Fourth Safer Skies Forum Report

April 8-10, 2025

Table of Contents

• Welcome Message
• 1. General Overview
  • 1.1 Safer Skies Forum
  • 1.2 Organizers
  • 1.3 Format
  • 1.4 Speakers, moderators, and panelists
  • 1.5 Participants
• 2. Summary of content
  • 2.1 High-Level Roundtable Discussion
  • 2.2 Opening Session
  • 2.3 Session 1: Current Challenges in Aviation
  • 2.4 Session 2: Global Challenges, Local Solutions: Regional Approaches
  • 2.5 Session 3: Tower, We Have Questions!
  • 2.6 Guest Speaker
  • 2.7 Fireside Chat
  • 2.8 Session 4: Managing the Challenges of Reduced Airspace
  • 2.9 Session 5: Update on the Safer Skies Initiative
  • 2.10 Session 6: The Multi-Dimensional Impacts of Conflict on Aviation
  • 2.11 Session 7: Exploring Risk Tolerance: Variabilities Among Aviation States and Stakeholders
  • 2.12 Session 8: Navigating Towards Safer Skies: Where Are We, What More is Needed?
  • 2.13 Session 9: Anticipating Conflict – The Importance of Early Warning
  • 2.14 Session 10: Speed-Networking
  • 2.15 Keynote Speaker
  • 2.16 Closing Remarks
• 3. Conclusion
  • 3.1 Message from the SSCC Chair
  • 3.2 Next Steps
• 4. Appendices
  • 4.1 Agenda
  • 4.2 Biographies

Welcome Message

Building on the work initiated during the previous Forums, the fourth edition of the Safer Skies Forum, co-hosted by Canada and the Kingdom of Morocco in Marrakech on April 8-10, 2025, brought together stakeholders from across the aviation ecosystem to engage in discussions and share experiences and best practices for effective conflict zone risk management. The 4th Forum addressed ways to advance contingency planning and risk mitigation for civil aviation over or near conflict zones through empowering regional expertise, industry solutions, local initiatives, and collaboration.

The Kingdom of Morocco, the Government of Canada and the Safer Skies Consultative Committee would like to thank participants, presenters, and moderators for their active involvement and commitment to advancing the Safer Skies Initiative and making the 4th Safer Skies Forum a success.

1. General Overview

1.1 Safer Skies Forum

Five years after its first iteration, the Safer Skies Forum continues to be a leading global event exclusively dedicated to improving the processes involved in managing the shared risks that conflict zones pose to global civil aviation operations.

The 4^th Safer Skies Forum took place on April 8-10, 2025. It was a hybrid event that allowed for both in-person and virtual attendance. The Forum brought together States, international organizations, and the global civil aviation industry to share challenges and knowledge in managing conflict zone risk. This year’s theme was Overflying Conflict Zones: Empowering Regional Solutions and Contingency. Participants held discussions with a wide range of international counterparts to better understand regional strategies, share best practices, and explore the constantly evolving risks to civil aviation when operating over or near conflict zones.

1.2 Organizers

The 4^th Safer Skies Forum was co-hosted by Transport Canada and the Kingdom of Morocco’s Ministry of Transport and Logistics. In addition, the Forum could not have been possible without the support of representatives from the Safer Skies Consultative Committee (SSCC). Their contribution to the content and format of the 4^th Safer Skies Forum was integral to its success.

The co-hosts are also extremely grateful to the many States, organizations and industry stakeholders who gave their time and expertise to participate as moderators, presenters and/or panelists.

1.3 Format

The 4^th Safer Skies Forum was held on April 8-10, 2025, in Marrakech, Kingdom of Morocco. While a virtual option was offered, most participants attended in person. Delegates used this opportunity for networking to strengthen existing relationships and to make new connections.

The Opening Session featured speeches from official representatives. The remainder of the agenda included a mix of panels, presentations, and interactive discussions with participants.

The virtual event platform was designed by Engagez and provided online participants the ability to view the sessions live and contribute real-time questions and comments. To enhance the virtual experience, participants were given access to full speaker biographies and the related session documents located in the Resources section of the event platform.

All sessions were recorded and remain available for viewing under the ‘Sessions’ section of the Engagez platform.

1.4 Speakers, moderators, and panelists

A Master of Ceremonies led the Opening Session, and official remarks were provided by:

Honorable Abdessamad Kayouh, Moroccan Minister of Transport and Logistics
Arun Thangaraj, Deputy Minister of Transport Canada
Salvatore Sciacchitano, President of the Council of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO)
Damien Cazé, Vice-President of the European Civil Aviation Conference (ECAC)

The Master of Ceremonies for the remainder of the Forum was Richard Ossendorp, Representative of the Kingdom of the Netherlands to ICAO. He introduced the distinguished moderators, presenters, panelists and guest speakers.

Biographies are available in the Appendix section.

1.5 Participants

2. Summary of Content

2.1 High-Level Roundtable Discussion

The 4^th Safer Skies Forum was preceded by a high-level event, bringing together senior officials and heads of delegation from 8 States and 7 international organizations, as well as representatives from both co-hosting States’ main air carriers. The main event was a roundtable discussion that took place the morning of April 8 before the official Forum opening session. The discussion explored four themes: 

• 1) reinforcing global airspace management accountability;
• 2) addressing complex operating environments;
• 3) implementing airspace contingency planning; and
• 4) managing risk in the face of armed conflicts proliferation.  

Participants were invited to share their insights on each theme from their diverse perspectives. A clear consensus was established about the fact that, in the face of the increasing number and complexity of conflicts, sustaining safe and secure civil aviation operations across the world is ever more challenging. Events such as the Safer Skies Forum were highlighted as critical opportunities for aviation stakeholders to come together to exchange knowledge and find solutions to these emerging, complex issues.

The common threads arising from the roundtable discussion include:

• Information sharing and collaboration are key components of conflict zone risk management. Regional collaboration is especially key, both for information sharing and contingency planning. Many mechanisms, both formal and informal, already exist to sustain these efforts and should be continually fostered to maintain their efficiency.
• Strong conflict zone risk management guidance already exists, but the implementation of these best practices on a global scale remains vastly asymmetrical. Many States continue to argue that decisions regarding operations over or near conflict zones are up to air carriers; and while it is true that the ultimate decision to operate or not remains the air carrier’s responsibility, States should do more to support the safe conduct of their carriers’ operations in foreign airspace.
• The variations in risk tolerance levels and risk exposure can lead to differing approaches to managing conflict zone risks. Combined to the absence of standard conflict zone risk assessment methodologies and definitions, this can lead to misunderstandings when communicating risk information among stakeholders. While harmonization may be unrealistic, seeking a shared understanding of concepts and approaches could be a good alternative. We must also ensure that conflict zone risk management approaches are based on an integrated safety and security risk framework.
• Consistent implementation of civil/military coordination standards is also needed to better mitigate risks to civil aviation operations over or near conflict zones. Sound collaboration between civilian and military authorities should be the norm and procedures must be regularly exercised to test their efficiency and establish clear lines of responsibility to warrant airspace accountability.

As geopolitical tensions are increasing, the civil aviation community can’t fully prevent those risks by eliminating conflicts, but it needs to work together to reinforce our collective ability to mitigate them. At the heart of this challenge is the need for better collaboration in the face of a constantly evolving threat picture and we must continue to leverage every opportunity to enhance the safety and security of aviation over or near conflict zones.

