Bermuda to Boston Missing Plane: Jurisdiction Under International Aviation Law
Introduction
The missing plane carrying a Latitude Air Ambulance medical flight from Bermuda to Boston raises a specific question of international aviation law: which country has responsibility for the safety investigation? Article 26 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation establishes the territorial starting point for accidents involving aircraft of another contracting State. ICAO Annex 13 provides the more detailed rule that, when the accident location cannot definitely be established within the territory of any State, the State of Registry must institute and conduct the necessary investigation, although it may delegate all or part of that investigation by agreement (ICAO, 1944, art. 26; ICAO, 2024, para. 5.3).
The aircraft, C-GRJP, was a Canadian-registered Gulfstream G100 operated by Ontario-based Latitude Air Ambulance. It departed L.F. Wade International Airport in Bermuda for Boston Logan International Airport shortly after midnight on October 3, 2026, with four Canadian crew members and two Bermudian passengers aboard. The pilot reported electrical problems and declared an emergency before communication was lost. The U.S. Coast Guard later confirmed that debris associated with the aircraft had been found south of Nantucket, while the search for the six occupants continued into October 4 (Associated Press, 2026; Skyport, 2026).
The geographical position of the accident is legally decisive. Article 2 of the Chicago Convention treats the territorial waters adjacent to a State and under its sovereignty as part of that State’s territory (ICAO, 1944, art. 2). The United States exercises sovereignty over a territorial sea extending 12 nautical miles from its legally established baselines, which are derived from the low-water line shown on official nautical charts and, where applicable, recognized closing lines (NOAA, 2026). A reported distance from Nantucket or the location of floating debris cannot by itself establish on which side of that legal boundary the aircraft entered the water.
The Coast Guard’s search operation does not resolve the allocation of investigative responsibility. Annex 13 expressly contemplates assistance by States nearest an accident in international waters, while responsibility for instituting the safety investigation remains governed by the State-of-Occurrence and State-of-Registry rules (ICAO, 2024, paras. 5.3–5.3.1). The NTSB is the U.S. authority responsible for fulfilling American obligations under Annex 13, but the available public record had not yet established that the United States was the State responsible for this investigation (49 C.F.R. § 831.22; Associated Press, 2026). Until the occurrence location or a formal investigative arrangement is established, assigning definitive control of the investigation to either the United States or Canada would be premature.
1. What Is Known About the Missing Plane
C-GRJP was a Canadian-registered Gulfstream G100 operated by Latitude Air Ambulance, an Ontario-based medical transport operator. The aircraft departed L.F. Wade International Airport in Bermuda shortly after midnight on October 3, 2026, for Boston Logan International Airport with six people aboard (Skyport, 2026; Associated Press, 2026).
Before contact was lost, the pilot reported electrical problems and declared an emergency. Flight-tracking information also recorded a substantial descent before the aircraft disappeared. These facts describe the circumstances preceding the loss of contact; they do not establish the cause of the accident (Associated Press, 2026).
The U.S. Coast Guard later confirmed that search crews had located debris associated with C-GRJP south of Nantucket. That discovery narrowed the factual inquiry but did not establish the precise location at which the aircraft entered the water. The distinction is legally significant because the allocation of investigative responsibility under international aviation law may depend on where the occurrence took place.
1.1 C-GRJP and the Bermuda-to-Boston Flight
C-GRJP was registered in Canada and operated by Latitude Air Ambulance, based in Hamilton, Ontario. Its Canadian registration is legally significant because the Convention on International Civil Aviation provides that an aircraft possesses the nationality of the State in which it is registered, while Annex 13 assigns particular rights and responsibilities to the State of Registry (ICAO, 1944, art. 17; ICAO, 2024).
The Bermuda-to-Boston medical flight carried two pilots, two medical personnel, a patient, and an accompanying relative. Contemporary reporting identified the four crew members as Canadian and the two passengers as Bermudian (Associated Press, 2026). Departure from Bermuda, destination in Boston, and the nationalities of those aboard create factual connections with several jurisdictions, but none independently determines which State must institute the safety investigation.
