FAA issues advisory NOTAMs for eastern Pacific overwater airspace (16 Jan–17 Mar 2026)
The FAA has published security advisory NOTAMs urging U.S. operators to exercise caution in specified overwater areas due to military activities and possible GNSS interference. Here’s what aviators and flight planners should do next.
What’s confirmed (fact-checked)
In plain English: if your route uses eastern Pacific oceanic corridors west of Mexico and Central America, the FAA wants U.S. operators to plan and operate as though satellite navigation may be degraded and the airspace environment may be unpredictable.
The NOTAMs: key details you should know
The FAA advisories were published under the “Prohibitions, Restrictions and Notices” section and include multiple KICZ security NOTAMs across neighbouring FIRs. Two of the most referenced advisories are:
| NOTAM | Area / FIR | Hazard stated | Validity (UTC) |
|---|---|---|---|
| KICZ A0018/26 | Mexico FIR (MMFR) — overwater areas above the Pacific Ocean and the Gulf of California | Military activities + GNSS interference; risks at all altitudes incl. overflight + arrival/departure | 16 Jan 1608 to 17 Mar 2359 |
| KICZ A0012/26 | Central America FIR (MHTG) — overwater areas above the Pacific Ocean | Military activities + GNSS interference; risks at all altitudes incl. overflight + arrival/departure | 16 Jan 1549 to 17 Mar 2359 |
Why this matters for flight operations
1) GNSS interference is not “just a nuisance”
GNSS interference can range from brief position “jumps” to sustained loss of integrity. Overwater, where ground-based navigation aids are limited, the workload increases fast: crews must cross-check, verify, and potentially revert to inertial navigation and conservative procedures.
2) “Risks at all altitudes” means planning must be holistic
The advisory explicitly notes risk during overflight and the arrival/departure phases, so the practical response is not only “avoid a rectangle on a map”, but also to think through alternates, fuel, and contingency decision points.
3) The story is regional, not local
Reuters reported the FAA warnings in the context of heightened military tensions in the region. If your aircraft or passengers connect across the Americas, you may see indirect impacts: re-routes, longer block times, payload/fuel trade-offs, and schedule variability.
Pilot & dispatcher checklist (practical and conservative)
- Pull the latest NOTAM package for your full route and alternates, including oceanic segments and FIR transition points.
- Brief GNSS interference procedures (company SOPs) and confirm crews are comfortable with non-GNSS navigation cross-checking.
- Set “integrity triggers”: define when you will request ATC assistance, when you will revert procedures, and when you will divert.
- Review alternates and fuel realism for longer reroutes. Confirm handling, uplift reliability and contingency support.
- Strengthen cockpit monitoring: independent position verification, disciplined FMS cross-checks, and clear division of duties.
- Document the risk decision inside your Safety Management System (SMS): what was checked, what mitigations were applied, and why the plan is acceptable.
- Keep client communications factual: “advisory due to possible GNSS interference and military activity; we are routing conservatively for safety.”
Fact-check notes (what we corrected from viral posts)
- We did not rely on social media screenshots for technical claims. The core hazard language and validity window are taken from the FAA advisory NOTAMs themselves.
- “Electronic warfare activity” is a common online interpretation, but the FAA text does not confirm specific tactics. We therefore discuss GNSS interference as the operational risk, not the alleged cause.
- Scope and applicability are described as advisory and primarily applying to U.S. operators, consistent with the NOTAM text.
Frequently asked questions
Are these FAA NOTAMs a flight ban?
No. These are advisory security NOTAMs urging caution. Many operators will still choose to re-route or apply additional mitigations, especially for oceanic legs where GNSS interference is harder to manage.
Which routes are most likely to feel the impact?
Overwater sectors that track along the eastern Pacific west of Mexico and Central America can be affected, including some North–South America routings and certain trans-Pacific segments that use oceanic corridors in the region.
What does “GNSS interference” mean in practical terms?
It can mean degraded accuracy, misleading position outputs, loss of GPS/WAAS availability, or integrity warnings. The correct response is structured: cross-check, revert to approved procedures, and remain conservative with navigation and separation decisions.
What should business aviation and private jet operators do?
Use conservative routing and alternates, plan realistic fuel and contingency time, and ensure crews are briefed. If passengers require time-critical travel, build flexibility into departure slots and consider tech stops that stay outside higher-risk corridors.
Can Safe Fly Aviation support a mission affected by these advisories?
Yes. We support route-risk briefings, conservative routing options, alternates and contingency planning, and operator coordination for international charter Mission. Safe Fly Aviation has 15+ years of experience arranging complex flights with safety-first planning.
Need an Urgent Private Jet charter or Cargo Charter?
Speak to Safe Fly Aviation for safety-led charter planning, alternates, tech-stops and operational coordination.
Sources and operator disclaimer
Primary sources: FAA “Prohibitions, Restrictions and Notices” and the FAA advisory security NOTAM PDFs (including KICZ A0018/26 and KICZ A0012/26). Context reporting: Reuters and AP coverage of the FAA issuing warnings and the wider regional environment.
This briefing is for operational awareness and client communication. It is not legal advice. Flight operations must always be planned and executed using the latest official NOTAMs, state guidance, operator SMS policy, approved flight planning tools, and crew judgement.