“No single actor can manage the risks alone, collaboration is essential.”
Arun Thangaraj, Deputy Minister of Transport, Canada

2.2 Opening Session

The Master of Ceremonies introduced the distinguished delegates who provided opening remarks, welcoming everyone to the 4^th Safer Skies Forum. The Honorable Abdessamad Kayouh, the Kingdom of Morocco’s Minister of Transport and Logistics, and Arun Thangaraj, Canada’s Deputy Minister of Transport, delivered opening remarks welcoming participants to the event. Subsequently, distinguished guests Salvatore Sciacchitano, President of the ICAO Council, and Damien Cazé, Vice-President of the European Civil Aviation Conference (ECAC), delivered noteworthy remarks highlighting both organizations’ commitment to the Safer Skies Initiative.

It was noted that substantial progress has been made since the Safer Skies Initiative was established five years prior, but that the increase in number and complexity of conflicts continues to pose significant and ever-changing risks to civil aviation operations. Events such as the Safer Skies Forum are a valuable opportunity for key civil aviation stakeholders to keep pace with these changes through the exchange of knowledge and expertise, relationship-building, and the fostering of cooperation to better mitigate the risks. The Safer Skies Forum reflects the spirit of international cooperation and commitment that unites the global aviation community around the goal to achieve safer airspace for everyone, everywhere.

In their words

“The 4^th Safer Skies Forum represents a valuable opportunity for open dialogue, exchange of expertise, and the identification of concrete mechanisms for action. It not only serves as a platform for dialogue, but also represents a clear expression of our collective commitment to continued innovation, enhanced cooperation, and the formulation of proactive strategies that ensure the safety and security of every flight, protect the lives of passengers and crew, and contribute to maintaining the stability of the global civil aviation sector.”

 

“Canada has recently funded the development of an implementation package, an iPack, to support capacity building in aviation safety and security in relation to conflict zones. Once deployed, this iPack will help States access the tools, training and support needed to implement ICAO standards and recommended practices. Canada deeply values this collaboration with ICAO on such an important initiative, that will directly contribute to making our skies safer everywhere.”

 

“The downing of an aircraft carrying innocent people, passengers and crew, is absolutely unacceptable. Moving forward, we can contribute to preventing such tragedies by responding effectively to the findings of Annex 13 investigations; enhancing the civil-military coordination; improving information sharing and better intelligence; and by diminishing human errors. ICAO is committed to developing a robust, globally harmonized crisis response framework to protect international aviation.”

 

“ECAC stands with Canada, ICAO and the SSCC in supporting the [Safer Skies] Initiative. Our own work in Europe on security risk assessment, risk management and inter-agency coordination has demonstrated that effective risk assessment methodologies and open dialogue can inform state and industry decisions with the protection of our citizens in mind. By engaging with and supporting the Safer Skies Initiative, we reinforce an aviation safety culture underpinned by international cooperation that transcends regional differences.”

 

2.3 Session 1: Current Challenges in Aviation

The first panel explored the most pressing challenges the civil aviation community currently faces when it comes to operations over or near conflict zones, and how we can better anticipate, manage and mitigate these risks.

Moderator:
John Velho, Executive Director, International Aviation, Transport Canada

Panelists:
Andrew Dyer, Senior Aviation Security Manager, Risk & Operations, British Airways
Ahmad Abu Ghallab, Chief, Saudi Air Navigation Services (ANS)
Nabil Massali, Director, Civil Aviation, Morocco
Hicham Moumni, Director of Air Navigation, Moroccan Airports Authority (ONDA)
Andrew Nicholson, Chief Executive Officer, Osprey Flight Solutions

Summary of Discussion  

Current Challenges

Conflicts have increased in numbers and complexity over the past decade. Weapons systems are more complex and sophisticated, proliferating rapidly in the hands of both state and non-state actors. Panelists discussed how challenging it can be to operate in an environment where associated risks are fluid and rising. Intermittent conflicts demand ongoing assessments and rapid adjustments to mitigations measures. The proliferation of weapons in the hands of non-state actors complicates capability assessments, especially without intelligence to guide decisions. GNSS interference is increasingly common over or near conflict zones, adding an additional layer of risk to operations in already high-risk areas. Finally, mitigations like rerouting flights to avoid high-risk airspace can create new risks by concentrating air traffic into narrower corridors.

Panelists agreed that the main challenge in today’s complex environment is the lack of timely, reliable information. This challenge is twofold: carriers often lack sufficient information from regulators, who are limited in sharing intelligence, while at the same time, information overload makes it difficult to quickly identify and act on relevant data.

The second main challenge identified was the overall lack of coordination among key stakeholders internally; regionally; and internationally. This links back to the lack of information, as more coordination among stakeholders at a global level should start with information-sharing mechanisms.

Finally, the panel agreed that the lack of standard methodology for conflict zone risk assessment is a significant challenge. There is no ‘one-size fits all’ approach, however stakeholders assess and define risks differently which makes it difficult to understand each others’ assessments and decisions.

Exploring Solutions

Overall, panelists agreed that information, cooperation, and standardized practices would help the civil aviation community better anticipate risk, working proactively instead of reactively. Building information-sharing mechanisms based on increased cooperation at all levels seems to be the key approach to addressing this challenge. It was suggested that building our collective capacity to gather, analyze, and assess information through innovative mechanisms would enable the capacity to better anticipate and respond to risk. A potential solution is to create a global database providing real time information about evolving risks worldwide. Panelists also highlighted that regional structures or mechanisms are extremely useful and should be leveraged as much as possible.

Panelists agreed that ICAO’s Doc 10084: Risk Assessment Manual for Civil Aircraft Operations Over or Near Conflict Zones is a good starting point in support of the standardization of a risk assessment methodology for conflict zone risks. However, they believe more leadership is required to promote a consistent methodology, and especially consistent definitions, to establish a common understanding for the whole civil aviation community. Since safety and security in aviation rely heavily on trust, that mutual understanding is key to ensuring that we ‘speak the same language’ when it comes to conflict zone risks.

Finally, contingency planning must be an integral part to conflict zone risk management if the goal is to work proactively. Establishing clear criteria in advance, to know when to trigger contingency plans is key to achieve that goal. Once again, cooperation and increased information-sharing directly support this effort.

2.4 Session 2: Global Challenges, Local Solutions: Regional Approaches

This session featured presentations that demonstrated different regional approaches, and unique geopolitical and operational challenges facing aviation experts when dealing with conflict zone risk.

Moderator:
Carlos Cirilo, Director of ICAO Affairs, Civil Air Navigation Services Organisation (CANSO)

Presenters:
Ahmad Abughallab, Chief, Saudi Air Navigation Services (ANS)
Elie El Khoury, Air Navigation Bureau Co-ordinator, International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO)
Silvio Mascagna, Principal Policy Officer, European Commission, Directorate General for Mobility and Transport (MOVE)
Yeldar Mussatayev, Aviation Inspector, Aviation Security Department, Aviation Administration of Kazakhstan

Presentation 1

Silvio Mascagna, Principal Policy Officer, European Commission, Directorate General for Mobility and Transport (MOVE)

Following the downing of MH-17 in 2014, through cooperation between Member States’ relevant authorities and European Institutions, a Conflict Zone Alerting System (EU CZ Alerting System) was set-up at the European level. The core objective of the EU CZ Alerting System is to combine available information and intelligence with conflict zone risk assessment capabilities, to enable the publication of information and recommendations on conflict zone risks. The EU CZ Alerting System uses three types of mechanisms to communicate different levels of risk information (Information Bulletins, Information Notes, and the European Information Sharing and Cooperation Platform on Conflict Zones).

