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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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!

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.

Key Points

• The last two weeks has seen a significant increase in Russian military activity near NATO borders, including several confirmed airspace violations involving both drones and aircraft.
• This has been reported in Poland, Romania and Estonia. While these kinds of airspace incidents are not new, the recent spike in frequency and intensity is cause for concern.
• NATO has responded in the region by scrambling jets, enhancing surveillance, and deploying additional defensive resources along its eastern borders.
• These events may have increased risks for civil aviation, including collision hazards, potential for escalation, activation of air defence systems and GPS interference.

Airspace violations have been reported by NATO members close to the border with Russia, Ukraine and Belarus.

Major Incidents

September 9-10: Poland (EPWW/Warsaw FIR)

During a Russian missile and drone attack on Ukraine, multiple Russian drones violated Polish airspace.

They were detected across eastern, central and northern Poland with some reportedly entering via Belarus.

Polish and NATO fighters were scrambled, and several drones were shot down.

Poland described the event as a major provocation. It invoked Article 4 of the NATO treaty – a move that triggers emergency consultations with other member states.

This was an important political response. While Article 4 does not commit NATO to collective defence, it does require formal discussions when a member state feels its security is under direct threat.

Image courtesy of the Insititute For The Study of War and Critical Threats.

September 13: Romania (LRBB/Bucharest FIR)

A single Russian drone breached Romanian airspace  near the Danube River during strikes on nearby Ukrainian targets.

It reportedly loitered for around 50 minutes before exiting back towards Ukraine.

Romanian and NATO fighters responded, but no weapons were fired due to concerns about collateral damage in populated areas below.

September 19: Estonia (EETT/Tallinn FIR)

Three Russian MiG-31s allegedly entered Estonian airspace for about 12 minutes without authorization near Vaindloo Island in the Gulf of Finland, close to the boundary with Russian-controlled airspace.

The jets flew without flight plans, transponders or ATC contact for approx 12 minutes. NATO jets were dispatched to intercept them, before the Russian jets exited the area.

Estonia invoked Article 4 following the incursion.

Image Courtesy of the Republic of Estonia Defence Forces

NATO Response – Operation Eastern Sentry

On Sep 12, NATO launched Operation Eastern Sentry to bolster its posture along the eastern flank.

This mission involves ongoing fighter patrols, improved radar surveillance, and reinforced air defence systems along NATO’s eastern border.

The specifics of this deployment aren’t available, but the operation’s purpose is to detect and respond rapidly to any further violations.

NATO’s Operation Eastern Sentry has been underway since Sep 12.

Why Russia might be doing this

Analysts suggest there may be several possible motives:

• Testing NATO’s response – violations can be used to gather intel on detection and reaction times, radar coverage and interception procedures.
• Posturing – signalling strength and willingness to challenge NATO in a show of force.
• Distraction – Diverting NATO resources away from other interests (such as the conflict in Ukraine).
• Deniability – Maintaining ambiguity by blaming navigation errors, or claiming operations only occurred in neutral airspace.

What’s the bigger picture?

Tensions have risen along NATO’s eastern boundaries in recent weeks, raising safety and operational concerns for civil aviation. Even if an outright conflict is still unlikely, these violations complicate de-escalation and increase the frequency of spill-over risks.

Flight operations in this region need to monitor the situation closely for changes – history has shown that just because airspace is open, doesn’t mean it is safe.

Key risks for operators

Collision hazards – Military aircraft operating without transponders in high-density airspace can create serious risks for civil flights – especially in Baltic states and Poland where major routes between Western Europe and Scandinavia exist.

Airspace disruption – When interceptions occur, ATC may need to rapidly clear surrounding airspace causing re-routes and unexpected fuel burn to enroute aircraft.

Sudden Escalation – A full confrontation between NATO and Russia is unlikely in the near term. However, recent lessons in the Middle East have shown us that sudden closures of FIRs can be a realistic consequence of a deteriorating political situation. This can occur in hours, not days.

GPS Interference – Russian-origin jamming is frequently reported in the region, often traced to areas like Kaliningrad and St Petersburg. The team at SKAI Data Services kindly provided us with the following data map of recent jamming and spoofing recorded in the area -a special thanks to their team.

Courtesy of SKAI Data Services.

Stay Informed

We continually monitor global airspace for changes to risk and security at safeairspace.net. There, you can find up-to-date state-issued warnings for areas bordering Russian and Ukrainian FIRs. You can also reach the team directly via blog@ops.group.

Update: 24 Sep

We’ve heard from OPSGROUP member reports that some operators and handlers in Mexico are seeing lots of different interpretations of this new rule, and the way it’s applied can vary from one airport to another (sometimes even between officials at the same airport!). This article is simply based on the official rules as published by the authorities.

Our advice is this: always comply with the published requirements (as outlined below). APIS manifests go to Immigration HQ in Mexico City, so stick to the official standard. If an airport asks for less, that’s fine — but still meet the full rules.

Original Story: 17 Sep

Watch out for revised APIS requirements in Mexico starting from 17 Sep 2025. A new two-step submission process will apply to all private and charter flights:

1. First submission – within two hours before departure, for both inbound and outbound flights.
2. Second submission – a confirmation of pax on board, sent after doors close and before takeoff.

There’s been some word on the street that the second submission only applies to commercial flights, not private ones. However, the published rule in the federal register makes no such distinction — it clearly applies to all international flights, both commercial and private.

That said, in practice, some airports may be handling private flights a bit differently, which could explain why operators are hearing mixed messages. But while enforcement may vary locally, the official requirement remains two submissions for everyone.

For more info on this new rule, including the details on fines for getting it wrong, check here.

Submitting Mexican APIS

There are three ways to do it:

• Option 1 – ARINC: According to Mexican Immigration APIS regulations, ARINC is the only authorized vendor for submitting manifests. You can set up an account directly and submit through their portal.
• Option 2 – Email: You can email a completed Excel spreadsheet to apisinm@inami.gob.mx. The most recent official guidance we’ve located on how to complete the Excel file can be found here.
• Option 3 – Third Party: Some service providers can handle the process for you. Depending on the provider, they may submit directly via their ARINC account or by emailing the Excel file on your behalf.

Beware the Email Option!

Whether you send the email yourself, or a third party does it for you — watch out.

This email option is limited to four trips to/from Mexico per year. Beyond that, you’ll need to use ARINC (either directly or a through a third-party service). Some operators have reported receiving emails from Mexican Immigration confirming this four-trip cap.

Another important difference: when you submit through a dedicated ARINC portal, you get an immediate response — either confirming that your Excel file was successfully uploaded or flagging errors that need to be corrected and re-submitted.

With the public email address, your message simply gets forwarded to ARINC’s system, but no response is sent back. This means you won’t know if your submission was accepted, rejected, or never received — essentially, you’re transmitting blind, which increases the risk of things going wrong!

A Brief History of Mexican APIS Headaches

Nov 2012: Mexico introduced the APIS requirement, and for years a simple Excel file emailed to Immigration was enough for compliance. This worked smoothly until a new government ended that option, requiring all operators to use the ARINC template and portal instead. Since then, enforcement has tightened and compliance has been more strictly monitored.

Oct 2023: Mexican Immigration began sending circulars to international airports, reminding officers about APIS rules and instructing them to warn private operators to comply or face penalties. More circulars followed through May 2024, with increasing emphasis on enforcement. Immigration also confirmed they can monitor APIS submissions on the ARINC server to check for accuracy and timeliness.

Feb 2024: By February, fines were being issued to private operators. Some were due to manifests submitted through third-party apps that never showed up on the ARINC server, while others involved manifests sent via the central email address but not received in the system. This created confusion, and at some airports, officers started asking operators to email copies of their Excel spreadsheets directly — raising concerns about sensitive passenger data being shared through insecure channels. Mexican Immigration headquarters later clarified that this extra step isn’t necessary if you’ve submitted correctly using ARINC, direct email, or a third-party service.

Mexico Ops: Other Recent Updates

Check below for more info on Mexico ops:

• June 2024: New guidelines for landing permits are causing confusion for both private and commercial flights.
• Jan 2024: Recent changes to the permit procedures in Mexico are causing stress and delays.
• June 2023: A look at some of the long-standing challenges affecting General Aviation ops to Mexico.

Thanks to Rick Gardner of CST Flight Services for this article. CST Flight Services provides a wide range of international trip support services in Mexico and beyond. You can contact them for more info at: customersvc@cstflightservices.com

We’ve had a few reports from OPSGROUP members lately about issues with how international aircraft trash is handled when arriving in the US.

In one case at KMIA/Miami, a handler said that CBP asked them to track the tail numbers of any aircraft that disposed of trash after leaving the customs ramp. If this happens, CBP may issue fines—and if handlers don’t report it, they could be held responsible instead.