Passenger nationality may become relevant under the limited participation provisions of Annex 13 where the applicable conditions are met, but it does not confer the same status as being the State of Registry, Operator, Design, Manufacture, or Occurrence. The role of Canada in the present jurisdictional question arises principally from the aircraft’s registration, not from the nationality of its crew.
Reports concerning the missing plane also record the pilot’s declaration of an emergency after reporting electrical problems. Those circumstances may become part of the evidentiary record of a safety investigation, but they cannot support a conclusion about technical failure, negligence, or probable cause without further evidence.
1.2 The Debris Field and the Missing Coordinate
The Coast Guard’s discovery of debris associated with C-GRJP did not, by itself, establish the accident coordinate. Contemporary reporting described the initial search area as approximately 13 nautical miles south of Nantucket, while later Coast Guard activity was reported around an area approximately 17 nautical miles off the island’s south shore (Nantucket Current, 2026; Nantucket Inquirer and Mirror, 2026).
Those figures describe locations connected with the search operation, not a formally established point of impact. A search area may be based on the aircraft’s last known information and subsequent search calculations, while floating wreckage can move after an accident.
Maritime search planning accounts for the effects of wind, currents, and the drift characteristics of objects at sea. The position at which debris is observed can consequently differ from the location where an aircraft first entered the water (U.S. Coast Guard, 2026).
For the jurisdictional analysis, the important geographical fact is the location of the occurrence insofar as it can be established. Approximate distances from Nantucket, even when expressed in nautical miles, cannot substitute for a sufficiently reliable occurrence position measured against the applicable U.S. maritime boundary.
2. Chicago Convention and Annex 13
The international regime governing civil-aircraft accident investigations rests on the Convention on International Civil Aviation and the Standards and Recommended Practices contained in Annex 13. Article 26 of the Convention establishes the basic territorial obligation to investigate certain accidents involving foreign aircraft, while Annex 13 provides the detailed framework for allocating and conducting safety investigations (ICAO, 1944, art. 26; ICAO, 2024).
Two legal connections are central to C-GRJP. The State of Occurrence is the State in whose territory an accident occurs, while the State of Registry is the State on whose register the aircraft is entered. Annex 13 also recognizes defined roles for other States, including the States of the Operator, Design, and Manufacture.
These categories allocate legal functions rather than simply identifying the countries most closely associated with the flight. Where an accident occurs within State territory, the territorial connection ordinarily controls the initial investigation. Where the location cannot definitely be established as being within the territory of any State, Annex 13 turns to the State of Registry.
2.1 Article 26 and the State of Occurrence
Article 26 applies when an aircraft of one contracting State suffers an accident in the territory of another contracting State and the accident involves death, serious injury, or indications of serious technical defect. In those circumstances, the State in which the accident occurs must institute an inquiry into the circumstances of the accident (ICAO, 1944, art. 26).
The Convention defines territory broadly enough to include relevant coastal waters. Article 2 provides that, for the purposes of the Convention, the territory of a State comprises its land areas and adjacent territorial waters under its sovereignty (ICAO, 1944, art. 2).
Annex 13 develops this territorial rule by assigning responsibility for instituting and conducting the safety investigation to the State of Occurrence. That State may delegate the whole or part of the investigation to another State or an appropriate regional accident and incident investigation organization by mutual arrangement (ICAO, 2024).
If C-GRJP is ultimately established to have come down within U.S. territory, including the
U.S. territorial sea, the United States would occupy the position of State of Occurrence. Canada’s status as State of Registry would remain legally significant, but it would not replace the ordinary territorial allocation of initial responsibility.
2.2 Accidents Outside State Territory
Annex 13 provides a different rule when the location of an accident cannot definitely be established as being within the territory of any State. In that situation, the State of Registry must institute and conduct any necessary investigation, although it may delegate all or part of that investigation by mutual arrangement (ICAO, 2024, para. 5.3).
C-GRJP’s Canadian registration supplies the relevant legal connection for this alternative. Under Article 17 of the Chicago Convention, an aircraft possesses the nationality of the State in which it is registered (ICAO, 1944, art. 17).
