft has encountered any kind of GPS interference (both jamming or spoofing), NAT-bound traffic must let their first NAT ANSP know in the RCL – even if the aircraft appears to have recovered.

This is prefixed by ‘ATC REMARKS/GNSS INTERFERENCE’ and must include details of any system degradations.

A few messages to keep handy are:

‘ATC REMARKS/GNSS INTERFERENCE NO IMPACT.’

‘ATC REMARKS/GNSS INTERFERENCE NO CPDLC/ADS’

‘ATC REMARKS/GNSS INTERFERENCE RNP 10 ONLY’

‘ATC REMARKS/GNSS INTERFERENCE NON-RNP10

By including your status in the RCL, you are giving ATC a head’s up before you arrive.

In most cases, you will still be allowed in the NAT HLA. A loss of RNP 4 isn’t a deal breaker, as you can still enter under RNP 10. But your clearance may be less optimal (likely level changes) due to the increased separation from other traffic.

The big one to look for is a loss of RNP 10. You will not be cleared into the NAT HLA, and instead will need to remain below FL290 or above FL410. With an obvious fuel impact, this may lead to an unplanned diversion.

The Bulletin includes a handy flow chart that’s worth printing and keeping in your flight bag.

Click for PDF.

Latest ICAO Feedback

The latest three-yearly ICAO Assembly was held in Montreal from Sep 23 – Oct 3.

During the event, ICAO issued its strongest condemnation yet of both Russia and North Korea, directly blaming them for deliberate GNSS interference in violation of the Chicago Convention. Russia, in particular, has been blamed by ICAO for destabilising navigation across European airspace.

We continue to receive regular reports from OPSGROUP members of both jamming and spoofing. Interference is now a regular occurrence in the Baltic region, particularly around Kaliningrad, Eastern Finland, the Baltic Sea, and nearby airspace. Other reports have been received from Germany, Poland and Norway.

Recent airspace incursions, airstrikes and drone activity associated with the ongoing conflict in Ukraine have almost certainly escalated the use of GPS interference as a defensive measure. Civil aviation will continue to operationally grapple with this hazard. With no obvious solution in site, our best defence remains procedures like the one detailed above.



APEC 2025: South Korea Ops Impact

written by Andy Spencer | 9 January, 2026

South Korea is gearing up to host the APEC Leaders Summit in Gyeongju from Oct 31 to 1 Nov 1. Both Donald Trump and Xi Jinping are expected to attend, along with leaders from 21 member countries. That means tight security and plenty of disruption at airports across the country from around Oct 25 to Nov 3.

If you’re operating a BizAv flight to Korea during that week, what you can do depends on whether you’re flying with APEC pax or without them. So that means delegates, government officials, or anyone else going to the event. To not make the rest of this article too wordy, we’re going to call these “APEC-related” flights!

If you’re APEC-related

Your life will be easier, but still tightly controlled.

  • RKSI/Incheon: The main international gateway and the primary arrival point for heads of state. Only APEC-related flights will be allowed to park or operate here until Nov 3. Expect strict ramp control and ground handling reserved for official delegation movements.
  • RKTN/Daegu and RKTH/Pohang: Both near Gyeongju and being used as APEC support airports. Only APEC-related flights will be allowed in here during this period, but only for quick turns. Parking is limited to about an hour and a half, with no overnights. RKTH/Pohang is a domestic airport but will open to international flights between Oct 25 – Nov 1.

If you’re not APEC-related

For regular BizAv flights, options are limited.

  • RKSS/Gimpo: This is your best shot. It’s open for everyone – regular BizAv, diplomatic, APEC-related and non-APEC related, though ramp space is scarce. Parking is capped at five days, and slot requests should be made early. Expect congestion.
  • RKPK/Busan: A confusing one! It’s only available to diplomatic flights from Oct 27 – Nov 2. So that’s only the highest tier of APEC-related flights, we’re guessing. PPR is also required, as RKPK is a military airport.
  • RKPU/Ulsan: Domestic only, not available for APEC flights, and parking suspended.