Risk assessments at the EU level take place each quarter as well as in urgent circumstances under the lead of the Integrated EU Aviation Security Risk Assessment Group (the IRAG).

Why this works

The EU approach is unique, with all parties of the aviation system investing trust in the process, which is essential to its effectiveness. The inclusion of all stakeholders leads to an all-encompassing assessment that considers risk from multiple perspectives. Information flows among all stakeholders, with carriers playing a formal role in the mechanism. Airlines contribute vital information through their pilots, crew, ground personnel, and in-house security experts. Both open-source information and classified intelligence are essential, as they serve distinct but complementary purposes.

Areas for improvement

There is a need for an alerting system based on predictive conflict indicators. The lack of resources is a universal challenge, there needs to be more investment in public/private relationships.

Decision makers need to provide clear communication around the mitigation measures they put in place and be able to explain the basis for their decisions. To that end, there is also a need to improve the conceptual understanding of threat, risk and how it informs a mitigation measure.

As we face global operational challenges, everyone would benefit from greater investment in capacity building. Sharing best practices at the global level is extremely valuable. There is no such thing as ‘one solution’ but exchanging knowledge and experience can inform other mechanisms by adapting them to specific needs.

Presentation 2

Elie El Khoury, Air Navigation Bureau Co-ordinator, International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO)

Why this works

A well-developed contingency response plan will:

• Trigger immediately in the event of a disruption or potential disruption;
• Ensure coordinated stakeholder communication and information sharing when implementing contingency measures, ATS route adjustments, and recovery plans;
• Maintain the continued safety of air transport during actual or potential disruptions to air traffic or supporting services;
• Be activated on a case-by-case basis, including when traffic shifts due to conflict zones, weather, or other factors; and,
• Achieve success through strong collaboration and comprehensive information exchange among all stakeholders.

Challenges Identified

Going forward, response plans must be simple, clear, and practical—less like a strategy book and more like a playbook. Supporting documentation for CCTs needs to be simplified, and more user friendly. An effective CCT requires dedicated personnel and training, even though the activations are temporary in nature. Effective management, not just control, is required to conduct swift, coordinated responses that are easy to implement under pressure.

The recovery plan is also very challenging. It can be more complex to determine when to deactivate a CCT than when to trigger the plan.

In order to achieve this, a Contingency Framework is required. The framework needs to be versatile, scalable, effective and responsive. Under ICAO’s priority focus area ‘Crisis Preparedness & Response’, a comprehensive global framework for Air Traffic Management (ATM) Contingency Arrangements and Procedures will be developed to replace the current more fragmented approach. This endeavor aims to develop a customized plan for each region with a high level of ‘built in’ harmonization.

Presentation 3

Yeldar Mussatayev, Aviation Inspector, Aviation Security Department, Aviation Administration of Kazakhstan

In December 2024, the emergency crash-landing of Azerbaijan Airlines Embraer 190 (Flight J2-8243) near Aktau, Kazakhstan, highlighted the urgent need for a robust and structured approach to risk assessment for civil aviation operations over or near conflict-affected areas.

Kazakhstan has developed a multi-source, collaborative framework for risk assessment, drawing on both international and domestic expertise. Inputs are integrated from international bodies, national entities, regional coordination mechanisms and operational intelligence.

This approach is focused on creating a standardized, data-driven process to enhance decision-making and risk mitigation. The core objectives include standardizing evaluation procedures for flights over or near conflict zones and establishing a quantitative scoring system based on NOTAMs, military activity, as well as historical safety and security incidents. This structured approach enables more consistent and transparent risk assessments, contributing to improved safety for overflights in the region.

Kazakhstan applies a structured, weighted scoring system to assess overflight risks near conflict zones. The model evaluates three core components: the threat; the consequences; and the vulnerability. Each component is weighted, normalized, and combined to deliver an automated risk classification and operational recommendations for route planning and flight safety.

Why this works

The mechanism is simple in design, making it highly scalable and easy to implement across varying operational contexts. It draws information from official and internationally recognized sources. The framework is also customizable to reflect unique risk profiles for each airline or aircraft type. By enabling a common approach and shared methodology, it fosters consistent coordination and communication.

Challenges Identified

The mechanism heavily relies on NOTAM input, providing it limited capacity for real-time updates and does not currently have integrated flight planning tools (e.g., LIDO). The mechanism also needs modular risk factors for assessing military escalation trends.

Nevertheless, while it is faced with some challenges, this method demonstrates that a straightforward approach using data consistently applied can offer a practical foundation for informed decision making in a dynamic operating environment.

Presentation 4

Ahmad Abughallab, Chief, Saudi Air Navigation Services (ANS)

The roadmap developed by Saudi Air Navigation Services (SANS) for managing air traffic contingencies serves as the core framework, guiding the strategies and actions needed to ensure operational resilience during disruptions.

How this works

Air Traffic Management (ATM) Contingency Operation Concept has four contingency categories:

1. When the Air Traffic Services (ATS) facility is partially unavailable to provide ATS due to foreseeable events caused by unexpected interruptions.
2. When the ATS facility is totally unavailable to provide ATS due to foreseeable events which can be managed within a local alternative facility (inside the city).
3. When Jeddah Area Control Centre (ACC) or Riyadh ACC are totally unavailable to provide ATS.
4. Category 4 - A | Airspace Safe, No ATS
   Category 4 - B | Airspace Not Available 
   Complete loss of Both Jeddah and Riyadh ACCs (international flights to transit Jeddah FIR).

Observations & Lessons Learned

Regular exercises are a key part of the SANS contingency preparedness. In 2024, 79 participants took part in 20 tabletop exercises that were conducted for all units across 19 airports, which involved 24 departments including ATC, Maintenance and Engineering, regulators and the military. Modifications are being implemented for the next exercise based on 104 observations and 5 lessons learned from the last iteration.  

On October 1, 2024, due to escalating tensions in the Middle East, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, and Syria closed their Flight Information Regions (FIRs). In response, the ICAO CCT was activated, along with crisis management rooms in Jeddah and Riyadh. The coordinated internal and external actions that followed enabled a successful response, resulting in a 56% increase in overflight traffic through Saudi airspace.

2.5 Session 3: Tower, We Have Questions!

Panelists and presenters from sessions 1 & 2 addressed participants’ questions and comments regarding current global and regional challenges in an interactive Q&A session.

Moderator:
Carlos Cirilo, Director of ICAO Affairs, Civil Air Navigations Services Organisation (CANSO)

Panelists:
Andrew Dyer, Senior Aviation Security Manager, Risk & Operations, British Airways
Ahmad Abughallab, Chief, Saudi Air Navigation Services (ANS)
Hicham Moumni, Director of Air Navigation, Moroccan Airports Authority (ONDA)
Andrew Nicholson, Chief Executive Officer, Osprey Flight Solutions
Nabil Massali, Director, Civil Aviation, Morocco
Elie El Khoury, Air Navigation Bureau Co-ordinator, International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO)
Silvio Mascagna, Principal Policy Officer, European Commission, Directorate General for Mobility and Transport (MOVE)
Yeldar Mussatayev, Aviation Inspector, Aviation Security Department, Aviation Administration of Kazakhstan

Summary of Discussion

Due to time constraints, the Q&A session was shortened. Nevertheless, several questions were directed to the panelists and presenters, offering participants the opportunity to explore key themes from Sessions 1 and 2 in greater depth. The Master of Ceremonies highlighted that additional opportunities to engage with experts would be available during the speed-networking session scheduled for Thursday, April 10.