While there’s no sign of any new rules, it’s a good reminder of how strict the existing requirements are and how expensive it can get if you don’t comply.

So, what exactly counts as regulated garbage, and how should it be handled?

What Counts as “Regulated Garbage”

Certain waste can carry animal diseases or pests into the US. The USDA and APHIS require this type of trash to be handled under strict rules (CFR Title 7 330.400 – 402, and CFR Title 9 94.5.).

Regulated garbage includes:

• Any food waste, fruits, vegetables, meats, or other plant/animal products.
• Anything that has touched those items—like packaging, napkins, or utensils.

Time limits matter:

• From any foreign country in the past 2 years.
• From Hawaii or US territories in the past 12 months.

You’ll need to pass this trash to a USDA-approved service so they can dispose of it.

What Isn’t Regulated

• Trash from Canada-only flights.
• Clean items like magazines or unused paper towels.
• Sealed, unopened US-origin food that hasn’t been contaminated.
• Empty cans or bottles for recycling only if they’ve never touched food waste.

Important: If clean trash gets mixed with food waste, it becomes regulated. So bag international food waste separately and don’t let it mix with clean trash!

Common Questions

Q: I’m arriving from Hawaii or a US territory. Does this apply?
Yes. USDA/APHIS rules apply to trash arriving from outside the Continental US – be careful if arriving from Hawaii or other US territories abroad (Guam, Virgin Islands etc). You may have taken off from American soil, but the rules still apply.

Q: What about Alaska?
Alaska is considered part of the continental US for this purpose, and so trash from Alaska flights isn’t regulated.

Q: My catering came from a pre-clearance airport like EINN/Shannon. Am I exempt?
No. Pre-clearance doesn’t simply let you bypass the disposal rules. Some exceptions do exist but these require certificates/inspector actions and strict conditions. In practice, pre-clearance alone will not free you from regulated garbage rules. Apparently diseases and pests care not for our paperwork!

Enforcement: Why Miami Came Up

While USDA and APHIS make the rules, CBP enforces them at ports of entry.

Enforcement can vary by location, and some airports take a “treat all trash as regulated” approach to keep things simple.

If you want to keep unregulated trash separate, you’ll need:

• Clear, documented segregation.
• Advance notification to the customs inspector.
• Records of who you coordinated with (including badge numbers).

Otherwise, CBP can assume non-compliance and issue fines.

Safest bet: Treat all international trash as regulated and dispose of it at the customs ramp.

More Questions?

Get in touch with us on blog@ops.group. For USDA/APHIS garbage and quarantine inquiries, email ppq.fsis.mail@usda.gov or AskUSDA@usda.gov. You can also find contact details for CBP at your intended arrival airport here.

Update – Sep 10:

Not directly related to this article, but thought we’d mention it here for the next few days just FYI!

Ops Alert – Sep 10: So far the Israeli airstrike in Qatar on Sep 9 has not triggered major disruptions in adjacent FIRs. There are no new airspace restrictions to report, and OTHH/Doha is operating normally. Flight tracking indicates that major airlines are still overflying Qatari airspace. Despite this, continue to monitor the situation closely. The diplomatic response to this event is still unfolding – sudden airspace closures are possible if the situation escalates.

Original story – Sep 9:

The Doha FIR might be small geographically, but it’s strategically important. A huge chunk of regional traffic passes through here, especially flights heading between the UAE and Europe that want to avoid Iranian airspace.

And now there’s a new rule: if you’re flying in the northern portion of the OTDF/Doha FIR, you need to submit a flight notification if you plan to use certain offshore routes.

These routes don’t require permission to fly – that hasn’t changed – but you do now need to tell Qatar CAA in advance that you’re going to be there. The notification is submitted through the QCAA’s online portal, the same place you’d normally go for overflight permits.

The new rule came in on 4 Sep 2025, and applies to all “non-scheduled” operators (includes charter flights, private operators, ad-hoc flights – basically everything other than airline flights).

The affected routes

The rule applies specifically to these routes:

• M677/M708 (ASROK/OBNET)
• P559/L704 (BORUK/NALPO)
• L602/T557/M600 (TUMAK/EGNIM)
• L768/M556 (ALPOB/OBROS)

These are the offshore routes running north of Qatar, in international waters.

Why the new rule?

First, a quick refresher on who controls what inside the Doha FIR:

• The southern part of the OTDF/Doha FIR: Qatar controls everything, from SFC-UNL.
• The northern part of the OTDF/Doha FIR: This part covers international waters, not Qatari territory. Operationally, ATC responsibility here still switches at FL245 — Qatar handles traffic below this level, and Bahrain handles traffic above it.

The rule is simple

• Flying in the southern part of the OTDF/Doha FIR: Standard overflight permit required — no changes.
• Flying in the northern part of the OTDF/Doha FIR: Submit a flight notification via the QCAA portal.

This flight notification isn’t a permit and doesn’t need approval, it simply lets Qatar know who’s flying there in case you dip into their controlled airspace unexpectedly.

Notifications are submitted through the same QCAA portal used for permits. Bahrain continues to provide ATC in the northern area, and you don’t need a Bahrain permit unless you’re a weird non-ICAO, military, or state flight.

We’ve had a few reports from crews facing problems at LFMN/Nice because their ID cards said “PILOT” instead of “CREW.” In one case, a delay caused a missed slot. Other incidents have been reported elsewhere, such as LSGG/Geneva. The issue isn’t just a matter of wording—it’s about how rules are being applied differently to EU and non-EU operators.

Why the Confusion?

At the heart of this is EU security law:

• EU-based crews: Under EU Reg. 2015/1998, airport authorities are right to insist on IDs that show “CREW.” Section 1.2.4.1 requires this wording in English, along with a validity date and other criteria. IDs showing “PILOT” do not meet the EU requirement.
• Non-EU crews: These rules don’t apply to you. Instead, you must meet your own national crew ID requirements. ICAO provides guidance in Annex 17 and Doc 8973, but leaves specifics to each country. This means ID formats can vary widely, which sometimes leads to problems at European airports.

Reality at LFMN/Nice

Despite the legal distinctions, local security often applies a simpler standard—they just want to see “CREW” on the badge. If your ID lacks it, you could face delays, requests for extra docs (licence, passport), and additional paperwork from your handler (Signature advise that in the case of flight attendants, they will need to be listed as PAX on the Gen Dec if their IDs are not accepted).

Some members report that using IDs from services like IBAC or CrewID has avoided problems entirely.

Security may require an escort or additional security clearance if your ID differs from EU requirements.

What Should You Do?

• EU crews: Ensure your ID meets EU requirements—“CREW” must appear.
• Non-EU crews: Even though it’s not legally required, consider carrying an ID with “CREW” clearly displayed. It can save you time and hassle. And just brief your handler in advance if you think your ID might raise questions.

Have Something to Report?

We rely on member reports to discover these kinds of issues. If you have some extra info, chances are it will be a huge help to other operators.

Please get in touch with us on blog@ops.group around the clock.

Key Points

• Private flights: Technically banned. US BIS requires a license for any US-built aircraft (or aircraft with more than 10% US parts), regardless of where it’s registered or where it’s flying from — and those applications for private flights are almost always denied.
• Commercial flights: If there’s any US link to the flight (a US person, company, someone physically in the US, or a USD payment), then OFAC rules apply — meaning the trip must fit into one of 12 allowed categories. You’ll also need to use the BIS AVS license exception (max stay in Cuba 7 days), apply to DOT for route/frequency approval (if you’re a US operator). If you’re heading from Cuba to the US you’ll need to land at a CBP-designated southern airport of entry.
• Overflights: Fine, but pay NAV fees or risk being blocked. US operators must use a third-party vendor to arrange both the overflight permit and payment of fees.
• Landings: Relatively straightforward on the Cuba side of things: Cuban permit (3 days), local handler/sponsor, e-visa on arrival.
• Insurance: Many policies exclude Cuba. US underwriters may not honour claims unless you’ve confirmed the trip in advance.

Thinking of flying to Cuba?

Here’s the part most operators miss — and honestly, we missed it too until we dug into the rules. Almost every modern bizjet in the world is either US-built or contains enough US technology (>10%) to fall under US export law. And under those rules, private flights to Cuba are technically banned. It doesn’t matter where the aircraft is registered, who owns it, or where it’s flying from — if it’s US-origin, the US government decides whether it can go. And for private flights, the answer is almost always “no.”

This guide explains why, who the US “gatekeepers” are, and what you need to clear if you want to operate to Cuba. We’ve split it into two parts – Legal Stuff and Operational Stuff – so you can see both the law and the logistics.

Legal Stuff

Are you even legally allowed to fly to Cuba? For most operators, the answer isn’t obvious — because three US agencies can have a say. Two of them are the real gatekeepers:

BIS (Bureau of Industry and Security): Decides whether your aircraft can go, under US export control law.