As of now, there are no SUPs, AICs, or Notams published setting out these restrictions. Expect last-minute Notams later this week once security plans are finalised.

If you’re carrying APEC pax, expect strict time limits at RKTN/Daegu or RKTH/Pohang. If you’re flying a regular BizAv flight into South Korea, plan on using RKSS/Gimpo and book now! RKSI/Incheon and the nearby regional airports will be off-limits for you.

A high-security, high-traffic week is coming – plan accordingly and keep checking for updates! And if you need help with handling at any of these airports during this period, we recommend getting in touch with Nexus Jet Support at support@nexusjet.net.



Pilot Age Limits – The Full Picture

written by Kateřina Michalská | 9 January, 2026

Here’s something we’ve been meaning to do for a long time. It seems there’s no single place online where the rules on pilot age limits are spelled out in plain English. So here you go, friends. If you’ve got suggestions, corrections, or edge cases we’ve missed, drop us a note at blog@ops.group.

The basics:

  • For international commercial flights: all pilots must be under 65.
  • For domestic commercial flights: most countries follow the same 65-year rule, but some go further – Argentina, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Japan all allow older pilots under certain medical and operational conditions, while others, like India, apply stricter limits.
  • For private flights: there’s no age limit anywhere. The only restriction is the pilot’s medical.

Who makes the rules?

The starting point is ICAO. Annex 1 – Personnel Licensing sets the global standard for pilot age in international commercial air transport operations. The rule is simple:

  • 65 years old in multi-pilot operations
  • 60 years old in single-pilot operations

These limits apply only to commercial flights – airlines and charter. They do not apply to private flying, where ICAO sets no age restriction at all.

In Europe, EASA mirrors ICAO exactly:

In the US, the FAA applies the 65 limit only to Part 121 airline pilots:

Part 135  charter pilots face no FAA domestic age cap, but once those flights go international, the ICAO 65 rule applies to all pilots on board.

Part 91 private operations are not affected domestically or internationally – there is no ICAO age limit for non-commercial flights, only the medical.

In theory, all ICAO member States should apply the same rules. In practice, some do not. Inside their own borders, countries can be stricter, looser, or set no limit at all. For international flights, the countries that matter are: the State that issued the licence, the State of the operator, and the States being flown into or over. If any of those apply a stricter rule, that’s the one that decides whether the flight can operate.

Once a pilot reaches their 65th birthday, they are no longer eligible to serve on international commercial flights, unless every country on the route specifically authorises it. Under Articles 39 and 40 of the Convention, ICAO Doc 7300, a licence that does not meet ICAO standards such as age limits must be endorsed, and it can only be used internationally if the States concerned specifically accept it.

Medical requirements also tighten with age. According to ICAO Annex 1, pilots over 60 on commercial ops must renew their Class 1 medical every six months instead of once a year.

There used to be an additional condition: if the captain was between 60 and 64, the other pilot had to be under 60. ICAO removed that rule in 2014. Today, two pilots over 60 may operate together without issue.

Private flights

ICAO does not impose any age limits on private, non-commercial operations. A pilot can continue flying internationally at any age – provided they hold a valid medical certificate.

The type of medical required depends on the operation. A Class 1 (ICAO Annex 1) is needed for commercial flying, valid for 12 months until age 60 and then 6 months thereafter.

For private flying, a Class 2 (Europe) or Class 3 (US) medical is sufficient. Standards are lower, checks are less frequent, and validity periods are longer.

The ICAO Annex 1 baseline sets the same logic: validity shortens progressively with age.

In Europe: Class 2 is valid for up to 60 months if you’re under 40, 24 months between 40-49, and 12 months once past 50:

In the US: Class 3 is valid for 60 months if you’re under 40, and 24 months once past 40:

For commercial ops, shorter medical validity periods apply – the details can be found in the same ICAO Annex 1, EASA Part-MED and FAA §61.23 references.