Participants were interested in learning more about Saudi Arabia’s ability to adjust to a crisis situation, more specifically how long it took them in the face of an attack to fully support all staffing needs for proper traffic control. Mr. Abughallab emphasized that their air traffic control rostering system has an “on-call” team, which can reach to the area’s control centre in less than 30 minutes. They are available 24/7 and ensure there is standby staff available on every shift. In case employees need to be moved from one area of the country to another, they have arrangements with the national air carrier to have flights available for those teams to be moved from one area to the other within 4 to 6 hours. In addition, each city also has an on-call team that can provide support while awaiting the additional staff. This system was tested in the fall of 2024 and functioned seamlessly.

Is there responsibility for all States to develop contingency measures to prevent the safety hazard knock-ons arising from security events (e.g., increased traffic through airspace surrounding conflict zones)? This is indeed a key element of what the regional contingency framework is aiming to achieve. The framework does involve requirements on the State to put together measures in advance, in preparation for any contingency. When an event happens, the first question to a State is ‘how much more can you take’, based on their assessment of their internal capacities. There has been progress, Saudi Arabia being an example of that, in establishing plans that account for internal capability and identify where regional support could be required during rapidly evolving situations, how many flights could be accommodated by neighbouring States, etc. If those plans are not well established for security events, safety can be jeopardized.

Building on the conversations about trust and information sharing, participants asked about the responsibilities States hold towards operators, and how air operators can contribute to the relationship as well. It was highlighted that, while regulators do play a key role in supporting their air operators with operations abroad, there is no clear obligation for them to issue formal guidance regarding those operations. The management of an airspace remains the sovereign responsibility of the State responsible for that airspace, while the State of the Operator’s responsibility to their air carriers in this instance is not clear cut. It was suggested that establishing a strong relationship between air carriers and their state regulator to share information about conflict zone-related threats could emulate the model commonly adopted for safety matters, which brings together stakeholders from across the system to define hazards, with clear objectives and precise indicators.

2.6 Guest Speaker

2.7 Fireside Chat

Moderator:
John Velho, Executive Director, International Aviation, Transport Canada

Special Guest:
Nicholas Robinson, Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Safety and Security, Transport Canada

Summary of Discussion

Transport Canada conceptualized the Safer Skies Initiative in 2020, following the tragic downing of Ukrainian International Airlines flight 752 (PS752) near Tehran, Iran, on January 8, 2020. Both Nicholas Robinson and John Velho were closely involved in the establishment of the Initiative. The fireside chat offered them the opportunity to reflect on the past five years, the progress made, and the opportunities for further improvements that the civil aviation community currently faces.

Mr. Robinson highlighted that one of the biggest changes since the downing of PS752 is that conflict zone risks and the impact of mitigations are an active part of the dialogue among the global civil aviation community. This is a global issue which has made the need for global collaboration and partnership essential like never before.

As the geopolitical environment evolves, there remains an even more compelling need for improved information sharing. The ability of regulators to freely share intelligence with carriers is ideal, but likely an unrealistic goal in most cases. For some partners, having only conventional methods to rely on (NOTAMs) has led to more innovative forms of communication among partners (chat groups created among pilots, regulators sharing information to a broad and diverse list of stakeholders, etc.). Finding new, innovative ways to share information, including through events such as the Safer Skies Forum, is key to raising awareness.

In addition to sharing information, it is essential to build strong, supportive relationships that can endure during times of crisis. With improved cooperation and trusted partnerships, stakeholders can take a more proactive approach—developing and implementing contingency plans instead of constantly reacting to emerging risks.

Stakeholders bring many different perspectives to these conversations, and it is important to have a space like the Forum to regularly exchange perspectives and learn from one another. Where we should maintain a common understanding is with aviation safety and security. Decisions in this space must not be influenced by financial or geopolitical interests. At the same time, the precautionary principle needs to be applied thoughtfully. While it’s useful in theory, in practice this principle can lead to excessive caution unless clear thresholds for its use are established and followed. Decisions driven by fear rather than evidence risk doing more harm than good. Striking the right balance is essential—protecting aviation operations while keeping global air traffic moving.

Hearing from the Secretary General of the ACVFFI reminded us of what is at stake if we do not take these risks seriously. How do we achieve safety and security while maintaining global civil aviation operations? That is the question at the heart of the Safer Skies Forum, and the main reason why we must pursue this dialogue.

2.8 Session 4: Managing the Challenges of Reduced Airspace

The objective of this session was to examine the challenges faced by civil aviation in areas affected by conflict, emphasizing how these risks disrupt operations, create secondary hazards and complicate airspace management.

Moderator:
Frédéric Deleau, Executive Vice-President Europe at International Federation of Air Traffic Controllers’ Associations (IFATCA)

Panelists:
Achraf Ouppih, Quality Assurance Engineer, Air Arabia Maroc
Jesper Rasmussen, Flight Standards Director, European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA)
Khalid Al-Zahrani, Risk Analyst, General Authority of Civil Aviation, Saudi Arabia (GACA)

Summary of Discussion  

The panel opened with a discussion on how the respective aviation authorities respond to operational challenges posed by conflict zones and identified areas for improvement.

The European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) employs a dual approach to coordinating assessments and disseminating critical airspace information. They produce a consolidated Information Bulletin that is reviewed by EU bodies and publicly available on the EASA website. Second, they facilitate the European Information Sharing and Cooperation Platform on Conflict Zones, a closed Platform for European operators and states that provides real-time alerts and recommendations based on daily developments.

EASA identified an existing gap regarding nationals flying with third-country operators who may not have the same level of conflict zone awareness or information-sharing systems, which can lead them to inadvertently fly over conflict zones with passengers from countries that would otherwise avoid those routes. This raises a need for broader coordination beyond Europe, addressing the responsibility gap and improving protection for all civil aviation passengers, regardless of operator origin.

Saudi Arabia’s General Authority of Civil Aviation (GACA) works with a specialized national committee dedicated to conflict zone risk management. The committee includes representatives from all relevant stakeholders (e.g., airlines, regulators, intelligence) to review and analyze information and share it with national stakeholders so that they can implement timely mitigation actions. This structure enables rapid coordination of the response to existing and emerging risks. It was acknowledged that a gap exists in the reliability of the information sourced from existing intelligence platforms versus what is available through direct input from committee members.

Air Arabia Maroc uses a Security Management System (SeMS)—a framework recognized by ICAO and widely adopted by airlines to manage operational risk. This cyclical system creates a continuous feedback loop to identify hazards, assess risks, and implement corrective actions. However, it was noted that conflict zone risks cannot be managed solely by individual carriers and require a global, collaborative approach.

When asked about the use of predictive scenarios in responding to operational challenges, the GACA conveyed that their risk assessment framework includes scenario-based models used to anticipate potential outcomes of evolving conflict situations. This structured, multi-stakeholder approach allows the development of context-specific risk mitigation plans, considering both likely and less probable threat evolutions.  For its part, EASA does not conduct operational scenario planning in the same way that individual carriers or national authorities might. Rather than modeling operational what-if scenarios, EASA’s focus is on maintaining a robust analytical capability that informs overarching airspace safety guidance and conflict zone bulletins.

When asked about exposure to operational risk, it was agreed that carriers are often the last to receive critical conflict zone information, yet they are the first exposed to the associated risks. On the flight deck stress can be heightened by many contributing factors such as unfamiliarity with specific routes or destinations, weather or technical issues. Dispatchers on the ground face similar pressures. Panelists underlined the importance of improving situational awareness and increasing targeted training, including the use of built-in scenarios.