OFAC (Office of Foreign Assets Control): Regulates the people and the money — who’s onboard, who’s paying, and whether the trip fits into one of 12 legal travel categories.

The third one only matters if you’re a US airline or charter operator:

DOT (Department of Transportation): Controls which routes and how many flights US carriers can operate to Cuba. Foreign operators can ignore this.

So let’s take a look at these in a bit more detail…

Gatekeeper #1: BIS (US Bureau of Industry and Security)

BIS is why almost no private bizjets can legally fly to Cuba.

Under US export law, any aircraft that’s US-built or contains more than 10% US parts is treated as a US-origin item. Flying such an aircraft to Cuba — from anywhere in the world — counts as an export or reexport under the EAR rules.

It doesn’t matter where the aircraft is registered, who owns it, or who’s onboard — BIS only cares about the aircraft’s origin and content.

Here’s what that means in practice:

• Private flights: Need a BIS license, and BIS applies a policy of denial. In other words, your application will almost never be approved.

• Commercial flights (airline or charter): Can operate under the AVS license exception. You don’t apply for a license each time, but you must self-certify that the flight meets the AVS conditions:

  • The aircraft remains under your control (can’t be handed to a Cuban entity).

  • Stay capped at 7 days.

  • Records must be kept to prove compliance.

What BIS told us: Even we weren’t sure at first — so we asked them directly: what about a US-built, foreign-registered jet flying privately to Cuba from outside the US? Their answer: it’s still treated as an export/reexport. Unless AVS (commercial) applies, a license is required — and private-flight licenses are almost never approved.

Gatekeeper #2: OFAC (US Office of Foreign Assets Control)

If BIS decides whether the aircraft can go, OFAC decides whether the people and money are allowed. And like BIS, OFAC’s reach is global — if there’s a US link, it doesn’t matter where the flight starts or where the aircraft is registered.

What triggers OFAC: Any one of these is enough to put the entire flight under OFAC rules:

• A US person (citizen, resident, company, or anyone physically in the US) is involved, or
• The transaction touches the US financial system (eg. a USD payment).

Example: A French-registered Falcon flying Paris–Havana still needs OFAC compliance if a single US passenger is onboard or the payment is in USD.

What’s allowed: Tourism is banned. Instead, OFAC only permits travel under 12 specific categories (family visits, journalism, education, humanitarian work, etc).

How you comply: If your purpose clearly fits one of the 12 categories, you don’t apply in advance. You operate under a general license — but you must keep records proving the trip qualified. If the trip doesn’t fit a general license, you need a specific license. These are rarely granted outside humanitarian or official cases and can take months to obtain.

In short: Any US link brings OFAC into play, anywhere in the world — and if your purpose isn’t one of the 12 categories, you’re not going.

Gatekeeper #3: DOT (US Department of Transportation)

DOT controls which routes US airlines and charter operators are allowed to fly — and how many flights can operate.

In 2020 they banned all US charter flights to Cuba except MUHA/Havana, but that ban was lifted in 2022. Today, US airlines and charter operators can apply for service to multiple Cuban airports, but only within the limits set by DOT. They decide both the destinations and the number of flights allowed.

DOT rules do not apply to foreign operators.

Gatekeeper #4: FAA (US Federal Aviation Administration)

Maybe surprisingly, for Cuba ops, the FAA isn’t in the gatekeeper role! The FAA’s focus is safety and air navigation, not sanctions or export rules.

If BIS and OFAC say a flight is ok, the FAA won’t block it just because the destination is Cuba.

The FAA issues airspace warnings for some countries, but not for Cuba — there are no FAA restrictions on flights heading here.

Operational Stuff

Goodness, wasn’t that tedious! Now for the slightly more interesting operational stuff to watch out for.

Cuba Overflights

If your route passes through the MUFH/Havana FIR and enters Cuba’s inner ADIZ or overflies the island itself, you will need to get an overflight permit and pay the associated fees.

For non-US operators, the process is straightforward – set up a customer number with the Cuban authorities and apply directly, often with same-day turnaround if submitted during business hours. US operators will generally need to use an approved permit vendor.

There are several overwater routes in the northwest corner of Cuban airspace where a permit is not required: 

However, these still incur NAV fees, and if you don’t pay them it can result in your aircraft tail number being blocked from Cuban airspace in the future. NAV fees must be paid to ECNA in Euros, and unpaid fees can build up quietly until you are denied entry on a later flight.

For more info on Cuba overflights and how to sort all this out, check our briefing here.

Cuba Landings

Getting approval on the Cuba side of things is usually very straightforward – secure the landing permit, arrange handling, and off you go.

US BIS 7-day limit: Remember, under the US BIS rules, US-built aircraft operating under the AVS exception are only allowed to stay in Cuba for a max of 7 consecutive days.

Landing permit: All flights to Cuba need a landing permit, regardless of the aircraft’s registry or departure point. The Cuban CAA requires at least 3 working days’ notice to process the request.

Handling: You must have a local ground handler in Cuba. The CAA won’t issue a permit without proof of handling support. In the past we’ve worked with the handling agent C2C Travel in Cuba, who were extremely helpful with arranging all services. Contact fabrice@c2ctravel.com.

Local receiving party (“sponsor”): Permits are only granted if you list a local contact or business sponsor in Cuba. If you don’t have one, your handler may be able to provide this.

Visas: Pax and crew get an e-visa on arrival with the help of a handling agent. Everyone has to fill a form online before arrival at this site.

Insurance: Watch out here, as many aviation policies exclude Cuba entirely, leaving flights there uninsured. Even if covered, US underwriting or reinsurance can block payouts due to sanctions. Confirm Cuba is included and sanctions-proof — and get written confirmation from your broker.

Cuba-US Flights

Commercial operators can depart for Cuba from any US customs-designated airport.

But on the return leg from Cuba, US CBP requires you to land at the first designated US airport of entry that is nearest to your point of crossing the US border or coastline (in some cases, there’s some flexibility here where you don’t actually have to land at the “first” airport — check our briefing for more info.)

If you want to land at a different airport instead, you will need a Border Overflight Exemption in advance.

The current list of approved southern airports of entry is published by CBP and includes key gateways in Florida, Texas, and other southern states:

This rule applies to both US and foreign-registered aircraft arriving from Cuba, and CBP will enforce it strictly, so plan your routing and arrival airport accordingly.

Been to Cuba?

Please let us know! You can also reach us directly on news@ops.group, or file an Airport Spy report.

OPSGROUP members can access the full Airport Spy database via the members dashboard here.

Update Aug 2025: BOEs Move to eAPIS (No More Email Applications)

Until now, getting a Border Overflight Exemption (BOE) was an email game. You’d draft up a message to CBP with your operator details, compliance statement, and a few other bits depending on whether it was a new application, renewal, or name change.

That’s now changed. CBP has shifted BOE applications and renewals into the eAPIS web portal. Instead of emailing back and forth, you log in with your usual eAPIS credentials and hit the new “Border Overflight Exemption” link under the manifest options.

Thanks to the NBAA for this behind-the-scenes screenshot.

CBP says they’ll process these within 30 days or less (same as before). Commercial operators still need to add carrier bond info and confirm customs fees are current, but otherwise it’s a much smoother process. If you use a handler or third-party provider, they’ll continue doing it for you behind the scenes.

New to BOEs? If you’re arriving from the south, CBP normally requires your first landing to be at the nearest southern airport of entry. A Border Overflight Exemption lets you bypass that rule and fly straight to the airport you actually want to reach. More info here.

Original Story Sep 2024: BOE Guide

Back in the days when you had to email your BOE requests to CBP and everything was way more painful, we lovingly prepared a 1-page quick-ref cribsheet showing what to do.

But with the Aug 2025 switch to doing all your BOEing via the eAPIS website, that guide is now defunct! We hereby forever consign it to the great FOD bin of history!

If you want to operate commercially into the EU (or certain associated states), you’ll need a Third Country Operator (TCO) Authorisation from EASA. The process is free and straightforward if you meet ICAO standards – just a bit time-consuming to get all the paperwork together.

What is it, and who needs one?

A Third Country Operator is any non-European aircraft operator conducting commercial air transport flights into the EU. That includes BizAv charter flights intending to operate commercially. Private flights are exempt.

There’s also a provision for “one-off” or short-notice non-scheduled commercial flights without a TCO authorisation. These are strictly limited to urgent public interest missions – such as humanitarian, disaster relief, or air ambulance flights – and can be approved for operations of up to 12 weeks.

What’s being assessed?

The regulation requires TCOs to hold an authorisation issued by EASA to confirm they meet international operational and safety standards in line with ICAO requirements. 