Different rules at home

Countries can set their own age limits for domestic operations. Many follow ICAO’s 65-year rule, but others do it differently. Here are a few examples, and if you’ve seen something else in your ops, let us know!

Argentina: Argentina dropped its old pilot age limits in 2024. Airline/charter pilots can now fly domestic ops until 66 (single-pilot) or 68 (multi-pilot). For international flights, crews must still follow the destination country’s age rules. Private flights already had no age limits here. More info here.

Australia: ICAO’s 60/65 limits don’t apply. There’s no maximum age, but pilots over 60 must pass extra medical and flight reviews. More info here.

New Zealand: Pilot licences are issued for life, with no age cap. Validity depends only on maintaining medical and competency standards. More info here.

Canada: No upper age limit and no loss of privileges after 60 or 65, provided medical and proficiency standards are met. More info here.

Mexico: Couple of issues here: first, Mexico still uses the old ICAO wording for commercial flights; and second, some local officials misapply those same rules to private operations.

  1. It looks like Mexico still uses the older ICAO wording on pilot age limits – the one that talks about the pilot-in-command (PIC) rather than all pilots. Under that version, a PIC can fly until age 60, or up to 65 only if the other pilot is under 60. The newer ICAO rule applies to all pilots and simply allows both to fly up to 65, but Mexico’s wording (Circular CO SA 14.03/20) hasn’t been updated. It still follows the old PIC-focused rule and applies only to international commercial operations, not to private or domestic flying.
  2. For private flights, there’s no official age limit – any pilot can fly as long as their medical is valid. In practice, though, enforcement can be inconsistent. Some AFAC officials, especially at MMSL/Cabo San Lucas and other tourist airports, have been known to misapply the 65-year rule even to private flights, sometimes hinting at “fees” to ignore it. If that happens, show them the Circular, which clearly limits the rule to commercial ops, and coordinate with your handler in advance if you don’t speak Spanish.

Peru: The country allows commercial pilots to fly up to age 70, based on medical findings that age alone shouldn’t determine fitness to fly. Pilots over 65 just need more frequent medical checks to keep their certification valid. More info here.

Chile: Going even further, Chile sets no maximum age limit for domestic flying. As long as pilots hold a valid medical certificate, they can keep flying indefinitely within Chilean airspace. More info here.

Japan: Commercial pilots can fly in multi-pilot operations until the day before turning 68, with extra medical and operational requirements:

China: Officially follows ICAO’s 60/65 standard, but some reports we’ve seen suggest some airlines may still apply a 60-year internal cap. Seen this yourself? Tell us!

India: For international multi-pilot flights, only one pilot may be between 60 and 65 – a holdover from ICAO’s pre-2014 “one under 60” rule. More info here.

All these national differences stop at the border. Once a flight is international, the ICAO limit of 65 applies unless a State has specifically authorised older pilots, as permitted under Articles 39 and 40 of the Convention.

Bottom line, if in doubt, always check the AIP GEN 1.7, where each country publishes its differences from ICAO!

Grey areas and edge cases

There are some places where the rules blur.

Ferry and positioning flights: These may not count as “commercial air transport” under ICAO definitions, but many authorities still apply the same limits if the aircraft is operated under an AOC, and the FAA includes ferry and positioning legs under the Part 121 age-65 rule.

Practical limits beyond regulation: Even where no regulatory age limits exist for private ops, pilots over 65 can still face practical restrictions. Some insurance underwriters set their own maximum age limits or raise premiums for older pilots, regardless of medical fitness. In addition, operators, management companies, and recruiting agencies sometimes apply informal age caps when hiring for private or corporate operations, which is a form of ageism that pilots have little means to challenge. A few countries, such as New Zealand, have human rights laws that prohibit age discrimination in employment, although these protections generally apply only to work performed within their own borders.

Wet leases and aircraft registry: When an aircraft is operated under a wet lease or similar cross-border arrangement, the stricter rule between the State of Registry and the State of the Operator may apply. Under the Article 83 bis of the Convention, these States can transfer oversight responsibilities – including crew licensing – from one to the other, meaning a tighter national age limit can override ICAO standards.