A common thread throughout the Forum was the growing concern with Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) interference and the impact it can have on airspace availability. GNSS interference is no longer confined to high altitudes—it now includes low-altitude spoofing, which significantly increases operational risk and complexity. New developments have prompted a re-evaluation of how Air Traffic Management (ATM) systems are conceived. Previous plans to decommission legacy radar systems—once considered obsolete due to satellite navigation—are now under scrutiny. Maintaining legacy systems as a redundancy is expensive but increasingly justified in light of satellite vulnerabilities.

Short-Term Mitigation Measures can include raising pilot awareness and providing training to ensure crews are not caught off guard by GNSS anomalies. Pilots have reiterated the need to develop and practice specific phraseology to avoid misunderstandings during high-pressure situations; preliminary reports show there have been misunderstandings between operators and pilots yielding serious consequences.  EASA is in early-stage discussions to explore technological mitigations within the cockpit and avionics systems, although these solutions are still in development and not yet publicly detailed.

Information-sharing, both open-source or classified, was once again highlighted as a vital asset in risk assessment and operational decision making. As new threats emerge, the method and scope of sharing must evolve accordingly, establishing acceptable, efficient information-sharing protocols that both protect sources and benefit the wider aviation industry.

This session demonstrated the diversity in risk planning methodologies and reinforced the importance of both structured foresight and real-time adaptability in the response to airspace risk in conflict zones. Panelists agreed there is a need for better coordination among military, regulatory, and industry actors, along with more transparent and accessible information-sharing frameworks.

This discussion underscored that GNSS interference is both an emerging safety threat and a strategic infrastructure challenge, requiring immediate mitigation and long-term policy and technological adaptation at both state and industry levels.

2.9 Session 5: Update on the Safer Skies Initiative

Presenters:
Katia Canciani Head of the Conflict Zone Information Office, Transport Canada and Chair of the Safer Skies Consultative Committee (SSCC)
Agnieszka Maja Mizgalska Aviation Security Technical Officer, International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO)

Summary of Discussion

The SSCC completed many deliverables since its inception, most notably leading the review of ICAO’s Doc 10084, the delivery of four Safer Skies Forums, as well as the development and delivery of Regional Awareness Seminars on Doc 10084 in collaboration with ICAO. The Committee plans to present a working paper at ICAO’s Assembly in the fall of 2025, highlighting the progress made and work still to be considered on matters pertaining to conflict zones. The SSCC will also recommend another review of ICAO’s Doc 10084, to keep pace with emerging challenges and enhance the clarity, scope and relevance of the guidance document.

The Regional Awareness Seminars on Doc 10084 being delivered by the SSCC and ICAO across all regions of the globe aim for civil aviation authorities, air operators and ANSPs to better understand their roles and responsibilities, the risk assessment process and the mitigation measures that can be adopted in relation to conflict zone risks. To date, two seminars have been delivered, in Bangkok, Thailand, in September 2024 and Almaty, Kazakhstan, in November 2024. More seminars are planned for May in Latin America, and June in the Middle East and Africa.

The SSCC recently established its renewed five-year plan, which includes the review of ICAO guidance material on civil-military deconfliction; the development of an ‘exercise-in-a-box’ to support stakeholders wanting to exercise their processes; the development of a knowledge exchange program; and the review of ICAO Doc 10084 (if the proposal is accepted at the next ICAO Assembly).

Partners across the civil aviation community are working more closely than ever on this vital issue; significant progress has been achieved over the past five years, but a lot more remains to be done. The SSCC remains steadfast in its commitment to preventing and mitigating risks conflict zones pose to civil aviation.  

ICAO

ICAO’s Doc 10084 is a key guidance document on conflict zone risk management best practices that is freely available on ICAO’s public website. Through the current work conducted by ICAO and the SSCC to promote this 3^rd Edition of the document, we are taking note of insights and potential areas for improvement that arise from the important discussions held with aviation stakeholders across the globe.

ICAO is currently working on ensuring that the implementation of risk management processes is harmonized at the national level. The next review of Doc 10084 will align with this effort by looking to streamline the methodology and ensure that the language is aligned with the broader aviation security risk management framework.

In addition to the delivery of the Regional Awareness Seminars on Doc 10084 with the SSCC, ICAO will be working on the development of an implementation package (iPack) on Doc 10084, with the financial support of Transport Canada. The iPack will include expert consultations, guidance materials, training and tools to help States implement ICAO standards and recommended practices (SARPs) and guidance related to conflict zone risk management. Once the iPack is developed, ICAO will need States to contribute funding to deploy the package, either through direct financial contributions or by providing experts to deliver portions of the material.

2.10 Session 6: The Multi-Dimensional Impacts of Conflict on Aviation

In today’s inter-connected world, many industries rely on the civil aviation industry to freely transport people, goods and services across the globe. The disruption of aviation operations therefore has a ripple effect on many other areas. This session explored these multi-dimensional impacts and the high cost of airspace disruptions, from an economic as well as socio-political point of view.

Moderator:
Russell Reil, Conflict Zone Program Manager, International Affairs, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

Panelists:
Joe Fiorante, Partner, CFM Lawyers L.L.P., Canada
David Langran, Class Underwriter, HIVE Underwriters Ltd, United Kingdom
Murray Strom, Senior Vice President, Flight Operations and Maintenance, Air Canada

Summary of Discussion

Legal Perspective

As a lawyer, Mr. Fiorante’s involvement comes after tragedies happen; his experience has made him acutely aware that victims and their loved ones will never forget such tragedies. As such, he stressed the importance for stakeholders making decisions involving safety and security to keep the human cost of those decisions at the forefront of their minds.

Based on the analysis of a tragedy like the downing of PS752, we have learned how important it is to be proactive when it comes to safety and security risk assessment. That involves implementing sound processes and practices before high-risk situations arise, including monitoring, analyzing and assessing the vast among of available open-source information; knowing who should be involved and understanding their responsibilities instead of relying on ad hoc, reactive processes. Airlines must be prepared for how quickly decisions must be made in times of crisis.  

Examining existing processes on a regular basis, including by studying past incidents to learn from those mistakes, is also important. This can be done through exercises, role-playing past incidents and examining what the decision-making process would have been like in such a situation and identifying whether the processes could be improved.

Finally, one of the key improvements needed is to establish integrated safety and security assessments. There is a tendency within the industry to work in silos. ICAO’s Doc 10084 clearly indicates there is a clear need to establish processes that ensure all sides of the risks are considered before making decisions.

Insurance Perspective

From an insurance perspective, the increasing number of intra or cross-border State high-intensity conflicts in close proximity with aviation operations, combined with the increasing presence of GNSS interference in those areas, is a great concern. This new reality is forcing a high amount of traffic in fewer air corridors, thus rapidly decreasing the amount of safe airspace.

Airlines have a duty to inform their insurer of any changes in the risk picture of their operations. Mr. Langran’s company provides insurance to airlines of various sizes, with operations all over the world, and the quality of information provided by their clients regarding the risks associated with their operations varies greatly. One of the challenges they face is the lack of standard for assessing and scoring risk across the aviation industry; as an insurer, analyzing and assessing that information in a consistent manner is challenging. It sometimes requires the insurer to fill the gaps in the information provided, which can sometimes be to the carrier’s detriment.  

Trust is an important aspect of the insurer-airline relationship. In times of crisis, an airline proactively providing information about how they are mitigating the emerging risk can avoid a lot of questions from the insurer. The qualitative or on-the-ground experience of some safety experts within an airline’s team provides additional information to the insurer. They also look at what other carriers in a similar position are doing.

