NOTAMs Miss Most Aviation Airspace Disruptions in 2026

FlySafe analysis shows a measurable gap between what formal notices report and what aircraft actually do. Across confirmed aviation airspace disruptions recorded between 1 January and 5 July 2026, live flight-traffic behaviour corroborated roughly 75 percent of events, while formal NOTAMs corroborated only about 22 percent. For any operator building route plans from notices alone, the majority of confirmed disruptions leave no formal trace at the time they occur. This bulletin sets out the signal-gap finding, the FIR-level ranking behind it, and the year-to-date totals, using confirmed-event metrics only.

The Signal Gap: What NOTAM-Only Review Misses

FlySafe classifies an event as confirmed only when at least two independent signals agree and a cause is attributed; undetermined-cause detections are excluded. Within that confirmed set, the two corroborating channels diverge sharply. Among FIRs with three or more events — the subset large enough to compare reliably — flight-traffic data corroborated approximately 75 percent of confirmed disruptions, against approximately 22 percent for formal NOTAMs.

The operational reading is direct. A planner who screens a region using published notices captures roughly one in five of the disruptions that FlySafe later confirms through independent signals. The remaining events are visible in how aircraft route, hold, or avoid a volume before — or without — a corresponding notice being published. This is the same pattern examined in the NOTAM meaning gap analysis, where notices miss an estimated 78 percent of disruptions, and it reinforces a single planning principle: notices are a necessary input, not a complete one.

FIR Ranking: Where the Gap Is Widest

The divergence is not uniform. The table below ranks the most disrupted FIRs by airspace-days over the window, with each corroboration channel shown separately. Figures are FlySafe confirmed-event data as of 5 July 2026.

FIR	Events	Airspace-days	Flight-traffic corroboration	NOTAM corroboration
Tehran (OIIX)	35	240.0	94%	37%
Damascus (OSTT)	26	136.0	73%	23%
RPHI	9	98.0	0%	67%
Tel Aviv (LLLL)	22	92.0	95%	23%
MMFR	6	76.0	100%	83%
UUWV	9	31.0	89%	22%

Two FIRs run against the general pattern and are worth noting precisely because they do. RPHI shows 67 percent NOTAM corroboration and 0 percent flight-traffic corroboration — the inverse of the fleet, where the formal notice was the leading signal and traffic-based confirmation was absent. MMFR shows both channels high, at 100 percent traffic and 83 percent NOTAM. These cases indicate that the signal-gap is a tendency across the dataset, not a fixed rule for every volume; the corroboration profile has to be read per FIR rather than assumed. For the higher-traffic entries — Tehran, Tel Aviv, and UUWV — the fleet pattern holds strongly, with traffic corroboration near or above 90 percent and NOTAM corroboration in the low-to-mid 20s to high 30s.

Year-to-Date Totals and Trend

Across the full window, FlySafe recorded 217 confirmed airspace-disruption events across 54 FIRs, totalling 941 airspace-days, as of 5 July 2026. The monthly confirmed-event count was 5 in January, 16 in February, 1 in March, 21 in April, 72 in May, 93 in June, and 9 in the partial July window through the fifth.

The concentration in May and June is the dominant feature of the year-to-date data. FlySafe does not attribute a cause to that concentration in this bulletin; the figure is reported as a metric only. The July count reflects five days of data and should not be read as a monthly total. Operators tracking these shifts in near-real time can follow the live airspace closures and route feed for current status rather than relying on periodic summaries.

Regulatory Context

The signal-gap finding sits within an established framework of aeronautical information and operating obligations. Under ICAO Annex 15 (Aeronautical Information Services), states are responsible for the timely origination and publication of NOTAMs; the corroboration figures above quantify how completely that formal channel captures confirmed disruptions in practice, not whether any state has met its Annex 15 duties. ICAO Annex 11 (Air Traffic Services) governs the provision of services within each FIR and the designation of restricted and prohibited areas.

For operators, the responsibility to assess risk is codified regardless of NOTAM completeness. Under 14 CFR §91.703, US operators conducting flights outside US airspace must comply with the regulations of the state whose airspace is used and with applicable ICAO provisions. In Europe, EU Regulation 965/2012 (Air Operations) places pre-flight risk-assessment obligations on operators. EASA Conflict Zone Information Bulletins (CZIB) provide advisory-only guidance where no supporting state-level NOTAM or AIP restriction exists — an important distinction, because a CZIB does not itself close or restrict airspace and should not be read as a regulatory prohibition. Where airspace is formally closed or restricted, the governing NOTAM or AIP entry is the controlling instrument. For a practical walkthrough of reading these instruments, see the guide on decoding NOTAMs and airspace restrictions near conflict zones. Primary sources include the ICAO Annex 15 provisions on aeronautical information and the EASA conflict zone bulletins.

Key Takeaway

Recommendation: treat NOTAMs as one input among several, not as a complete picture of aviation airspace risk. On the FlySafe confirmed-event data, formal notices corroborated roughly 22 percent of disruptions in the higher-frequency FIRs, while live flight-traffic behaviour corroborated roughly 75 percent. Route planning that screens on notices alone is structurally exposed to the majority of confirmed disruptions. The exceptions — RPHI and MMFR — show the corroboration profile must be read per FIR rather than assumed uniform.

Methodology and Provenance

FlySafe's consensus engine requires at least two independent signals per event and an attributed cause before an event is confirmed; undetermined-cause detections are excluded. FlySafe's own ADS-B flight-traffic collection is the primary corroborating signal. Additional inputs are public NOTAM, EASA, and FAA-TFR advisories, plus volcanic-ash and seismic advisories. All figures in this bulletin are FlySafe confirmed-event data for the window 1 January to 5 July 2026, as of 5 July 2026.

Honest gaps: this dataset covers disruption metrics only. It does not include reroute cost figures, specific NOTAM identifiers, or named carriers, and none have been invented here. The July figure reflects a partial month. No causes are attributed to any event or to the monthly trend.

Disclaimer: Analysis is based on publicly available data only. FlySafe is a research and analysis service, not an operational authority. This bulletin does not constitute an airspace clearance, a NOTAM, or operational guidance. Operators must consult official state AIP, NOTAM, and CAA sources and comply with the applicable regulatory framework for every flight. For deeper context on how these shifts affect global routing, see the analysis of Middle East airspace closures reshaping flight routes in 2026.