The old “no domestic age limit” lists: You’ll still find online lists of countries said to have no age limits, mostly copied from ICAO surveys in the mid-2000s. Treat these with caution! Always check each State’s AIP GEN 1.7 for the latest national differences.

Policy change in motion: IATA recently pushed to raise the international pilot age limit from 65 to 67, suggesting extra safeguards like keeping one pilot under 65 and tighter medical checks for older crews. The idea made it all the way to ICAO’s 42nd Assembly in Montreal (Sep-Oct 2025), but after some debate, it was turned down. For now, the global limit stays where it is: 65.

Corporate retirement policies: Some companies have tried setting their own age-65 limit for Part 91 pilots, but courts have often struck that down as age discrimination (except in one 2014 Exxon case). Instead of using an age cutoff, some operators take a more cautious approach by requiring their pilots to hold a First Class Medical renewed every six months – even though that’s stricter than the FAA actually requires for private or corporate flying.



How to Get Your Info to 8,000 Other Pilots

written by Kateřina Michalská | 9 January, 2026

We’ve said it before, but it’s worth repeating: OPSGROUP runs on you.

Almost every Ops Alert, every Daily Brief, every Weekly Bulletin starts with someone in the group sharing a snippet. A strange new procedure. A dodgy handler. A sneaky airport fee. Or something bigger such as a new airspace restriction, a strike, or a sudden airport closure. However small it feels, if you’d tell a colleague about it in the crew room, then it’s worth telling the group too.

Over time we’ve built a few ways to make sharing easier. Some of them you might know, some you might have forgotten. So here’s the updated, all-in-one guide to reporting stuff!

How to share stuff and what to send

There are a few easy ways to get things to us.

You can drop us an email at report@ops.group if you’ve spotted something useful that others need to know.

You can also send a quick WhatsApp message to +1 747 200 1993 – pictures welcome.

If you’ve got a longer tale, something that needs more than a line or two, email it to news@ops.group and we’ll turn it into an Ops Story for everyone to read. These are the war stories, the strange sagas, the “this happened to us and it might happen to you” kind of things.

And then there’s our favourite little invention: Report-A-Thing. Or RAT, for short. 🐀

Think of it as a direct hotline to the hive mind. Built back in 2024 on a trusty Commodore-64 interface (well, almost), it lets you send in quick reports without fuss. The best part is that you can choose to do it completely anonymously. No names, no back and forth. Just your info, dropped straight into the machine. We read everything that comes in, check what needs checking, and then make sure the rest of the group hears about it.

So whether you ping us on WhatsApp from the ramp, send a quick note or a longer story by email, or fire off an anonymous RAT report, the result is the same: what you’ve seen gets shared with 8,000 members worldwide. That’s how we turn one person’s weird experience into everyone’s “good to know.”

Airport Spy

Not everything fits into an email or a quick RAT note. Sometimes what helps most is simply knowing what another crew found when they flew in before you. That’s where Airport Spy comes in.

Think of it as TripAdvisor for pilots and ops teams. You land somewhere, you notice something good, bad, or just plain bizarre, and you file a Spy Report. Two minutes of your time, but invaluable for the next crew.

For pilots and operators, a good Spy Report is the kind of detail you’d share with a colleague in the crew bus. Was ATC easy to follow or impossible to understand? Was the handling slick or painfully slow? Any odd security checks or airport quirks that could catch someone out?

Pilots and Operators can file a report here!

It’s not only for pilots. FBOs and handlers can file too. Before a crew shows up at your airport, they want to know what’s new, whether hours have changed, if there are new procedures, or if there’s some local peculiarity that doesn’t show up in the AIP.

FBOs and Handlers can file a report here!

All reports go into the group dashboard, where 8,000 members can see them. The next time someone is heading to that airport, they’ll have your notes in hand and they’ll thank you for it.