The insurance cost can increase when risk changes, to the point where some routes can become economically unviable. When a loss occurs, insurance costs can increase, and not necessarily only for the operator that incurred the loss; as it is a relatively small industry, the cost incurred by the few often has to be borne by many.

The insurer’s role is to assess and price risk. There are occasional requests where it’s hard to avoid the conclusion that economics is driving this decision, sometimes at the expense of safety and security. In such cases, the calculation can be very punitive.

Air Carrier Perspective

From a carrier’s perspective, safety is always the main concern. While we can’t deny that aviation is an expensive industry and any carrier’s goal is to have as many aircraft in the air as possible, the safety umbrella must be clearly separated from the commercial decisions, to avoid blurring the lines and making decisions that aren’t based on the safe operation of an aircraft. That can be a bigger challenge for smaller or start-up airlines.

Airspace disruptions have a broad impact: countries whose airspace is disrupted bear a huge part of it, especially if they rely on overflight revenue. Trade heavily relies on aviation to ensure that goods, services and people can be freely transported across the globe. But the biggest impact is probably on the airlines. Restrictions, especially when they do not equally impact all carriers, can have a huge impact on the economic health of an airline. Captain Strom mentioned that Air Canada was hugely impacted by Russia’s decision to prohibit Canadian airlines from overflying its airspace, making some destinations too costly to maintain.

Risk is both proactive and reactive. The world has changed rapidly over the last decade. The industry can’t remain reactive to risks associated with conflict zones. Cooperation among governments, airlines, are all key to reach this goal; however, we must remain cognizant that risk appetite varies from one airline to the other. We also can’t expect all countries to be transparent about their intentions. Airlines’ security departments must work together to combine information and make decisions based on the best information available. At the end of the day, it is the airline’s decision. But hope is not a good strategy; when facing uncertainty, it is better to err on the side of caution.

2.11 Session 7: Exploring Risk Tolerance: Variabilities Among Aviation States and Stakeholders

Managing the risks of overflying conflict zones is becoming increasingly complex and fluid. Airspace restrictions and flights diversion or cancellations due to conflict-related risk are more frequent than ever, thus reducing the number of safe air corridors. This session explored how different stakeholders across the civil aviation ecosystem approach this ever-changing reality and how it influences their risk tolerance level and decision-making processes.

Moderator:
Jane Spicer, Head of Security Threat, Risk and Intelligence, Qantas

Panelists:
Hany Bakr, Senior Vice President Aviation & Maritime Safety, MedAire International 
Frédéric Deleau, Executive Vice-President Europe at International Federation of Air Traffic Controllers’ Associations (IFATCA)
Hicham El Filali, Directeur Qualité sûreté et sécurité, Royal Air Maroc
Guilhem Magoutier, Head of the Risk Assessment Unit, French Civil Aviation Authority

Summary of Discussion

Ensuring the safety and security of flight operations requires a team effort. The multiple stakeholders involved all carry different perspectives on the risks and have different roles in the decision-making process. Each situation involving security risks is unique and must be assessed based on its specific context. However, for this process to work well, stakeholders must be able to understand each other, ‘speak the same language’. It also requires solid training and processes, which must be continually updated to adapt to evolving risks and geopolitical factors.

Information providers, such as MedAire, offer a supporting role to their clients by helping them identify and assess risk, in order to safely conduct their operations as optimally as possible. Those conclusions can vary depending on the client, based on their individual business model, risk exposure, commercial appetite, government restrictions, etc.

Variabilities in risk tolerance are most obvious between distinct stakeholders, but they also exist internally to an organization. The multiple perspectives involved (safety, legal, commercial departments, etc.) perceive and assess risk differently, making decision-making at times challenging. Even when stakeholders have the same information about the threat picture, it does not always lead them to the same risk assessment or operational decisions.

Adapting to a constantly evolving risk environment requires stakeholders to be adaptable and find innovative ways to maintain safe operations. Some regulators that issue guidance to their carriers regarding foreign airspace, such as France, are now attempting to make more precise risk assessments allowing them to implement restrictions on specific areas of an airspace instead of its entirety. That is not always possible, but when it is, it allows the continuity of operations in that region. Stakeholders must also adapt to new sets of risks, such as spoofing and jamming, which are becoming more common and bring a new set of risks to operations that must be accounted for.

2.12 Session 8: Navigating Towards Safer Skies: Where Are We, What More is Needed?

The main objectives of this session were to present the industry’s perspectives on the regulatory and operational framework for the management of overflight risks, discuss existing challenges and reflect on what more is needed to make our skies safer. This was done through a debate format, which allowed panelists to answer questions in a rapid and succinct fashion, while still addressing key, complex and sometimes controversial matters.

Moderator:
Adam Borkowski, Aviation Security and Intelligence Senior Expert at European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA)

Panelists:
Markus Holowenko, Head of Corporate Security Risk Management, Lufthansa Group 
Johan van Loon, Senior Security Manager Intelligence & Geopolitics Security Services, KLM Royal Dutch Airlines
Adrian Lukasz, Vice President of Aviation Security, flydubai
Captain Ted McCaughan, Senior Manager of International Flight Operations, United Airlines, Corporate Support Centre
Michael Petry, Chair of the Security Working Group, European Cockpit Association

Summary of Discussion

While all speakers spoke from the industry’s perspective, two were pilots and three were aviation security experts. They therefore brought different but complementary perspectives to the discussion.

Aviation security experts acknowledged that the awareness of overflight risks related to conflict zones has increased rapidly over the last 15 years. In some cases, more formalized partnerships with regulators have been established, allowing for more consistent and transparent information sharing. Risk assessment methodologies have adapted to the unique nature of conflict zone risks which don’t always fit existing risk assessment frameworks due to their unpredictable nature.

While some airlines rely on quantitative assessment models for security risks, conflict zone risk assessments need to be complemented with qualitative analysis of geopolitical events and how these interact with aviation’s operating environment. Due to the dynamic nature of conflicts, risk assessment processes must be ongoing; sometimes, risk assessments change after take-off and flights have to divert or turn around. While pilots are well trained to assess safety risks, most have little background to assess security risk assessments; pilots associations therefore consistently advocate for more information to be provided to pilots to support their decision-making in flight.

Speakers expressed mixed feelings about the effectiveness of advisories issued by States regarding conflict zone risks. Since most regulators don’t have the capability to operate on a 24/7 basis, some carriers highlighted that they can’t rely on regulator guidance to support their operations. However, most agreed that NOTAMs and other methods of communication could provide useful information, which serves as an additional tool to assess risks and sometimes provides pilots with an additional argument to decide not to overfly certain airspace.

Resources are a significant challenge for all carriers when it comes to effectively conducting conflict zone risk assessments on an ongoing basis, especially for smaller airlines. The increasing number of conflicts adds pressure to already overtaxed teams, making it difficult to maintain a proactive posture. In line with what previous panels agreed to, speakers concluded that solid information sharing practices, both with regulators and among carriers, are essential to fill the gaps in knowledge, but also to better understand each other’s decisions when postures do not align.

2.13 Session 9: Anticipating Conflict – The Importance of Early Warning

Speaker:
Joel Gulhane, Director of Intelligence Operations, Dragonfly Intelligence

Summary of Presentation

Mr. Gulhane’s presentation emphasized the importance of early warning analysis as part of security operations, decision-making and contingency planning. This requires analyzing not only immediate indicators of potential conflict, but also long-term structural factors that may drive instability; recognizing these factors early allows for better planning.