Common Gotchas

• Do you have a Safety Management System (SMS)? Even if SMS is not required by your local regulator, EASA expects these applicable international standards to be complied with when operating to the EU.
• You need a Flight Data Analysis Programme (FDAP) if your aircraft’s MTOW is greater than 27,000 kg (59,500 lbs).
• Do you comply with the reinforced cockpit door regulations? 
• Are you compliant with Mode S Elementary, ADS-B Out, and Mode S Enhanced Surveillance? Or do you have a plan in place to retrofit? 

If you’re a Part 121-style operator from a well-regulated state, you’ll likely already meet these standards. Part 135 operators may need to address a few gaps.

You can check who already has a TCO here: EASA TCO Holder List. 

How closely will EASA check? 

EASA applies a risk-based approach when reviewing applications. This takes into account:

• Your own safety performance and history
• The safety record of your State of Operator and State of Registry
• Your level of exposure to European citizens

Operators from well-regulated states with a clean record and modern fleet – for example, an Australian operator with no incidents – will generally face less scrutiny than those from higher-risk environments.

Note: You do not need IS-BAO certification to obtain a TCO. If you have it, great, but EASA assesses each application individually and may request extra info if needed.

How to get a TCO?

The good news? It’s still free to apply, and the process is straightforward if you have your paperwork ready. Here’s how it works in 2025:

It’s actually pretty simple to apply:

1. Submit your application – Download the latest application form from the EASA website, complete it, and email it to tco.applications@easa.europa.eu (cc tco@easa.europa.eu) – electronic submissions only. Attach the mandatory documents: Certificate of Incorporation, Air Operator Certificate (AOC) or Air Carrier Certificate (ACC), and Operations Specifications (Ops Specs).
2. Complete the Basic Operator Data – Once you receive login credentials for the TCO web-interface, log in immediately and complete the Basic Operator Data within 7 days. It takes a few hours, so gather AOCs, insurance certificates, and aircraft documents in advance. The portal is still clunky, so hit “save” often. Keep your fleet and contact details up to date.
3. Submit and respond to follow-ups – EASA’s technical evaluation can take up to 30 days. They may ask follow-up technical questions; you’ll need to reference your manuals and reply via the portal.
4. Get your approval – Once satisfied, EASA will issue your TCO authorisation. It has no expiry date, but continuous monitoring applies, so be ready to respond to periodic information requests.

For most operators, getting and keeping a TCO is free. EASA only charges fees if your risk profile warrants it – for example, if they need to hold a technical meeting (from €10,000) or conduct an on-site audit (from €19,000 plus travel costs). 

What’s next after approval?

Maintain compliance – EASA monitors operators through ramp checks and document reviews, so be prepared at all times. Keep your TCO portal information up to date, and respond promptly to any EASA communication.

Remember, your TCO authorisation is simply EASA’s safety thumbs-up. You may still need to arrange the usual overflight/landing permits from each EU Member State, depending on the nature of your flight and the national rules in place. In other words, TCO gets you through the safety gate, but you still have to knock on the door of each country you plan to operate to.

Extra Reading:

• EASA TCO Website
• EASA TCO FAQs

Earlier this year, EASA withdrew its CZIBs (Conflict Zone Information Bulletins) for Israel and Iran, citing de-escalation. At the time, we wrote that the move seemed premature.

Then in June, the region saw one of its worst escalations in decades, with Israel and Iran trading missile strikes, the US and Gulf states scrambling to protect airbases, and most of the Middle East airspace system grinding to a halt.

EASA responded by reissuing updated CZIBs advising operators to stay well clear of Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, and Lebanon. They also flagged the risk of spillover into parts of Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

Now, just weeks after that guidance, those CZIBs have been withdrawn again. And once again, they’ve been replaced by vague and inaccessible “Information Notes” — only available to EU-based commercial operators, civil aviation authorities, and EU agencies. Everyone else (mainly biz jets and non-EU carriers) is locked out.

What’s changed?

To recap: Following a ceasefire in early July, most FIRs across the region reopened. Iran reopened its OIIX/Tehran FIR in stages — first the east, then limited use of the west, and finally full ops. Israel began accepting traffic to LLBG/Tel Aviv on specific routings. Iraq reopened its airspace. Syria and Lebanon reopened too, albeit amid some brief re-closures. OPSGROUP members can access a full briefing here.

But the risks haven’t vanished. Most carriers are still avoiding direct routings over Iran. GPS spoofing remains widespread. FIRs across the region are fragile — especially the corridor between Israel and Iran, which could close again at short notice if the conflict resumes.

The CZIBs are gone, again.

EASA’s logic for removing them now appears to mirror their reasoning back in January — improving conditions, a reduction in active hostilities, and a belief that risk has subsided enough to no longer warrant a public advisory.

But here’s the key problem: the new “Information Notes” replacing CZIBs are not public. Unless you’re part of the inner circle of EU-based airlines or national regulators, you don’t get to see them. And the publicly accessible version doesn’t contain any detailed analysis, routing recommendations, or clarity on thresholds for escalation.

CZIBs were never binding, but they were visible — offering a common European position on conflict zone risk. The shift to restricted-access notes marks a change in how EASA communicates that risk.

A continuing need for caution

The removal of CZIBs shouldn’t be interpreted as an all-clear. The ceasefire between Israel and Iran remains fragile. Regional tensions persist. GPS interference continues to impact operations across the eastern Mediterranean and Persian Gulf. Routes through Athens and Nicosia FIRs remain congested as many operators still choose to avoid overflights of Iran and Israel altogether.

EASA’s risk assessments will of course evolve as the situation does — but for operators outside the EU system, the reduced visibility makes it more important than ever to consult a variety of sources: state-level airspace warnings, Notams, real-time airspace activity, and third-party guidance.

We maintain a full database of state issued airspace warnings at SafeAirspace.net, freely accessible to everyone.

The bottom line

While EASA’s decision to withdraw its CZIBs reflects improved conditions in parts of the region, the underlying risks remain dynamic. Operators should continue to treat Middle East operations with care — especially in and around Iran and Israel — and stay alert to changes that could result in rapid airspace restrictions or closures.

In short: just because EASA has stopped talking about it doesn’t mean the threat has gone away.

Aviation is under fire

A recent study recorded a 600% increase in attacks on the aviation sector year-on-year. 71% of these involved credential theft or unauthorised access to critical systems.

The FBI also warned on June 28 that a cybercriminal group called ‘Scattered Spider’ had turned its attention toward the aviation sector, using impersonation to compromise security.

The alert was issued on X.

Protecting ourselves from these attacks has become a multi-million dollar industry.

High profile attacks in recent months have impacted both Aeroflot and Qantas, the latter likely carried out by none other than Scattered Spider – the group the FBI are worried about.

The FAA is paying attention

There has been a response to this growing risk.

There is an obvious intent to include cyber security in future regulations. While not yet law, recent advisories and bulletins make it clear that operators are expected to begin taking proactive steps.

A good place to start is AC 119-1A which provides an overview of cyber security requirements, risk assessments and best practices. Also keep an eye out for cyber threat alerts which can be published by SAFO, Notam or other notices.

The FAA is also actively working with ICAO and other agencies to harmonise future cyber protection practices under Annex 17 (Security).

What about business aviation?

The examples above relate to attacks on larger airlines and IT infrastructure. A valid question remains then, what does this all mean for biz av?

While not a traditional target, many business aviation operators lack dedicated IT departments or cyber defence teams. We also frequently carry high-net worth individuals on sensitive operations which may motivate nefarious cyber activity.

Recent reports from the industry show that biz av isn’t immune:

In 2020, a major manufacturer of business jets confirmed a cyber-security breach that compromised personal and aircraft ownership information.

Another example from May this year involved a Europe-based private jet operator which appeared on a ransomware group’s leak site. Sensitive crew info was shared, which reportedly included passport photos.

It’s clear that business aviation is not under the radar – therefore we must remain measured but cautious in our approach to emerging cyber threats.

EFBs – A Soft Target?

Feedback from industry experts and OPSGROUP members suggest that a closer look at the electronic security of EFBs warrants a closer analysis.

The role of EFBs in cyber crime warrants a closer analysis.

Eye-opening research, such as the work conducted by Cyber Security Consultancy Pen Test Partners, has highlighted that EFBs could act as an additional gateway for cyber crime if not correctly managed.

Look out for an dedicated article on this subject soon.

An extra tip – don’t forget your SMS

If your flight department operates under an SMS, it may be wise to include cyber security.

This means treating digital threats like any other hazard – reportable, measurable and mitigable.

It’s important we take steps now to keep our operations secure.

If LFPB/Paris Le Bourget is proving too noisy, too crowded, or just too regulated for your liking this summer – there’s another option.