Airport Spy is getting busy lately, and that’s thanks to all of you who have been filing reports!

In the end it’s simple: one small report might save another crew hours of hassle, or even something worse. Nobody knows everything, but together we know a lot.

So don’t overthink it. Just send it. We’ll do the rest.



Uzbekistan: new ICAO codes, new transition levels

written by David Mumford | 9 January, 2026

Some big changes came into effect in Uzbekistan on October 2. The country has officially dropped its old “UT” ICAO prefix in favor of “UZ”.

So the Tashkent FIR is now UZTR (was UTTR), and the Samarkand FIR is now UZSD (was UTSD). The same applies to all airports: Tashkent becomes UZTT, Samarkand is now UZSS, Bukhara is UZSB, and so on.

According to UzAeroNavigation, the national ANSP, this is part of a wider modernization effort – giving Uzbekistan’s airspace a clearer, more distinct identity and moving away from the legacy Soviet-era “UT” codes.

Click for PDF from AIP.

At the same time, Uzbekistan has introduced a unified transition altitude of 13,000 ft and transition level of FL150 (previously 6,000 ft / FL080), bringing it more in line with its Central Asian neighbors and hopefully making level changes at FIR boundaries a bit smoother.

The higher setting means crews will stay on local pressure a bit longer when climbing out from airports like UZTT/Tashkent and UZSS/Samarkand, which sit close to mountainous terrain – helping with altitude awareness until they’re well clear.

Uzbekistan handles a steady stream of east-west overflights linking Europe with China, Hong Kong, South Korea, and Japan. These routes have become even more important since 2022, as many operators continue to avoid Russian airspace, routing instead through Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, and Turkmenistan on their way to and from Asia.

One important heads-up: the new “UZ” ICAO addresses have been published, but they’re not active for flight plan filing yet.

For now, keep using the old “UT” AFTN addresses for everything — flight plans, messages, permits, and so on. For example, file to UTTRZQZX for the Tashkent FIR (not UZTRZQZX).

According to UZTR Notam D0922/25, the switch to the new addresses won’t take effect until 29 Oct 2025, so stick with the old ones until then (or until further notice).



Datalink in Europe: What Are The Rules?

written by David Mumford | 9 January, 2026
Update – 29 Sep 2025

Eurocontrol has confirmed that from 4 Nov 2025, the IFPS (Integrated Initial Flight Plan Processing System) will automatically reject any flight plans filed above FL285 unless CPDLC is filed correctly.

IFPS is the central system that processes and validates all flight plans in European airspace. If your plan is filed incorrectly, it will be rejected, and you won’t be able to depart until the error is fixed.

To avoid rejection:

  • If equipped:
    – Field 10a: J1
    – Field 18: CODE/XXX (Mode S hex code)
  • If exempt from the mandate or CPDLC is unserviceable:
    – Field 10a: Z
    – Field 18: DAT/CPDLCX

Important: Do not file both J1 and DAT/CPDLCX together, and do not leave both out. Either scenario will result in automatic rejection by the IFPS system.

Also important: You don’t need to file either J1 nor CPDLCX if your requested level is below FL285.

Also also important: Eurocontrol has also advised separately that if CPDLC is unserviceable, you may continue to operate above FL285 for up to 10 days under MEL relief, provided the flight plan is filed correctly using DAT/CPDLCX. After this period, you must either fix the issue or operate below FL285.

Also also also important: On 4 Nov 2025, IFPS will be unavailable between 2100-0000 UTC for a system upgrade. The outage is expected to last about one hour, but up to two hours if a rollback is needed. During this time, no flight plans can be filed or validated, so submit plans in advance.

For the full Eurocontrol notes on this latest update, check here.

Original Story – Key Points
  • There is a mandate for datalink EQUIPAGE for flights above FL285 throughout Europe. There are various different exemptions for this.
  • This mandate only applies to aircraft with ATN datalink. If your aircraft only has FANS 1/A, you don’t need to comply – but you also won’t be able to get CPDLC across most of Europe.
  • There are also some places where datalink LOGON is mandatory.