The presentation addressed the concept of “grey swan” events, referring to high-impact events once considered unlikely that are now happening with increasing frequency. These types of events often catch organizations off-guard but could have been anticipated with early warning indicator monitoring. Establishing practices that allow us to recognize these indicators early can contribute to operational resilience and efficient planning ahead of future crises.

Mr. Gulhane provided an example of how Dragonfly Intelligence conducts early warning analysis for their clients. According to their approach, early warning analysis allows to navigate uncertainty, filter critical information from the noise, enhance decision-making, and safeguard operations before crises escalate. Whether it is done through a service such as Dragonfly or not, most organizations could benefit from integrating early warning analysis into their risk assessment approaches and decision-making processes to better anticipate risk and plan accordingly.

2.14 Session 10: Speed-Networking

The speed-networking session was facilitated to maximize engagement and knowledge sharing among participants and speakers in a short amount of time. Participants rotated through brief, focused learning stations led by a select number of panelists and speakers, allowing them to exchange insights and establish connections. This format allowed a broad range of topics and experiences to be covered within a limited timeframe.

Feedback from participants about the speed-networking session was overall extremely positive. While the previous days of the event had also offered many occasions for participants to network, this session provided a more formal opportunity to interact with speakers and other participants on more targeted topics. Set at the very end of the Forum, this also ensured that participants could ask any remaining questions to subject-matter experts before the event concluded.

Seeing as one of the main objectives of the 4th Safer Skies Forum was to provide participants the opportunity to network with counterparts from other states and organizations, the speed-networking session was a valuable addition to the agenda that was directly in line with the important themes of cooperation and information-sharing that were abundantly discussed throughout the event.

2.15 Keynote Speaker

Speaker:
Karim Elloumi, Regional Vice-President, International Federation of Air Line Pilots’ Associations (IFALPA)

Speaking on behalf of IFALPA, Captain Elloumi highlighted the importance of an event such as the Safer Skies Forum to bring the aviation community together to create means to keep passengers and crews safe in an operating environment that is increasingly risky. All stakeholders in aviation, including pilots, air traffic controllers, and regulatory authorities, need to continue to work together to raise awareness, enhance training, and take proactive measures to safeguard the integrity of navigation signals and ensure the safety of air travel.

Pilots often have to navigate the challenges of reduced airspace availability due to conflict activity, as well as GNSS interference and associated navigational issues. These risks are a constant concern to organizations such as IFALPA, who works closely with others such as IATA, CANSO and ICAO to bring awareness and find solutions to better mitigate those risks to civil aviation operations. IFALPA believes that States should urgently assess the interference risks associated with conflict zones and consider that satellite-based CNS systems can potentially be impacted well beyond those zones.

Efficient civil military coordination should facilitate the sharing of relevant information with airspace users either during civil or military testing and/or other activities, or when flying in the vicinity of a conflict zone. All stakeholders must prioritize safety and security and take all necessary precautions to ensure civil aviation operations are protected from conflict-related risks.

2.16 Closing Remarks

Speaker:
Khalid Cherkaoui, Secretary General of Transport, Kingdom of Morocco

Summary of Remarks

Risks associated with conflict zones are undeniably real and continue to multiply due to increasing geopolitical tensions in many parts of the globe. Protecting civil aviation from those risks is everyone’s responsibility; States, industry and international organizations must work together to find collective and sustainable solutions. The 4^th Safer Skies Forum demonstrated that cooperation is our greatest asset in reaching our common goal of guaranteeing safe and secure aviation operations worldwide. We must continue to work together to build a safe, resilient and sustainable aviation system that allows passengers to freely travel across the world. Together, we can make a difference.

3. Conclusion

3.1 Message from the SSCC Chair

This Safer Skies Forum, thanks to the superb hospitality of our co-host, the hard work of the Safer Skies Consultative Committee and the genuine engagement of all the participants, panelists and presenters, proved to be another resounding success.

This report takes stock of all the milestones achieved and progress made in those last 5 years, but also acts as an extremely useful summary of the work still to be accomplished. I believe the goals set for this iteration of the forum were successfully achieved:  

• Exploring forward thinking approaches for managing complexities the civil aviation community is facing when operating over or near conflict zones;
• Supporting broad regional participation with attendees representing the breadth and range of experiences and expertise from the global civil aviation community;
• Developing a vision for the future, setting long-term goals and strategies that guide ongoing efforts beyond the Forum.

The Safer Skies Consultative Committee’s vision for the future aligns with ICAO's number one goal, as set forth in their Strategic Plan for 2026-2050, which is “of Zero fatalities in international aviation from accidents and acts of unlawful interference”. Much still needs to be done to achieve such a bold and visionary objective; but, together, we can make our skies safer. We owe it to this civil aviation community we cherish, and to our traveling friends and families.

What route do we have to fly to get there, one might ask? Let’s focus on the landmarks or waypoints along the way, those key words we heard repeatedly during those three days: implementation, information sharing, collaboration, airspace accountability, civil-military coordination, proactiveness, contingency planning… Let these guide all our actions and our decisions.

3.2 Next Steps

5th Safer Skies Forum

Building on the momentum and insights generated at this year’s forum, several important avenues for continued collaboration and advancement have been identified. Planning is already underway for the 5th Safer Skies Forum, tentatively scheduled for Fall 2026, which will be an important opportunity for collective focus to discuss progress, exchange lessons learned and address emerging priorities.

Raising Awareness on and Developing Mitigation Tools

In the interim, sustained engagement will focus on several critical areas: enhancing mechanisms for information sharing, raising awareness on civil-military deconfliction, supporting the activation of contingency plans beyond the scope of existing national frameworks, and addressing the growing concern of GNSS interference. These themes reflect both the lessons learned from recent events and the need for practical, coordinated approaches to risk mitigation in civil aviation.

iPack Development

A major area of work moving forward is the development of an ICAO iPack to help States operationalize the guidance contained in ICAO Doc 10084. Canada has already pledged financial support for this initiative. This coincides with ongoing efforts to ensure that all regions have access to the tools, resources, and capacity they need to understand and implement conflict zone risk management practices.

Review of Doc 10084

In parallel, the SSCC will recommend that Doc 10084 undergo a review at the next ICAO Assembly in the Fall of 2025, to ensure its clarity, relevance, and effectiveness. The next edition will integrate updated information and guidance regarding emerging threats.

Renewed Safer Skies Commitment Statement

A key outcome of this year’s forum was the broad endorsement of the renewed Safer Skies Commitment Statement by several organizations and states. The statement remains open for endorsement at any time, and interested states or organizations are encouraged to contact the Safer Skies Consultative Committee (SSCC) Secretariat to express their support. Continued commitment to this foundational initiative is essential to sustaining the collective progress achieved and furthering global aviation safety and security.