Thanks to the team at Elyxan Aviation, we’ve got the full scoop on LFPM/Paris Villaroche, a lesser-known but promising alternative for BizAv flights heading to Paris. Located about 45-50 minutes from the city center, this airport sits southeast of Paris and offers something refreshingly rare: no slots, no APU restrictions, and 24/7 availability.

Why consider LFPM?

LFPM/Paris Villaroche isn’t new – it’s a former flight test site that’s been quietly evolving into a solid business aviation option southeast of Paris. It has a similar feel to EGLF/Farnborough, and although public ownership has slowed its full development, what’s already in place is pretty impressive:

• 1972m x 45m runway with GNSS/LPV approach
• No slots, no APU restrictions, no curfews
• 24/7 ops capability, with English-speaking ATC available on request
• RFFS Cat 5 available on request
• Modern FBO with hangars for bizjets up to Global 7000/Gulfstream 700
• Direct ramp access, VIP pax facilities, and fast turnarounds
• No public access = high privacy for pax and high-profile ops

What’s the catch?

LFPM is not a designated port of entry – so it only accepts flights arriving from or departing to EU/Schengen airports (Switzerland included). No customs or immigration means international flights must route in from a Schengen stop first.

Also, while the runway can easily handle larger jets, LFPM imposes a 37-tonne (approx. 81,600 lbs) limit on actual operating weight at the time of arrival or departure – not MTOW. For heavier aircraft, fuel loads may need to be adjusted accordingly.

Looking at other options around Paris:

• LFPB/Le Bourget is Paris’s main BizAv airport – but it’s slot-controlled, has APU restrictions, and can be congested in summer.
  
• LFPG/Charles de Gaulle and LFPO/Orly are international, but mainly serve scheduled airlines and are not BizAv-friendly.
• LFOB/Beauvais and LFOK/Vatry are international airports with customs, but they’re significantly farther from the city.
• LFPT/Pontoise (NW of the city) is also Schengen-only, with a shorter runway and stricter weight limits. Currently undergoing refurbishment.

Faster into Paris?

Actually, yes – and not just on paper.

Even though LFPM looks farther from central Paris than LFPB, the real-world travel time is often the same or shorter. That’s especially true if you’re arriving from the south – you’ll avoid the extra flight time needed to route around LFPG/Charles de Gaulle and skip the congestion-prone A1 motorway used by LFPB/Le Bourget arrivals.

Elyxan put together a practical comparison of travel times from LFPM vs. LFPB to central Paris – factoring in flight routing, ramp access, and road traffic. 

For now, it’s Schengen-only – but if French authorities eventually install CIQ, Villaroche could become a serious player. In the meantime, it’s a great EU option: straightforward, operator-friendly, and low on red tape.

📞 Contact Elyxan Aviation for more info:
ops@elyxan-aviation.fr | +33 6 58 83 66 25

The Short Story

The Blue Spruce Routes are gone — but if you don’t have all the equipment, there are still ways to get across the Atlantic. What you can do depends on what’s on board:

Fully equipped? (2 LRNS, CPDLC RCP240, ADS-C RSP180, HF, LOAs)
➤ You can go anywhere in the NAT HLA.

No datalink?
➤ Avoid FL290–410 unless you’re in the DLM Exemption Area (e.g. Iceland–Greenland Corridor) and have ADS-B.

No HF radios?
➤ You can only cross via specific VHF-only routes:
– Above FL195: YFB–SF–KFV
– FL250 and above: YYR–OZN–KFV

Only one LRNS?
➤ Stay below FL285 to avoid HLA nav and datalink rules – but unless you’re on a Gander-approved VHF route (e.g. via OZN or SF), you’ll still need two long-range comms systems.
➤ Want to climb into HLA airspace? You’ll need VHF coverage, ATS surveillance, State approval, and a compliant routing like the Iceland-Greenland corridor.

The Longer Story

As of March 20, 2025, the Blue Spruce Routes have been officially removed from the North Atlantic. These routes—once the lifeline for aircraft with limited navigation or communication capability—are now a thing of the past. The change is part of the latest update to NAT Doc 007, which you can read more about here.

Technically established in 1976, the Blue Spruce Routes allowed aircraft with only one Long Range Navigation System (LRNS) to transit the NAT High Level Airspace (HLA) under special routing and coverage provisions. Over time, however, the need for them faded. The reasons:

• Almost no aircraft that have the mandated CPDLC equipment have only one LRNS. Or put another way, if you have CPDLC, you have dual LRNSs unless broken. With the addition of CPDLC requirement, relief for a single LRNS became outdated.
• Ground-based nav aids along the routes have largely disappeared.
• Datalink Mandated Airspace now covers most of NAT HLA.
• The Iceland–Greenland Corridor, with reliable VHF and ATS surveillance, provides a more flexible and better-supported fallback option.

While the Blue Spruce name may still pop up informally (especially among ferry operators), it no longer refers to any officially recognized ICAO routes. But crucially, some of the old routings remain usable—just under new conditions.

For example, Canada now allows aircraft operating with only VHF to cross via specific routes:

• Above FL195 via YFB–SF–KFV (this one currently says “below” FL195 in the Canada AIP, but that’s been confirmed as a typo, and will be getting updated shortly!)
• FL250 or above via YYR–OZN (or NA)–KFV

These are the only routes where VHF coverage is considered sufficient for oceanic ops without HF radios. Everywhere else, HF is still required outside VHF range.

So while the Blue Spruce Routes are gone in name and publication, practical exemptions remain—especially for aircraft with partial equipage. What’s changed is how you plan and justify the crossing.

Let’s walk through what you can still do today, based on what your aircraft has (or doesn’t).

Standard Ops

Most traffic crossing the North Atlantic Airspace (NAT) occurs from FL290-410 through the North Atlantic High Level Airspace (NAT HLA). Over the years, advances in navigation, communication, and surveillance equipment have led to additional requirements for operators so ATC can safely reduce aircraft spacing and pack more aircraft through the airspace.

For unrestricted access to the NAT HLA, operators need:

• 2 Long Range Navigation Systems (LRNSs)
• Outside VHF areas 2 LRCS are required – either 2x HF, or HF & Satcom/or CPDLC, for the other.
• FANS 1/A equipment for the NAT Datalink Mandated airspace
• Super-duper datalink for the coveted PBCS Tracks (i.e. CPDLC capable of RCP240 + ADS-C capable of RSP180)

And for US operators, that equipment list is a prerequisite for several required LOAs:

• A056 CPDLC Enroute, and Oceanic and Remote (PBCS)
• B036 Oceanic and Remote Continental Navigation Using Multiple Long-Range Navigation Systems (M-LRNS), Aka. RNP 4 (and RNP 10)
• B039 NAT HLA
• B046 RVSM
• D195 MEL (not technically required for a crossing, but might as well throw this one in)

The above is the ideal setup. But what if I fly old stuff, or new stuff, or broken stuff, or little stuff?

Old Stuff

To the formerly early adopters without the benefit of factory standard state-of-the-art equipment: let’s say your aircraft has LRNSs that are only capable of RNP 10, or your FANS equipment is RCP400 and RSP400. All else being equal, the only limitation would be no PBCS tracks. And no T9/T290 either. All other tracks or random routes through the HLA are approved.

Is your equipment so old it doesn’t even have the above equipment? Consider yourself the same as broken, and keep reading…

New Stuff

You just closed on a shiny, new, well-equipped jet and have to ferry it across the pond, but you have no LOAs. In this case, you are altitude and route are limited. No RVSM or NAT HLA LOAs means the airspace from FL290-410 is off limits for you. If traffic permits, ATC may let you climb through the HLA above FL410, but you might want to plan fuel and route at FL280. Route-wise, without B036, you’re flying the Iceland-Greenland Corridor.

If you only have some of the above-listed LOAs, also consider yourself broken.

Now, it gets a little more nuanced…

Broken Stuff

You’ve been spoofed, but only one GPS came back? When down to one LRNS (or you don’t have B036), fly the Iceland-Greenland Corridor. With only one LRNS, you could fly through the NAT HLA along the corridor with approval if you stay within surveillance and VHF coverage and have the equipment to fly the assigned route. Otherwise, fly above or below the NAT HLA.

You’re down to one HF or lost both? You can still cross via the Iceland–Greenland Corridor or the old southern Blue Spruce routing via OZN – but only between FL250-280, where VHF coverage is sufficient and you’re still below DLM airspace. Just make sure to stay clear of Shanwick OCA, which still requires HF.

HFs are back, but your Datalink konks out (CPDLC or ADS-C), or you don’t have A056. There are two options: stay within the Data Link Mandate (DLM) exemption area (the corridor) and fly any altitude. The DLM exemption area exists because you don’t need CPDLC in that area if you have ADS-B. Radio reception is pretty good throughout there! The second option is to fly above or below the NAT HLA.