The Canadian role under this rule does not arise merely because C-GRJP was outside U.S. territory. Annex 13 paragraph 5.3 is engaged when the accident location cannot definitely be established within the territory of any State. That distinction prevents the absence of U.S. territorial jurisdiction from being treated, by itself, as sufficient to trigger Canada’s State-of-Registry responsibility.
If that Annex 13 condition is satisfied, Canada would bear the initial responsibility to institute and conduct the necessary investigation. Another State could nevertheless perform all or part of the investigation following a valid delegation.
2.3 Investigation Is Not a Liability Proceeding
Annex 13 gives aircraft accident investigation a specific preventive purpose. Its sole objective is the prevention of accidents and incidents, and the investigation is not conducted for the purpose of apportioning blame or liability (ICAO, 2024, para. 3.1).
A safety investigation may examine wreckage, recorded information, maintenance and operational records, air traffic material, meteorological information, and other evidence capable of explaining the occurrence. Its findings may identify causes and contributing factors and lead to safety recommendations intended to reduce the risk of recurrence (ICAO, 2024).
That process is legally distinct from civil litigation concerning compensation or damages. It is also distinct from criminal proceedings or regulatory enforcement directed toward individual or institutional responsibility.
The distinction limits what can responsibly be inferred from the early reports concerning C-GRJP. Electrical problems, an emergency declaration, and the aircraft’s descent may be relevant evidence, but they are not findings of fault or probable cause.
3. Was the Aircraft Inside U.S. Territory?
The principal jurisdictional uncertainty is geographical. Public reporting placed the search south of Nantucket, but the existence of a search operation in waters off Massachusetts does not itself establish that the accident occurred within United States territory.
For Chicago Convention purposes, the relevant maritime boundary is the outer limit of waters under U.S. sovereignty. Article 2 ties the Convention’s concept of territory to land areas and adjacent territorial waters under the sovereignty of the State (ICAO, 1944, art. 2).
The reported search distances are consequently only part of the factual picture. A sound jurisdictional conclusion requires a sufficiently reliable occurrence position and comparison of that position with the legally established U.S. territorial-sea boundary.
3.1 The 12-Nautical-Mile Territorial Sea
The United States claims a territorial sea extending 12 nautical miles seaward from its baselines. U.S. sovereignty extends across that territorial sea, including the airspace above it and the seabed and subsoil beneath it (NOAA, 2026).
The legal baseline is not measured from the geographic center of Nantucket or from an arbitrary point on its coast. NOAA identifies the normal baseline as the low-water line shown on official nautical charts, with legally recognized closing lines used in circumstances such as bays and river mouths (NOAA, 2026).
The distinction is important when reports describe an aircraft, vessel, or debris as a particular distance “off Nantucket.” Such language does not establish the precise baseline from which the legal territorial-sea limit is measured.
Determining whether C-GRJP came down within U.S. territory consequently requires both an adequately established occurrence location and the applicable official maritime boundary at that position.
3.2 Why “13 Miles Offshore” Is Not Conclusive
The initial search was reported approximately 13 nautical miles south of Nantucket. Later activity was reported in an area approximately 17 nautical miles off the island’s south shore (Nantucket Current, 2026; Nantucket Inquirer and Mirror, 2026).
Neither distance establishes the point at which C-GRJP entered the water. The figures relate to search activity and subsequently identified debris rather than an officially determined impact coordinate.
Even a distance expressed accurately in nautical miles does not answer the territorial question unless the point from which it is measured corresponds to the legally applicable U.S. baseline. “Thirteen nautical miles south of Nantucket” is not legally equivalent to “thirteen nautical miles seaward from the territorial-sea baseline.”
The possible movement of floating wreckage adds a further limitation. Wind and ocean currents can shift debris after an accident, so a later debris position may inform the reconstruction of the accident without being identical to the original occurrence location (U.S. Coast Guard, 2026).