4. Appendices

4.1 Agenda

The 4^th Safer Skies Forum

Day 1 | Tuesday, April 8, 2025

Timing (CEST = UTC+1)	Description
11:30 to 12:30	Opening Session Opening Remarks Honorable Abdessamad Kayouh, Minister of Transport and Logistics, Kingdom of Morocco Arun Thangaraj, Deputy Minister, Transport Canada, Canada Salvatore Sciacchitano, President of the Council of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Damien Cazé,Vice-President Europe, European Civil Aviation Conference (ECAC)
12:30 to 13:50	Lunch
14:00 to 15:00	Session 1: Current Challenges in Aviation Masters of Ceremonies: Richard Ossendorp, Dutch Representative at ICAO, the Netherlands Format: Panel The panelists will discuss the current challenges conflict zones pose to civil aviation, and how industry, regulators, and air navigation service providers address these challenges. Discussion topics will include the impact of conflict regional spillover, effective responses to rapidly evolving situations, as well as the evolving range of threats. Moderator: John Velho, Executive Director International Aviation, Transport Canada Panellists: Ahmad Abughallab, Chief, Saudi Air Navigation Services (ANS) Andrew Dyer, Senior Aviation Security Manager, Risk & Operations, British Airways Nabil Massali, Directeur de l'Aéronautique Civile, Ministry of Transport and Logistics, Kingdom of Morocco Hicham Moumni, Director of Air Navigation, Moroccan Airports Authority (ONDA) Andrew Nicholson, Chief Executive Officer Osprey Flight Solutions
15:00 to 16:00	Session 2: Global Challenges, Local Solutions: Regional Approaches Format: Presentations This session will look at the unique geopolitical and operational challenges facing aviation experts when dealing with conflict zone risk in different regions. Expert panellists will explore how localized factors—including regulatory variations, and resource constraints—drive region-specific approaches. This session will underscore that a “one-size-fits-all” approach can be inadequate. Instead, it will offer insights into what practices have proven effective and where challenges remain. Moderator: Carlos Cirilo, Director of ICAO Affairs, Civil Air Navigation Services Organisation (CANSO) Presenters: Ahmad Abughallab, Chief, Saudi Air Navigation Services (ANS) Elie El Khoury, Air Navigation Bureau Co-ordinator International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Silvio Mascagna, Principal Policy Officer, European Commission – Directorate General for Mobility and Transport (MOVE) Yeldar Mussatayev Aviation Inspector, Aviation Security Department, Aviation Administration of Kazakhstan
16:00 to 16:20	Break
16:30 to 17:15	Session 3: Tower, We Have Questions! Panelists from sessions 1 & 2 will address participants’ questions and comments regarding current challenges in an interactive Q&A session. Moderator: Carlos Cirilo, Director of ICAO Affairs, Civil Air Navigation Services Organisation (CANSO)
17:15 to 17:25	Guest Speaker Claudia Carrasco, Secretary General, Air Crash Victims' Families' Federation International (ACVFFI)
17:25 to 17:35	End of day wrap-up/Look ahead Speaker: John Velho, Executive Director International Aviation, Transport Canada

Day 2 | Wednesday, April 9, 2025

Timing (CEST = UTC+1)	Description
9:00 to 9:15	Fireside Chat Speaker: Nicholas Robinson, Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Transport Canada Speaker: John Velho, Executive Director International Aviation, Transport Canada
9:15 to 10:15	Session 4: Managing the Challenges of Reduced Airspace Format: Panel This panel discussion will examine the broad challenges faced by civil aviation in areas affected by conflict, emphasizing how these risks disrupt operations, create secondary hazards, and complicate airspace management. Discussion will cover specific instances of airspace closures, operational restrictions, and technology-related interferences that impact safety, efficiency, and response capabilities for airlines and states alike. Moderator: Frédéric Deleau, Executive Vice-President Europe at International Federation of Air Traffic Controllers’ Associations (IFATCA) Panellists: Achraf Ouppih, Quality assurance Engineer, Air Arabia Maroc Jesper Rasmussen, Flight Standards Director, European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) Khalid Al-Zahrani, Risk analyst General Authority of Civil Aviation, Saudi Arabia
10:15 to 10:35	Break
10:45 to 11:15	Session 5: Update on the Safer Skies Initiative Format: Presentations ICAO and the Safer Skies Consultative Committee will provide an update on their respective work in advancing the Safer Skies Initiative since its inception in 2020. Speakers: Katia Canciani, Head of the Conflict Zone Information Office, Transport Canada, and Chair of the Safer Skies Consultative Committee (SSCC) Agnieszka Maja Mizgalska, Aviation Security Technical Officer, International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO)
11:15 to 12:15	Session 6: The Multi-Dimensional Impacts of Conflict on Aviation Format: Panel This session will discuss the multi-dimensional impacts of conflicts and the high cost of disruption, from an economic but also social-political point of view. As airspace restrictions impact air carriers, states affected by disruptions, passengers, global trade, the environment, etc.: should these impacts be taken into consideration in our decision-making? If so, how? Moderator: Russell Reil, Conflict Zone Program Manager, International Affairs, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Panellists: Joe Fiorante, Partner, CFM Lawyers L.L.P David Langran, Class Underwriter, HIVE Underwriters Ltd Murray Strom, Senior Vice President, Flight Operations and Maintenance, Air Canada
12:15 to 13:45	Lunch
13:50 to 14:50	Session 7: Exploring Risk Tolerance: Variabilities Among Aviation States and Stakeholders Format: Panel This session will explore how diverse aviation stakeholders assess, communicate, and make decisions based on varying thresholds. What drives differing risk tolerance levels among stakeholders? How do these different levels of risk tolerance impact international operations? How do we define responsibilities and accountabilities for risk taken when the thresholds vary? Moderator: Jane Spicer, Head of Security Threat, Risk and Intelligence, Qantas Panellists: Hany Bakr, Senior Vice President Aviation & Maritime Safety MedAire International Frédéric Deleau, Executive Vice-President Europe at International Federation of Air Traffic Controllers’ Associations (IFATCA) Hicham El Filali, Directeur Qualité Sûreté Sécurité, Royal Air Maroc Guilhem Magoutier, Head, Risk Assessment Unit French Civil Aviation Authority
14:50 to 15:10	Break
15:15 to 16:15	Session 8: Navigating Towards Safer Skies: Where Are We, What More is Needed? Format: Debate This session will be a fast-paced debate with stakeholders from across the aviation ecosystem addressing thought-provoking topics. At the end of the session, a brief Q&A will allow participants to challenge the debaters or ask for clarifications. Moderator: Adam Borkowski, Aviation Security and Intelligence Senior Expert at European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) Panellists: Markus Holowenko, Head of Corporate Security Risk Management, Lufthansa Group Johan van Loon, Senior Security Manager Intelligence & Geopolitics Security Services, KLM Royal Dutch Airlines Adrian Lukasz, Vice President Aviation Security, flydubai Captain Ted McCaughan, Senior Manager of International Flight Operations United Airlines, Corporate Support Centre Michael Petry, Chair, Security Working Group, European Cockpit Association
16:15 to 16:25	End of day wrap-up/Look ahead Speaker: John Velho, Executive Director International Aviation, Transport Canada

Day 3 | Thursday, April 10, 2025

Timing (CEST = UTC+1)	Description
8:30 to 9:30	Breakfast Served
9:00 to 9:30	Session 9: Anticipating Conflict – The Importance of the Early Warning Format: Breakfast and keynote speaker This session will explore the critical role of early warning in conflict detection and its impact on aviation security. As global instability rises, organizations must move beyond reactive measures and integrate proactive intelligence strategies to safeguard operations. The session will conclude with an interactive Q&A. Keynote Speaker: Joel Gulhane, Director of Intelligence Operations, Dragonfly
9:30 to 10:00	Intro to Speed-Networking
10:00 to 11:00	Session 10: Speed-Networking A facilitated session designed to maximize engagement and knowledge sharing in a short amount of time. Participants rotate through brief, focused conversations or learning stations, allowing them to exchange insights, establish connections. This format ensures a broad range of topics or experiences are covered within a limited timeframe. Subject Matter Experts Forum Panelists/Presenters
11:00 to 11:20	Keynote Keynote Speaker: Mr. Karim Elloumi, Regional Vice-President, IFALPA
11:20 to 11:30	Closing Remarks

4.2 Biographies

Speakers

---

---

---

Master of Ceremonies, Moderators and Speakers

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---