DLM Exemption Area (ie. Iceland-Greenland Corridor)

Little Stuff

And if you get a wild hair to cross the Atlantic in an aircraft with only one LRNS, no HF radios, no Datalink, no LOAs, without the range to fly non-stop (like me), you still have options. You’ll need to stick to the Iceland–Greenland Corridor, or the specific VHF-approved routes via OZN or SF.

What’s a Blue Spruce?

It’s a Christmas tree native to the Rocky Mountains that you won’t see across the Atlantic on any of your stops. However, the Blue Spruce Routes are routes in and around the Atlantic connecting Canada, Greenland, Iceland, and the UK.

Why were they called the Blue Spruce Routes? Back when military aircraft had wooden propellers (sometimes made of spruce), they painted the tips blue. These aircraft had to make the trans-Atlantic journey along the now-known Blue Spruce Routes.

Nostalgia Map.

Gray Areas

The Iceland-Greenland Corridor provides exemptions from equipment and operational requirements because land-based radio transmitters along the route provide decent coverage, and route legs are short enough to complete a crossing without necessitating equipment redundancy.

Now, there are exemptions from the rules, and then there are gray areas. Despite all the relief these routes provide, one regulation remains: you must maintain two-way radio communication with ATC.

So far, much of the discussion is how high you can go, but what about how low?

VHF communications have improved significantly in the Atlantic in the last ten years. Both the northern and southern routes have VHF reception at appropriate altitudes. The longest stretch of water is between Canada and Greenland. On the southern route over this stretch of water, I have experienced adequate communication at FL250 and up. The northern route is good down to FL200. Iceland is fantastic – it’s almost like you’re in domestic airspace.

The gray area is when you plan to operate below these altitudes and are counting on using another aircraft to relay position reports. By the letter, this is a no-no. The up-and-up solutions would be to rent a portable HF unit or containerize and ship the aircraft to Europe, both of which can be about $20k.

You can see the incentive to count on relays.

Are ferry pilots bending the rules? Let us descend, inception-style, one further layer down the list of the exceptions: ATC can waive the HF requirement for ferry, delivery, and special event flights. Ferry pilots have all the fun. 😊

What About Aircraft with Only One LRNS?

Back in the day, the Blue Spruce Routes were the go-to option for aircraft with only one Long Range Navigation System (LRNS) crossing the Atlantic. Now that those routes are gone, what are your options?

If you’re staying below the NAT HLA (below FL285), you’re in the clear:

• You don’t need two LRNSs to operate below FL285.
• You’re also free from NAT HLA requirements like RNP 10 and Datalink etc.
• Just make sure your one LRNS (typically GPS-based) is suitable for the route you’re flying.
• You still need two long-range communication systems (HF + HF or HF + Satcom), unless you’re on one of the VHF-only routes approved by Gander that we talked about above (ie. via OZN or SF)

If you want to enter the NAT HLA (FL285–420), it gets more tricky:

You’ll need to qualify under the NAT Doc 007 1.4.1 exception, which says aircraft can operate in the NAT HLA with fewer than the standard requirements only if:

• You stay within ATS surveillance,
• You remain within VHF communication coverage,
• Your navigation system is suitable for the planned route,
• And you have specific State approval to operate with reduced navigation capability.

In practical terms, this means you might be able to fly the Iceland–Greenland Corridor at HLA altitudes, but only if your authority signs off – and probably not straight across via the likes of OZN.

Summing up

You can operate with one LRNS, no HF radios, no CPDLC, and no LOAs using the Iceland–Greenland Corridor or the designated VHF routes published by Canada. 

Outside of these specific altitudes and routings, aircraft operating in the NAT Region must normally carry two long-range communication systems, one of which must be HF, when operating beyond VHF coverage – unless a specific exemption has been granted by the State of the Operator or Registry (eg. for ferry or delivery flights).

If you want to learn more, check out myaircraftmanagement.com for a 101-level walkthrough of a Blue Spruce operation.

Happy Crossings! ✈️ 🌊 🧑‍✈️

The FAA has updated its resource guides for the three big oceanic areas of interest: the North Atlantic, the Pacific, and WAT airspace (West Atlantic / Gulf Of Mexico / Caribbean). All three have been updated effective July 2025.

These guides are a good starting point for understanding all the essentials of operating in these regions, and include links to all kinds of useful supplemental information around the main topics for each one.

Click on the pics to check them out.

North Atlantic

Pacific

WAT

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

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

Update: July 28

Good news: Cambodia and Thailand have agreed to an immediate and unconditional ceasefire starting midnight local time on Monday July 28 (1700Z), following five days of intense fighting along their shared border. Both sides have committed to reopening communication lines and setting up a monitoring mechanism to maintain the truce.

While this is a major step toward de-escalation, the situation remains fragile – caution is still advised near the border region.

There are no changes so far to the Phnom Penh FIR danger area (SFC–UNL). VDPF Notam A0092/25 remains active.

Original Article: July 25

Key Points

• A sudden military escalation began on July 24 along the central portion of the Cambodia–Thailand border, around 100–150 NM north of Siem Reap.
• Both sides accuse each other of firing first. Thailand has carried out airstrikes using F-16s.
• A danger area now extends along much of the border, SFC to UNL. Overflights may face elevated risk from unannounced military activity, including GPS interference.

Background

Cambodia and Thailand’s long-standing border dispute has flared since May, when a Cambodian soldier was killed in a skirmish. In the weeks since, alleged landmine incidents have endangered Thai troops.

Political turmoil in Thailand has added to the crisis – its Prime Minister was suspended after a leaked call with Cambodian leaders linked to the dispute.

By July 24, the conflict had escalated into one of Southeast Asia’s most serious military confrontations in over a decade, involving airstrikes, heavy artillery, and mass civilian displacement.

Danger Areas

Thailand and Cambodia have both issued Notams (under the VDPF/Phnom Penh FIR and VTBB/Bangkok FIR codes), activating danger areas across a large portion of the shared border at all levels.

What’s notably absent from the Notams is any mention of the reason behind the danger area activations: an escalating conflict on the ground.

Cross-border fighting has involved heavy artillery and military airstrikes. Unannounced military activity poses potential risks to civil aviation at all levels – including from air defense systems and GPS interference.

We advise caution in the open airspace above.

High altitude airways affected include:

North/Southbound

R345 – the airway connecting VDSA/Siem Reap with northern Thailand.

Y2 – connects southern Cambodia with northern Thailand.

These routes are currently off-limits, as they pass through the main danger areas.

West/Eastbound

A1/Y16/Y13 – airways connecting the Bangkok airports with eastern Thailand and Vietnam. The danger area here only extends up to FL200, with airline traffic still transiting these routes.

At time of writing, there are no new state-issued airspace warnings concerning either Thai or Cambodian airspace.

France is facing the same summer congestion we’ve seen in Spain and Greece: packed ramps, limited slot availability, and strict parking rules – both for location and duration. From the Côte d’Azur to Corsica and key inland airports, space is tight. But there are still some options if you know where to look. Here’s what we’ve found so far.

Common Themes Across France

• Plan ahead. Most airports require advance notice for parking and handling – anywhere from 24 to 72 hours – usually via MyHandling.
• Customs and Gendec: For international arrivals, most airports expect crew and pax lists to be submitted 24 hours ahead, even for Schengen flights.
• Slots or PPR? It depends. Some airports like LFML/Marseille are slot- and PPR-free but limited by physical stand space. Others have strict PPR or slot rules, and some impose restrictions based on Schengen/non-Schengen status.
• Nothing is guaranteed. Even with advance requests, parking isn’t always available – especially for longer stays. At LFMN/Nice, approval often comes just 7 days out. LFML/Marseille has only a few stands for 48h+ parking, and LFKF/Figari doesn’t allow overnight stays at all.

Riviera Airports – Busy, Tight But Accessible

LFMN/Nice

Nice has been very busy since May, and according to local FBOs, things aren’t getting any easier. If you’re planning to stay on the ground for more than 4 hours, expect a bit of a process. The airport is fully slot-controlled, and parking only gets confirmed once airport authorities approve your request – often just 7 days out.  Submitting a full schedule early gives you the best shot.

Slot tolerance is tight (+/–10 min arrival, –10/+15 min departure), and even small schedule changes can mean losing both slots and parking. Once confirmed, the slot ID needs to be in Field 18 of your FPL.

APU use is also limited to just 10 minutes before TSAT, and only after towing. Until then, it’s ground power only. But several OPSGROUP members have reported issues with GPUs and overheating, especially in high temps. For a deeper look, check out our article on heat damage in Nice.

Fuel delays are common too. Airline traffic takes priority, and BizAv can end up waiting. Crews must be onboard during refueling, so best to show up early before ETD just in case. Multiple fuel providers operate at LFMN, and availability can vary depending on the day and time.