Datalink in Europe can be bamboozling – multiple chunks of airspace, all in close proximity to each other, all with varying levels of operating capability when it comes to CPDLC. Plus there’s a Logon List to consider. And a Datalink Mandate. And different considerations depending on what kind of datalink you’ve got onboard…

So here’s a simple guide on how it all works, and what the rules are.

Explain it to me in three sentences
  • You need ATN datalink for flights above FL285 in Europe (i.e. you need to have equipped aircraft and trained crews).
  • If you don’t have ATN datalink, but are exempt from the Mandate (as per one of the categories below), then you can still fly above FL285.
  • If you don’t have ATN datalink, but are not exempt from the Mandate, you can’t fly above FL285.
Is there a Datalink Mandate in Europe?

Yes. The European Datalink Mandate is for ATN datalink equipage for flights above FL285 throughout Europe. (Equipage – not necessarily for logon! More on that later…)

Is my aircraft exempt?

Quite possibly – many aircraft are exempt from the equipage mandate:

  1. Aircraft with a certificate of airworthiness first issued before 1 January 1995.
  2. Aircraft with a certificate of airworthiness first issued before 1 Jan 2018 and fitted prior to this date with FANS 1/A.
  3. Aircraft with 19 seats or less and a MTOW of 45359 kg (100000 lbs) or less, with a first individual certificate of airworthiness issued before 5 Feb 2020.
  4. Aircraft flying for testing, delivery or for maintenance purposes or with datalink temporarily
    inoperative (under MEL exemption).
  5. Aircraft in this list (Annex I).
  6. Aircraft in this list (Annex II) with a CofA issued before 5 Feb 2020.

You can find these rules and exemptions in this EU doc (updated in Sep 2023).

The Logon List

This is what you need to get registered on to get CPDLC service when flying in:

  • Switzerland
  • Germany
  • Maastricht UAC (i.e. the upper airspace above FL245 over Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg – one of Europe’s busiest and most complex airspace areas.)
  • Poland
  • France (6 March 2025 for LFEE, LFMM, LFRR, LFBB / November 2025 for LFFF)

If you get your aircraft added to the Logon List, that means you’ll be able to use CPDLC in these areas and will probably get better directs and faster climbs. However, if your avionics are not eligible to be on the Logon List, ATC will not currently restrict you to the flight levels below FL285.

The Logon List is basically to ensure that aircraft with buggy avionics don’t ruin the network for everyone else – including ATC.

For more info, including details of how to get your aircraft registered on the Logon List, check Eurocontrol’s dedicated page here.

Important to note: the Logon List only applies to aircraft with ATN datalink – not FANS 1/A. So essentially, if your aircraft only has FANS 1/A, you don’t need to register – but you also won’t be able to get CPDLC across most of Europe (more on that below…)

Where can I get CPDLC in Europe?

As of June 2024, these places:

For more info about which FIRs provide datalink, and at what flight levels, check here.

Is CPDLC logon mandatory?

The European Datalink Mandate is for CPDLC equipage, not for logon.

But yes, provided you’ve got ATN CPDLC, there are some places where logon is mandatory ⬇️

Here’s a running list of the places we know where logon is mandatory, in chronological order of when they implemented the rule:

