Check the leg in seconds —
and put the decision on the record.
Any leg, any date: score, the FIRs it crosses, reroute options — then save it as a dated record with your decision and rationale, for the owner file and the SMS / IS-BAO audit.
The Part 135 SMS declaration is due May 28, 2027; the documented risk-assessment process it requires starts with records like these.
Console Solo $99/mo · Team $399/mo — no card, no sales call. Full grid on the pricing page.
In the Console this check becomes a dated record — score, per-FIR basis, your decision and rationale, exportable for the trip file. Start the free trial → to save your first one.
Documented risk input, not a go/no-go authority. Does not replace NOTAMs, AIPs, trip-support briefs, or PIC authority.
What the ops desk is up against.
Every Part 135 certificate holder must declare a working Safety Management System — including a documented hazard-identification and risk-assessment process (14 CFR Part 5). Most operators run two aircraft or fewer, with no safety department to build it.
A UHNW or corporate client asks before signing. The Director of Ops needs a documented answer, not a gut call, within the hour.
Once spoofed signals corrupt the IRS, crews report there is nothing left to try. The decision that matters happens pre-flight — knowing which FIRs on the leg carry interference before you commit.
The annual audit asks for a documented safety-of-flight risk-assessment process. Spreadsheets and screenshots don’t hold up.
The client's office calls about Saturday's leg east: "Is this route safe?" The answer that closes the charter is not a gut call in a message thread — it's a dated check with a reference number the client can hold.
Same artifact, second life: when the IS-BAO auditor asks for your documented route-risk process, the journal of those checks is the process.
From check to record in three steps.
Check.
Closes: "is this leg safe?" within the hour. Any leg, any date: 0–100 score with confidence and coverage, per-FIR breakdown with the signals behind it — GNSS interference included — reroute options, 72h/7d/30d horizon.
Decide & save.
Closes: gut calls nobody can reconstruct later. Record your decision — reviewed, proceeding, not proceeding — with a rationale. Proceeding on an elevated-risk route requires one. Each record gets a reference (FS-RRA-…), a UTC timestamp, and your name.
File it.
Closes: the SMS / IS-BAO evidence gap. Export CSV or print for the owner file and the audit. The journal of saved checks is your documented, repeatable route-risk process — an input to your SMS / IS-BAO programme.
The tool informs; the operator decides. Records state that explicitly — designed to document your judgement, not to replace it.
The record, block by block.
This is the actual artifact a check becomes — scroll through it.
Route airspace-risk report
Route ZRH→DXB carries a risk index of 64 / 100 — HIGH band. A lower-risk reroute is available (see §2). Highest exposure at OIIX (78).
| # | FIR | Name | CC | Score | Level |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ZRH | origin · departure | — | — | ||
| 1 | LSAS | Switzerland | CH | 12 | low |
| 2 | LIRR | Rome | IT | 11 | low |
| 3 | LGGG | Athens | GR | 24 | low |
| 4 | HECC | Cairo Official NOTAM | EG | 41 | moderate |
| 5 | OEJD | Jeddah Official NOTAMTraffic anomaly | SA | 38 | moderate |
| 6 | OIIX | Tehran Regulator bulletinGPS jammingConflict activity | IR | 78 | high |
| 7 | OMAE | Emirates Official NOTAM | AE | 31 | moderate |
| DXB | destination · arrival | — | — |
2,551 nm direct routing. A lower-risk reroute is available via LGGG → HECC → OEJD (+6% distance, max FIR risk 41) — avoids OIIX entirely.
- FACTOverflight restriction — several Western-registered carriers restricted in OIIX. since 2024-04 · source ↗
- FACTEASA advisory — Conflict Zone Information Bulletin, Tehran FIR · do not fly below FL320 CZIB-2026-04 · publ. 2026-05-12 · EASA ↗
- FACTActive NOTAMs — 14 active on route: OIIX (6) · OEJD (4) · HECC (3) · OMAE (1). Issuer text below; “notable” is our classifier, not the issuer’s grading.A0231/26 NOTAMN Q) OMAE/QRTCA/IV/BO/W/000/999/ A) OMAE B) 2607141200 C) 2607282359 E) RESTRICTED AREA ACTIVE. AIRSPACE CLSD BLW FL140 WI 25NM…
- OBSERVEDFlySafe monitoring — 2 FIRs with a higher-than-usual share of low position-accuracy (NACp) reports. Our own inference from ADS-B / telemetry — no cause implied, not an external report.
Data as of 2026-07-18. NOTAMs current to 2026-07-18. “FlySafe monitoring” items are inferences from telemetry, not external sources.
- [a] Bilateral overflight registry — FlySafe curated
- [b] EASA Conflict Zone Information Bulletins
- [c] FAA & national NOTAM offices
- [d] USGS earthquake feed · FlySafe ADS-B monitoring
Proceeding (documented) — southern routing via HECC → OEJD avoids the elevated segment; PIC briefed, owner informed.