FBO contacts:

• Signature Aviation: nce@signatureaviation.com
• Avia VIP: lfmn@aviavip.com 

LFMD/Cannes

Cannes may be scenic, but it’s not built for bigger jets. The airport has strict aircraft restrictions: no jets over 35T MTOW, and no turboprops over 22T. Slots are mandatory from May 12 – Sep 15, when the airport is fully coordinated for the summer season. The control tower is active from 0800 LT to sunset +30 minutes. Handling services may operate on a different schedule, so check with your local FBO directly. 

FBO contacts:

• ACM Handling: operations-acm@cote-azur.aeroport.fr 
• Jetex: france@jetex.com 

LFML/Marseille

Marseille offers a more relaxed entry point to the region, with fewer restrictions. The airport and customs are both H24. There’s no need for slots or PPR, and short-turn parking is usually available without much hassle. 

That said, longer stays are tricky – only four stands are available for 48h+, and they fill up quickly on a first-come, first-served basis. One or two nights might still be possible depending on traffic, but anything beyond that is unlikely in peak season.

FBO contacts:

• Jetex: fbo-mrs@jetex.com 
• Avia VIP: lfml@aviavip.com 

Southern Coastal Options – Mixed Rules

LFTH/Toulon-Hyeres

Toulon is getting busier in the summer, but parking is still possible if you’re organized. The airport is open daily from 0800-2000 LT until Oct 28, with the possibility to arrange extensions. Customs hours are slightly different – available daily from 0800-1800 LT.

As a joint civil-military airport, LFTH has additional restrictions: according to the local FBO, flights before 0900 LT are currently not allowed due to military operations.

FBO contacts:

• Toulon Airport Handling: fbo@toulon-hyeres.aeroport.fr
• Jetex: france@jetex.com 

LFTZ/La Mole Saint-Tropez

The airport has restricted-use status, so only operators with special approval can use it. Pilots must meet specific training requirements depending on the aircraft.

If you’re thinking about flying into LFTZ, be ready for a bit of admin. The airport website and their AIP explain exactly what’s needed – from how to request access to the paperwork and pilot qualifications required. 

PPR is required and operations are permitted daily 0800-1900 LT in summer, with extensions available until sunset. Non-Schengen flights are only allowed July 1 – Oct 15, 0700-1700 LT, and any schedule changes must be re-approved.

FBO contacts:

• Sky Valet: operations@sainttropez.aeroport.fr 
• Jetex: france@jetex.com 

Western Provence – Quieter Alternatives Inland

LFMT/Montpellier

Montpellier stands out as a dependable inland choice, even for heavier jets. While the airport can get busy at times, especially in peak summer weeks, it’s still worth considering if coastal airports are full. All non-based BizAv must request PPR at least 72 hours in advance. Handling is charged in full if cancelled less than 3 days before arrival and not charged if cancelled earlier.

FBO contact: Avia VIP: lfmt@aviavip.com 

LFTW/Nimes

Nimes is often overlooked, but can be a smart alternative if you plan ahead. The airport operates daily until 2000 LT. ATC is available until 1900 LT on weekdays and until 1600 LT on weekends. CIQ services are available daily from 0900-1800 LT.

FBO contact: Jetex: france@jetex.com 

LFMP/Perpignan

Perpignan is another inland option worth considering this summer. Local FBO confirms that parking is currently not congested and that the airport can accommodate larger bizjet like the G650. Parking availability is confirmed once a full schedule is submitted.

FBO contact: G-OPS: executive@g-ops.com

LFMV/Avignon

Avignon gives operators a welcome level of flexibility during the peak season. No PPR is required. The airport is open Mon-Fri from 0700-2130 LT, Sat until 1900 LT, and Sun from 0800-2000 LT. CIQ services are available daily until 2300 LT.

FBO contacts:

• Airport handling: handling@avignon.aeroport.fr
• Jetex: france@jetex.com 

LFMQ/Le Castellet

Castellet remains a niche but functional option for those who can work with the limitations. Customs is available for Schengen traffic only – international (non-Schengen) flights are not permitted.

The airport operates daily 0900-1800 LT during summer. Extensions must be requested by 1600 LT the day before. Slots are required.

FBO contacts:

• Airport Handling: operations@aeroportducastellet.com 
• Jetex: france@jetex.com 

Corsica – Few Airports, Fewer Options

BizAv parking on Corsica is tricky during the summer too. LFKF/Figari is the most restrictive option with only quick turnarounds allowed and no long-term parking.

LFKB/Bastia may offer a bit more flexibility with some limits, but no PPR is required.

The best recommendation from local handlers goes to LFKJ/Ajaccio. Parking is more feasible here and while a slot and PPR are mandatory, availability is currently good.

FBO contact (covers LFKF, LFKB, and LFKJ): G-OPS: executive@g-ops.com 

Looking Inland – Reliable Summer Parking

If the Riviera is full, heading inland could be a smart move. LFLL/Lyon Saint-Exupery usually has parking available, even during peak summer, and can handle larger jets with ease. Just be aware of night noise restrictions between 2200-0600 LT for louder aircraft.

Nearby LFLY/Lyon Bron is smaller but also reports good availability for BizAv during the summer.

Further south, LFLS/Grenoble may be the most straightforward of the three. The airport is open daily from 0900-1800 LT, and services like handling, customs, and fuel are all available during this window. Extensions are possible upon request, but need to be arranged at least 8 days in advance.

FBO contacts:

• LFLL: fbo.lfll@lyonaeroports.com + lfll@aviavip.com 
• LFLY: fbo.lfly@lyonaeroports.com
• LFLS: businessaviation@grenoble-airport.com 

Watch Your FPL Alternates

One final thing to note here for ops to the south of France – watch out for a common issue with flight plan alternates, as some airports cannot be used unless specific conditions are met, according to the AIP or Notams. We’ve had several reports over the years from members who have had this flagged on SAFA ramp checks.

Common ones to watch out for:

LFTH/Toulon – can’t be used as alternate without PPR.

LFMD/Cannes – can’t be used as alternate except for flights to LFTZ/La Mole.

LFMQ/Le Castellet – this sometimes gets used as an alternate for LFMN/Nice and LFML/Marseille. But LFMQ rarely publishes TAF/METAR reports, so if you want to use this, you need to make sure you select at least one other alternate with a weather report!

Do you know of any more? Let us know!

Help Us Keep This Info Fresh

Things can change fast at French airports in the summer – what worked last week might not work today. If you’ve recently operated to any of these airports, let us know! A quick Airport Spy Report helps everyone stay ahead. It’s like sending a postcard with your notes, so others know what to expect next time.

Key Points

• APU use is limited – only allowed 10 minutes before TSAT, and only after towing.
• GPU reliability is shaky – some units failed or had to be replaced during operations.
• Heat may be damaging systems – OPSGROUP member reports of aircraft experiencing electrical failures, suspected to be caused by overheating while waiting without APU or proper cooling.

Recent reports from OPSGROUP members highlight growing concerns over the strict APU restrictions at LFMN/Nice.

Like many French airports, LFMN restricts APU use – aiming to cut noise and emissions. But as summer peaks on the Riviera, enforcement remains rigid despite the operational challenges this creates in high heat.

Beyond hot cabins, new concerns have emerged: potential electrical damage linked to the airport’s fixed ground power units (GPUs). Reports submitted to the airport remain unanswered. Here’s what we know so far.

A Little Context

Private jet flights at LFMN primarily use the ‘Kilo Apron.’ This is the designated parking area for BizAv close to FBO facilities.

The rules for APU usage are found under the airport briefing in the French AIP. Specific guidelines apply to the Kilo Apron:

• Arriving flights must stop on a designated line labelled ‘STOP ENGINE AND APU.’ From there towing to your parking spot is mandatory.

• Departing flights must be towed to start-up stands fitted with 400Hz/28v ground power units, along with air. APU usage is limited to 10mins prior to TSAT (Target Start-up Approval Time).

The Kilo Apron at LFMN

Exemptions are very limited. You either need to be operating a medivac, state or cargo flight (carrying temperature sensitive payload). Or if the plug isn’t compatible with your aircraft.

Recent Member Reports

Here are three recent member reports received from OPSGROUP members there.

Report 1:

After towing to Stand 35, the crew connected to the fixed GPU. CAS messages flickered, followed by complete electrical failure and aircraft blackout. Despite heatwave conditions and an overheated crew, APU start was denied. A portable GPU was brought in – but it was dead. When permission to start the APU was finally granted, it was too late: navigation and communication systems had already failed. The aircraft departed under MEL and required expensive repairs at the next stop. The ramp agent advised us to file a report, which we did. According to them, this wasn’t the first time such an event had happened.

Report 2:

Another crew experienced a similar issue. One of two FMS units failed after GPU connection. While the cause wasn’t immediately clear, the symptoms matched those described in the earlier report. The unit was removed for repair.