3.3 The EEZ Is Not U.S. Sovereign Territory
The U.S. territorial sea is legally distinct from the contiguous zone and the exclusive economic zone. NOAA identifies a territorial sea extending to 12 nautical miles, a contiguous zone extending to 24 nautical miles, and an EEZ that generally extends as far as 200 nautical miles from the relevant baselines, subject to boundaries with other States (NOAA, 2026).
These maritime zones carry different legal consequences. The United States exercises sovereignty in the territorial sea. In the contiguous zone and EEZ, international law instead recognizes specified powers, jurisdiction, and sovereign rights for particular purposes.
Sovereign rights in the EEZ are not equivalent to sovereignty over State territory. A location may consequently fall within the U.S. EEZ while remaining beyond the territorial sea.
For Annex 13 purposes, the existence of U.S. EEZ rights cannot substitute for the territorial connection required to characterize the United States as the State of Occurrence. An accident beyond the U.S. territorial sea does not become an accident within U.S. territory merely because it remains inside the American EEZ.
4. If the Crash Was Within U.S. Territory
If the occurrence is established within the U.S. territorial sea, the United States would be the State of Occurrence under the Chicago Convention and Annex 13. Article 26 would require the United States to institute the inquiry, while Annex 13 would govern the conduct of the safety investigation and the participation of other States (ICAO, 1944, art. 26; ICAO, 2024).
The National Transportation Safety Board is the U.S. authority responsible for fulfilling the United States’ obligations under Annex 13. Current federal regulations authorize the NTSB to investigate civil-aircraft accidents occurring in the United States and identify it as the U.S. agency responsible for Annex 13 accident-investigation functions (United States, 2026, 49 C.F.R. §§ 831.20, 831.22).
Canada would remain a formal participant because of C-GRJP’s Canadian registration. Annex 13 permits the State of Registry to appoint an accredited representative to participate in an investigation conducted by the State of Occurrence, with advisers allowed under the conditions established by the Annex (ICAO, 2024).
A U.S. State-of-Occurrence investigation would not require the NTSB to perform every technical task independently. Annex 13 allows delegation of all or part of the investigation by mutual arrangement and permits international technical cooperation within the investigation framework.
The legal basis for U.S. leadership would nonetheless remain geographical. Coast Guard search activity, wreckage recovery, or proximity to Nantucket cannot themselves establish State-of-Occurrence status; that status depends on the accident having occurred within U.S. territory.
5. If the Crash Was Outside State Territory
A different allocation rule applies when the location of an accident cannot definitely be established as being within the territory of any State. Annex 13 then turns to the aircraft’s registration rather than to the nationality of those aboard, the location of the operator’s business, or the flight’s point of departure.
Paragraph 5.3 of Annex 13 requires the State of Registry to institute and conduct any necessary investigation in those circumstances. The rule also permits that State to delegate the whole or part of the investigation to another State by mutual arrangement and consent (ICAO, 2024, para. 5.3).
For C-GRJP, the registration connection points to Canada. The four Canadian crew members and Latitude Air Ambulance’s Ontario base create additional links with Canada, but neither supplies the legal basis for the State-of-Registry rule.
5.1 Canada as the State of Registry
Article 17 of the Chicago Convention provides that an aircraft has the nationality of the State in which it is registered. C-GRJP’s Canadian registration consequently makes Canada the State of Registry within the Annex 13 framework (ICAO, 1944, art. 17).
The consequences of that status depend on the location of the occurrence. Where another State conducts the investigation as State of Occurrence, Canada participates through the rights conferred on the State of Registry. If paragraph 5.3 applies, Canada instead bears the initial responsibility for instituting and conducting the necessary investigation (ICAO, 2024, para. 5.3).
Canadian domestic law separately gives the Transportation Safety Board of Canada authority over certain aviation occurrences outside Canada. Section 3(1)(c) of the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board Act extends the statutory regime to specified occurrences abroad involving Canadian aviation connections, while the Act defines the Board’s investigative functions in terms of transportation safety (Canada, 1989).
That domestic authority should not be confused with the international allocation rule. Annex 13 determines which State bears the relevant international responsibility; Canadian legislation supplies the domestic legal authority through which Canadian institutions may exercise their functions.