  • Maastricht UAC [EDYY] above FL245 (source: Eurocontrol) and Karlsruhe UAC [EDUU] above FL285 (source: Germany AIP GEN 3.4)
  • Cyprus [LCCC Nicosia] above FL285 (source: AIP GEN 3.4)
  • Hungary [LHCC Budapest] above FL285 (source: AIP GEN 3.4)
  • Finland [EFIN Helsinki] above FL095 (source: AIP GEN 3.4)
  • Denmark (EKDK Copenhagen] above FL285 (source: AIC 5/23)
  • Sweden [ESMM Malmo, ESOS Stockholm] above FL285 (source: AIP GEN 3.4)
  • Romania [LRBB Bucharest] above FL285 (source: AIP GEN 3.4)
  • Serbia and Montenegro [LYBA Belgrade] above FL205 (source: AIP GEN 3.4)
  • Czech Republic [LKAA Prague] above FL195 (source: AIP GEN 3.4)
  • France [LFFF Paris, LFEE Reims, LFMM Marseille, LFBB Bordeaux, LFRR Brest] above FL195 (source: AIC 10/23 and AIP GEN 3.4)
  • Switzerland [LSAG Geneva, LSAZ Zurich] above FL145 (source: AIP GEN 3.4)
  • Slovakia [LZBB Bratislava] above FL285 (source: AIP GEN 3.4)
  • Croatia [LDZO Zagreb] above FL285 (source: AIP GEN 3.4)
  • Bulgaria [LBSR Sofia] above FL215 (source AIRAC AMDT 5/24)
  • Slovenia [LJLA Ljubljana] above FL285 (source: AIP GEN 3.4)
  • Poland [EPWW Warsaw] above FL285 (source: AIP GEN 3.4)
  • Spain & Canaries – coming at some point soon!

Recent News: Some Logon and FPL Filing stuff to watch our for! ⬇️

From Nov 2025: Flight plans in Europe above FL285 without J1 or DAT/CPDLCX will be rejected. This was advised by Eurocontrol in their Feb 27 webinar on datalink guidance for aircraft operators (you can watch the replay here).

From Oct 2024: MUAC have started reporting to the relevant NSAs those aircraft which don’t comply with the requirement to file either J1 or DAT/CPDLCX in the FPL if filed above FL285. We heard this issue is especially true for bizjets – around half of which are capable but don’t log on.

From July 2024: Eurocontrol started checking correct flight plan filing regarding CPDLC. Flight plans indicating J1 capability, but missing CODE/XXX in Field 18 will be rejected.

From Feb 2024: After some issues with the new LYBA logon code for Serbia and Montenegro which you can read about here) Eurocontrol started asking operators to make sure their aircraft avionics ATN addressing database is up to date, to include all the right codes as per the latest version of ICAO EUR Doc 028.

So what do I put in my FPL?

Got ATN datalink? Put J1 in field 10a of the flight plan. Also put CODE/XXX in Field 18 – instead of the XXX you need to put your Aircraft/Mode S address in hex (e.g. CODE/A519D9).

Exempt from the Mandate? Put Z in field 10a and DAT/CPDLCX in field 18 of the flight plan. If you don’t, ATC won’t know you’re exempt, and you may struggle to fly above FL285! (And remember – you should either file J1 or DAT/CPDLCX, not the two together. Flight plans with this wrong filing will be rejected).

Only got FANS 1/A? Read the section below! ⬇️

My aircraft only has FANS 1/A. What do I do?

Assuming you qualify for the first exemption to the Datalink Mandate we mentioned at the top of this post (aircraft with a certificate of airworthiness first issued before 1 Jan 2018 and fitted prior to this date with FANS 1/A), you don’t need to comply with the Datalink Mandate, but you also won’t be able to get CPDLC across most of Europe – ATC will talk to you on the radio instead.

The only bits of airspace in Europe where you can still get CPDLC using FANS 1/A are:

  • EGTT/London, EGPX/Scottish, EISN/Shannon FIRs. But be aware that in EGTT there is no automatic logon transfer from FANS1/A to ATN – ie. if you’re flying from EGTT to EDYY and you are connected via FANS1/A to EGTT then you will have to log on again with EDYY.
  • GCCC/Canarias FIR.
  • LRBB/Bucaresti FIR.

Everywhere else in Europe is only capable of working with ATN datalink. Note that in Maastricht Upper Airspace (MUAC) they say that dual-stack aircraft must be reconfigured to logon via ATN, and aircraft with only FANS 1/A will continue to supported by conventional VHF.