A number you can defend — not a gut call
0–100 index with band, confidence, coverage and the trend to your departure date — recomputed continuously from 30+ public sources across 334 FIRs. When the client asks “is this leg safe?”, the answer has a basis.
Every FIR on the leg, signal by signal
The full corridor with per-FIR scores and signal tags — and when a lower-risk routing exists, the report names it: via which FIRs, at what detour cost, avoiding what.
The auditor sees sources — not “the vendor said so”
Dated citations behind every elevated FIR: the EASA bulletin reference, raw NOTAM text, restriction registries — and our own telemetry marked separately as OBSERVED. Facts and inferences never blur.
Who decided, on what basis, when
Your decision with a written rationale, name and UTC timestamp. Recording “proceeding” on an elevated-risk route requires the rationale — the discipline your SMS / IS-BAO audit wants to see.
Verifiable by anyone you hand it to
Every saved record carries a public authenticity link — the owner, the broker, the auditor opens it without an account, years later, subscription or not.
Solo $99/mo · Team $399/mo · no card · first record in ~10 minutes
Why the record holds up in front of an auditor.
14 CFR Part 5 and the IS-BAO protocol both ask for the same thing: a documented, repeatable hazard-identification and risk-assessment process. A saved check is exactly that shape — what was known (score, per-FIR basis, cited public sources), what was decided, by whom, when (UTC). The journal of them is a process an auditor can walk through, not a story about one.
- → Reference (FS-RRA-…), route and date, UTC timestamp, who ran it
- → 0–100 score with confidence and coverage tier, per-FIR breakdown with contributing signals
- → Your recorded decision and rationale — elevated-risk "proceeding" requires one
- → CSV export · printable PDF · public verification link for the holder of the document
- × FAA approval. Nothing here is "FAA-approved" or "auditor-required" — it supports your documented risk process; the SMS is yours.
- × Go/no-go authority. The record documents your judgement; NOTAMs, AIPs, trip support, and the PIC keep theirs.
- × 100% accuracy. Scores are validated against an event ground truth; every score carries confidence and coverage tier.
References: 14 CFR Part 5 (SMS declaration due May 28, 2027) · IS-BAO audit protocol · FlySafe methodology · GNSS interference data
Global FIR coverage
Check a leg above and the route lights up. Coloured = live ML score; blue = GPS-monitored; grey = coverage area. Scoring for any region is available on request.
How to start.
Solo $99/mo · Team $399/mo (up to 5 seats, shared journal)
14-day free trial · no card · no sales call · annual billing saves two months
Prefer the API, or have questions first?
The same engine runs as a REST API (single GET, ~50ms) for quoting-tool and trip-support integration. Leave a note and a real person replies within one business day — or skip the form entirely and start the Console trial above.
Charter route risk — FAQ
Common search queries answered with current status, FIR codes, and source citations.
- Is this a go/no-go authority?
- No. It’s a documented risk input — a 0–100 score with contributing FIRs and cited public sources — to support your own go / caution / decline decision. It does not replace NOTAMs, AIPs, trip-support briefs, or the PIC’s authority. The record itself says so: the operator makes the operational decision.
- How does this fit the FAA Part 135 SMS mandate?
- The rule (14 CFR Part 5, declaration due May 28, 2027) requires a documented hazard-identification and risk-assessment process. Each saved Console check is a dated record — what was known, what was assessed, what was decided, by whom — structured as an input to that process. Your SMS is yours; this gives it route-risk evidence.
- What exactly is in a saved record?
- Reference number, route and date, the 0–100 score with confidence and coverage, the per-FIR breakdown with contributing signals, your recorded decision (reviewed / proceeding / not proceeding) and rationale, who recorded it and when (UTC). Exportable as CSV, printable for the trip file. Recording “proceeding” on an elevated-risk route requires a written rationale.
- What does it cost?
- Console Solo is $99/month (one seat), Team is $399/month (up to 5 seats, shared journal). Every account starts with a 14-day free trial — no card, no sales call. Annual billing saves two months.
- Can it also run per quote automatically?
- Yes. The same engine is available as a REST API (single GET, ~50ms) for quoting-tool or trip-support integration — separate request-based plans when you outgrow the Console.
- Does it support repositioning and multi-leg trips?
- Yes — multi-leg with via-stopovers, each segment scored and aggregated, including reposition legs into recently de-listed airports.
FlySafe provides automated computation of numerical indices from publicly available data. Indices are raw computational output and do not represent opinions, assessments, recommendations, or advice of any kind. They do not replace official NOTAMs, AIPs, trip-support briefs, or the pilot-in-command's authority. See Terms of Service.
Built for every aviation role
The same airspace-risk engine, tailored to how your team works.