Canada does not acquire the paragraph 5.3 responsibility merely because an accident is outside U.S. territory. The provision is engaged when the accident location cannot definitely be established as being within the territory of any State. That formulation is narrower than simply asking whether C-GRJP was beyond the U.S. territorial sea.
5.2 Delegation of the Investigation
The State initially responsible under Annex 13 need not perform every investigative function itself. Paragraph 5.3 expressly allows the State of Registry to delegate the whole or any part of the investigation to another State by mutual arrangement and consent (ICAO, 2024, para. 5.3).
Canada could consequently bear the initial State-of-Registry responsibility while agreeing that the United States conduct all or part of the investigation. Such an arrangement would be legally distinct from a finding that the United States was the State of Occurrence.
Delegation changes who performs the functions transferred by agreement; it does not alter the geographical facts that triggered the original allocation of responsibility. A U.S.-conducted investigation could thus arise either because the accident occurred within U.S. territory or because investigative functions were delegated to the United States under Annex 13. Those are separate legal routes to American investigative involvement.
6. Search and Rescue Does Not Determine Jurisdiction
Search and rescue and aircraft accident investigation are governed by distinct parts of the international aviation framework. Annex 12 addresses search and rescue, while Annex 13 regulates the investigation of aircraft accidents and incidents. Operational leadership during an emergency does not itself establish which State bears responsibility for the later safety investigation (ICAO, 2024).
The U.S. Coast Guard’s extensive role south of Nantucket must be understood within that distinction. American rescue assets can search for an aircraft and its occupants without the search operation determining whether the United States is the State of Occurrence.
Recovery activity does not alter the principle. A State may become central to locating wreckage and supporting the physical response while another State remains responsible for instituting the investigation under Annex 13.
6.1 The Coast Guard’s Operational Role
The Coast Guard’s involvement reflects the location of the search near Nantucket and the availability of U.S. maritime search-and-rescue resources. Its operational presence, however, does not establish the coordinate at which C-GRJP entered the water.
Annex 13 expressly anticipates assistance in international waters. Paragraph 5.3.1 provides that States nearest the scene of an accident in international waters shall provide such assistance as they are able and shall respond to requests from the State of Registry (ICAO, 2024, para. 5.3.1).
American search leadership is consequently compatible with either principal jurisdictional outcome. If the accident occurred within U.S. territory, the United States could be both a principal rescue State and the State of Occurrence. If paragraph 5.3 applies, U.S. search assistance can coexist with Canada’s initial responsibility as State of Registry.
The position of a Coast Guard vessel or aircraft cannot substitute for the accident location. Search assets operate within a search area; State-of-Occurrence status depends on where the accident itself occurred.
6.2 Recovery and Technical Assistance
Annex 13 accommodates substantial cooperation among States even where one State retains responsibility for the investigation. States with defined connections to the aircraft may participate through accredited representatives, and the State conducting the investigation may obtain information, facilities, or expertise from other States (ICAO, 2024).
That cooperation can extend to technical and evidentiary work. Wreckage, recorded information, air traffic material, maintenance records, and aircraft components may require assistance from authorities or specialists outside the State formally conducting the investigation.
Multinational participation does not make the allocation of responsibility indeterminate. Several national authorities may contribute substantially while one State remains responsible under Annex 13 or another performs specified functions pursuant to a delegation.
7. Bermuda’s Legal Connection to the Accident
Bermuda has a direct factual connection to C-GRJP because the flight departed from L.F. Wade International Airport and carried two Bermudian passengers. Those connections do not make Bermuda the State of Occurrence for an accident taking place south of Nantucket.
Bermuda is a British Overseas Territory rather than a separate contracting State to the Chicago Convention. Within the international treaty framework, the United Kingdom is the relevant contracting State, while Bermuda maintains domestic civil-aviation arrangements applicable to the territory.