So if you’ve only got FANS 1/A, here’s what you put on your FPL:

In field 10a:
Put Z and one of the following –
J5 – If using SATCOM (Inmarsat) for CPDLC
J7 – If using SATCOM (Iridium) for CPDLC

In field 18:
DAT/CPDLCX 

Download the Europe Datalink Quick Reference PDF

One page PDF of pretty much everything you need to know. Just click here.

Click for PDF.

Download the Eurocontrol CPDLC guidance docs

Eurocontrol’s Operational Focus Group has published some new Datalink guidance docs for pilots, effective March 2025. These include tips on when and how to log on, uplink message handling, and other good CPDLC practices. There are separate docs with specific guidance depending on whether you’re using Jeppesen, Lido, or Navblue EFBs. Download the PDFs below.

Jeppesen – download PDF.

Lido – download PDF.

Navblue – download PDF.

Any more questions?

This EASA Q&A site is a good place to try.

Failing that, send us an email at news@ops.group, and we’ll do our best to get it answered for you!



Shanwick Delays OCR Until Post-Summer 2026

written by David Mumford | 9 January, 2026

Big update on Shanwick’s plans: they’ve now confirmed that the move to the new Oceanic Clearance Removal (OCR) system won’t happen until sometime after summer 2026. That’s a fairly significant shift, as earlier expectations were that it might roll out by the end of summer 2025.

Why the delay?

Over in Gander, when OCR went live last December, things got messy. Controller workload spiked as crews struggled with the new procedures — there were lots of extra radio calls, some confusion over routing, and even a few close calls that controllers had to step in and prevent. More on that here.

Shanwick has pointed to a mix of factors behind the delay — including their own operational complexities and the issues Gander has been dealing with since their rollout. Taking more time now gives them a chance to refine the process and avoid similar issues when they do eventually make the switch.

So, let’s have a nice clear set of steps to follow — depending on whether your headed east or west over the NAT…

Going eastbound via Gander

  1. Send your RCL 60–90 mins before the OEP via ACARS (it’s for ATC planning only, no clearance will be issued!)
  2. May 5 – Dec 31, 2025: Note that any route changes before oceanic entry will be given by VHF voice when in Gander airspace. Moncton and Montreal will continue to issue CPDLC UM79 route amendments.
  3. Don’t request an Oceanic Clearance – there isn’t one here anymore.
  4. Maintain your domestic cleared level unless ATC assigns a different one.
  5. Once in Oceanic airspace, expect further changes via CPDLC or HF.

If Gander isn’t issuing Oceanic Clearances anymore, why send an RCL? This may very well be the crux of the mass pilot confusion experienced so far. The answer: the RCL is now just a planning tool — you’re not asking for permission, only notifying them, because they still need your exact routing and timing to safely manage traffic. You continue to fly your last assigned domestic route and level unless ATC gives you a change. The confusion comes from the wording: no Oceanic Clearance is issued, but notification is still required.

Going westbound via Shanwick

  1. Send your RCL or make a voice clearance request 90–30 mins before the OEP.
  2. You’ll receive your Oceanic Clearance by ACARS or voice.
  3. Fly the Oceanic Clearance.

Also note that if entering Shanwick from another Oceanic area, no clearance is needed from Shanwick.

We think we got all that right. If not, let us know please! news@ops.group.

And if you’re still confused about OCR, check this post.

NAT Forecast: No more RCLs?

There’s also an interesting twist that could change how flights work across the NAT in the longer term. We’re hearing talk that some North Atlantic ANSPs are looking at removing the RCL process completely at some point in the future.

That would be a huge change, bringing oceanic ops much closer to domestic ones. No more sending RCL messages ahead of the Oceanic Entry Point, no more extra steps — you’d just fly your filed plan unless ATC issues a change.

But this is still very much in the idea stage. It would need to go through ICAO groups and international working groups to figure out all the technical and procedural details, and there are plenty of hurdles to clear before it could actually happen.

For now, it’s just something to keep an eye on, as Shanwick and other ANSPs continue to refine how oceanic traffic is managed.