Where we stand
GPS interference observability
Aviation GPS jamming and spoofing detection across 424 Flight Information Regions — already worldwide. Live map refreshed daily.
Risk scoring coverage
Risk scoring spans 341 FIRs across multi-source intelligence with backtest-validated methodology — covering weather, geophysical, conflict, and operational signals. Coverage expanded from 25 FIRs at launch to 341 today.
Airspace is divided into Flight Information Regions. We publish four honestly separate, independently-measured tiers rather than one blended figure — because “coverage” means different things at different depths:
- 25
- Warm-cached — scored continuously and held hot for the live dashboards.
- 341
- Risk-scored — a full multi-source risk score on demand, refreshed daily. This is our headline coverage figure.
- 424
- GPS-observable — a daily GNSS-interference signal only; a lighter observability layer, already worldwide.
- 428
- Identified — every sector in our global reference set (lower + upper + oceanic).
Why 428 and not simply “every region on Earth”? There is no single official global count — depending on whether upper (UIR) and oceanic sectors are counted separately, published estimates range from roughly 300 to over 450. Our 428 is a comprehensive sectorisation (lower, upper and oceanic together), which is why it sits at the high end. We quote absolute counts rather than a “% of the world” figure precisely because that denominator is genuinely ambiguous.
Now
building- ⟳ Extending depth of coverage beyond the current monitored set
- ⟳ Sharpening regulatory-signal correlation and per-route signal delivery
Next
this year- ○ Expanding the monitored set on partner demand
- ○ Per-route subscriptions and richer partner integrations
- ○ Independently auditable observability for enterprise partners
Later
visionA world where airspace risk is treated as common infrastructure for aviation — continuously available, source-cited, and consistent across operators, insurers, and platforms. A shared reference that complements official channels, never replaces them.
Themes describe direction, not commitments. Quarter targets and specific items are curated for partner conversations rather than published — we publish only what we are confident in honestly committing to.
Recently
what's happened · newest firstAfter an availability issue earlier this month, we treated it as priority zero — recovered fast, found the root cause, and hardened how FlySafe protects and recovers its data. The result: materially more resilient, with recovery we routinely test rather than assume.
Details
Reliability is a discipline, not a hope. When something broke, we fixed it fast and then went further — strengthening how the data behind every score is protected and how quickly the service comes back. We would rather tell you we hit an issue and what we did about it than pretend we are infallible.
Want this product applied to your routes or FIRs?
Partner requests directly influence which FIRs and capabilities we prioritise next. We read every message and respond personally.
This is a public capability-level view. Internal details — exact dependencies, vendor selections, effort estimates, and trade-offs — are intentionally not exposed. Item-level delivery history is curated for partner conversations. We publish only what we are confident in honestly committing to.