Report 3:

The GPU caused a fault on our GVII upon disconnect. Our FA that understands French overheard ground personnel stating “it’s too hot” in reference to the GPU. Surface temp at time was 24C so it was the equipment. Had to shut down aircraft to dark and restart to clear fault and get a new CTOT 40 mins later.

Potential GPU Issues

While we can’t confirm the GPUs are the direct cause, it’s plausible. Aircraft systems are sensitive, and power issues — including frequency drift, incorrect voltage, poor grounding, or surges — can trigger serious failures.

Heat may be a compounding factor. Ground air units often underperform in high temperatures, especially if hoses are blocked or airflow is weak. Aircraft may exceed thermal limits before crews can start APUs or get adequate air.

The GPUs themselves may also struggle in heat – output may sag or drift, or thermal protection systems may shut them down.

All of this increases operational risk – especially when APU use is restricted with no flexibility for safety.

And, despite being mandatory, GPU usage at LFMN comes with a charge.

Despite their mandatory use, operators are charged to connect their aircraft to ground power.

If you’re going to enforce the rules on APU usage in summer there needs to be some flexibility for the operational safety of multi-million dollar aircraft and their crews. Quiet airports are great, but it’s easy to forget we are customers. In fact, Nice is the second busiest airport for business aviation in France, second only to Paris Le Bourget.

Mitigators

Following an alert issued to the group regarding these reports, another member (also a fully qualified pilot and aircraft engineer) got in touch with some practical advice to operators.

Here is what he had to say:

I thought it would be prudent to post some operational hints and tips to avoid problems like this event in the future. Not just with LFMN, but with any hot weather destination with restricted APU use (i.e. most  of Europe).

Most biz jet hydraulic pumps demand very high KVA from the GPU’s – avoid/delay applying hydraulic power to test systems and parking brake until APU start is approved.

Keep all the shades/sun shields drawn until packs are available.

Dim all the display units in the cockpit until air conditioning is available.

Open cargo and main door to allow air flow throughout the cabin. Small fans can run off the GFI plugs.

Open gear doors on some models as the exhaust for the avionic cooling fans use the wheel wells as the exit point.

Has this happened to you here, there, or elsewhere?

Please get in touch with us via blog@ops.group. We’d love to hear from you.

For ops at LFMN, if you identify a GPU issue (malfunction, incorrect configuration, electrical hazard, emissions), report it via your handling agent to the airport’s operations or safety department, or directly to Aéroports de la Côte d’Azur: +33 4 08 20 42 333, or via this contact form.

⚡ July 2025 Update

Radar services at BGSF/Sondrestrom will be ending around Nov 1, 2025. From that point, only procedural (non-radar) separation will be available. Iceland’s ADS-B offers some situational awareness over Greenland but can’t be used for control.

This follows the planned downgrade from tower to AFIS at the airport between Aug-Oct, driven by reduced traffic as BGGH/Nuuk expands. All controlled airspace will become Class G, with a radio mandatory zone within 20 NM below 7000ft, and FISCOM available via Nuuk FIC after hours.

RWY 27 is typically used for departures and RWY 09 for arrivals – be especially careful of opposite direction traffic. AIC 01/25 has more info.

⚡ June 2025 Update

The extensively expanded BGGH/Nuuk is now open, and receiving regular jet traffic.

With an operating length of 7218′ (2200m) and ILS approaches available for both runway ends, it is now a solid choice for NAT enroute alternates (and ETOPS/EDTO if that’s your thing). The Greenland AIP has been updated, and you can find the current airport chart here. Both runway and apron PCNs are 67/F/A/W/T .

The revitalised Nuuk is a whole new ball game for NAT crossings.

The airport has an AFIS on watch Monday to Saturday, 09:00 – 18:00 LT (11:00 – 20:00z) with RFF Category 5.

For handling, contact Greenland Airports: nuuk@mit.gl

Original Article

Each day thousands of aircraft routinely cross the NAT and use airports in Greenland as enroute/ETOPS alternates – mainly BGSF/Sondrestrom and BGBW/Narsarsuaq.

It’s big business for Greenland’s major airports, but over the next few years major changes are coming that will directly impact on the operational use of these airports as NAT alternates.

Here’s the lowdown on what’s changing:

• Opening: BGGH/Nuuk (Nov 2024), BGQO/Qaqortoq (Spring 2026), BGJN/Ilulissat (Fall 2026).
• Changing: BGSF/Sondrestrom downgrading ATC to AFIS (Aug – Oct 2025).
• Closing: BGBW/Narsarsuaq (likely Spring 2026).

ETOPS Airports…

Before we get stuck into the finer points of what’s changing at each airport, a big question many will have is: “What airports can I use as enroute/ETOPS alternates?”

Answering that is tricky, because it will depend on a number of factors that will be different for each operator – if the airport has a long enough runway for your particular aircraft / the necessary facilities and services / the minimum approach procedure / fire cover / weather minima etc.

But here’s a quick reference table showing what’s changing, and when, which might be helpful:

BGGH/Nuuk

Nuuk’s found on the western edge of Southern Greenland, close to the NAT HLA. It’s Greenland’s capital city but until now, the airport has not been ‘capital-sized’.

Hence why larger aircraft have not considered BGGH/Nuuk as a viable alternate due to its short runway length (3,050’/930m) in addition to poor weather and the mountainous terrain that surrounds it.

But things will soon get easier. A major expansion has been underway since 2019 to replace its aging runway and improve the airport infrastructure to accommodate the wide body airliners of the territory’s flagship carrier who are relocating their hub there.

28 Nov 2024 has been earmarked as its full re-opening – just weeks away. A new runway will now measure 7,200’/2200m. Better yet, ILS approaches will be operating at both ends with much lower minimas. A new terminal building, tower and apron are already in use.

The brand new runway at Nuuk will become operational on Nov 28.

If you have any doubts as to Nuuk’s viability as a well-equipped NAT alternate, it may be reassuring  to hear that at least one US legacy carrier will also commence scheduled services to the improved airport from Newark twice a week from mid-next year.

Keep an eye out for an upcoming OPSGROUP briefing on the new and improved Nuuk soon.

BGQO/Qaqortoq

A new airport will be opening in Spring 2026, 35nm away from Narsarsuaq on Greenland’s southern tip.

Right now Qaqortoq is a heliport (operating under a different ICAO code), but will re-open with a 4,921’/1500m runway due to a decision by Greenland’s government a few years back to convert it for fixed wing traffic.

At that length Qaqortoq will likely only be an option for small to medium sized jets, but there is also room for future expansion to 5,905’/1800m – so watch this space in years to come. Word on the street is that it will also be equipped with both LOC and RNP approaches.

A new international airport in Qaqortoq will replace Narsarsuaq in 2026.

BGJN/Ilulissat

A new international airport is under construction which will be equipped with a 7,217’/2200m runway. It’s scheduled to open in Fall 2026 and will replace the existing domestic airport. By in large, it will be equipped with the same equipment as the upgraded airport in Nuuk.

A new international airport is coming in Ilulissat

Next up, a look at what’s happening at the existing airports BGSF/Sondrestrom and BGBW/Narsarsuaq…

BGSF/Sondrestrom

The much-improved airport in Nuuk will undoubtedly take a heavy toll on traffic levels at Sondrestrom – in the vicinity of a 90% reduction.

But all is not lost for BGSF as a solid NAT alternate – it will continue to operate, with almost full services available with one notable exception – ATS will be downgraded to an AFIS sometime between Aug – Oct 2025.

The runway (9,186’/2800m) is longer than Nuuk, and the weather much more predictable – it should remain a solid option to consider. 

BGBW/Narsarsuaq

The airport is scheduled to close in 2026! 😱

Despite its geographical convenience to NAT traffic, it remains a difficult option. For some, it is considered only in the case of extreme circumstances (such as fire).

The reason for this is predominantly weather, and the non-precision approaches that serve the airport. The runway itself is also short at only 5,905’/1800m.

Narsarsuaq will remain a challenging option until its closure in 2026.

Reminder – Look out for Surprise Fees

We’ve written about this before, but worth a reminder.

Be careful – if you file BGBW or BGSF as an alternate after hours (overnight 20-11z or anytime on Sundays) you will be charged the better part of $3000 USD for the privilege of keeping standby equipment on watch, and runways clear of snow. Even if you don’t actually divert there.

A little insider advice – advance notice will reduce the cost as it allows for cheaper planning. If you need one outside of normal operating hours, provide at least 24 hours’ notice.

For regular use, operators can also apply directly for a reduction in these rates.

Keeping emergency services on standby outside of normal hours is an expensive business.

Know more about changes to Greenland Ops?

We’d love to hear from you. You can reach us via news@ops.group