The Civil Aviation (Investigation of Air Accidents and Incidents) (Bermuda) Regulations 2018 designate the United Kingdom Air Accidents Investigation Branch as Bermuda’s accident investigation authority (Bermuda, 2018, reg. 8(1)). The Regulations require investigation of occurrences within their defined territorial scope and also address specified circumstances involving Bermuda-registered aircraft outside Bermuda, including cases in which an occurrence location cannot definitely be established within the territory of any State (Bermuda, 2018, reg. 8(3)).
C-GRJP was Canadian-registered, and the occurrence was not reported as taking place in or over Bermuda. Departure from Bermuda consequently does not transfer the primary Annex 13 responsibility to Bermuda or the United Kingdom. The passengers’ connection with Bermuda likewise does not displace the State-of-Occurrence and State-of-Registry rules governing which State is responsible for the safety investigation.
8. N264DB and the Annex 13 Delegation Model
The 2019 accident involving Piper PA-46-310P Malibu N264DB illustrates how the Annex 13 system can operate when an aircraft is lost in international waters. The aircraft disappeared on January 21, 2019, during a flight from Nantes to Cardiff and was later located approximately 22 nautical miles north-northwest of Guernsey (AAIB, 2020).
The UK Air Accidents Investigation Branch recorded that, because the aircraft was lost in international waters, responsibility under Annex 13 initially rested with the United States as the aircraft’s State of Registry. On January 22, 2019, the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board delegated responsibility for the investigation to the United Kingdom, represented by the AAIB, as the State of the Operator (AAIB, 2020).
N264DB is an example of institutional practice rather than judicial precedent. No court judgment from the accident created a binding rule for later investigations. Its relevance lies in the practical application of the delegation mechanism already contained in Annex 13.
The comparison also clarifies the possible structure of a C-GRJP investigation. If Canada bears the initial responsibility under paragraph 5.3, it may conduct the investigation itself or delegate all or part of it by agreement. The State to which investigative functions are delegated need not be the State on which Annex 13 initially placed responsibility.
9. What Could Still Change the Legal Answer
An authoritative occurrence coordinate remains central to the jurisdictional analysis. Establishing where C-GRJP entered the water would allow that position to be compared with the outer boundary of the U.S. territorial sea and could determine whether the United States qualifies as the State of Occurrence.
A search area or debris location does not answer that question on its own. Such information can assist investigators in reconstructing the event, but the legal classification depends on the occurrence location rather than on the later position of rescue assets or recovered material.
Institutional arrangements may clarify a different question: which authority actually conducts the investigation. If the territorial rule applies, the NTSB is the relevant U.S. accident-investigation authority. If paragraph 5.3 places the initial responsibility on Canada, the Transportation Safety Board of Canada is the corresponding Canadian safety-investigation body. Annex 13 nevertheless permits delegation, so the authority performing the investigation may differ from the State on which the initial responsibility fell.
The cause of the accident remains analytically separate from this allocation question. Reports concerning electrical problems, an emergency declaration, communication difficulties, and the aircraft’s descent may form part of the eventual evidentiary record, but none establishes why C-GRJP was lost.
Also read
Conclusion
Responsibility for investigating the loss of C-GRJP turns principally on the location of the occurrence. International aviation law does not allocate the safety investigation according to the flight’s departure from Bermuda, its intended arrival in Boston, the nationality of those aboard, or the State conducting the maritime search.
If the accident occurred within U.S. territory, including the territorial sea, the United States would ordinarily bear the initial responsibility as the State of Occurrence under the Chicago Convention and Annex 13. If the accident location cannot definitely be established as being within the territory of any State, Canada would bear the initial responsibility as the aircraft’s State of Registry under Annex 13 paragraph 5.3.
Delegation must be kept separate from that initial allocation. Canada could delegate all or part of an investigation to the United States without changing the legal basis on which Canada first became responsible, just as the United States could delegate investigative functions after becoming responsible as State of Occurrence.
The decisive legal sequence is consequently straightforward: establish the occurrence location, identify the Annex 13 rule that allocates initial responsibility, and then determine whether any formal delegation affects which authority actually conducts the investigation.
References
Air Accidents Investigation Branch (2020) Aircraft Accident Report AAR 1/2020 – Piper PA-46-310P Malibu, N264DB, 21 January 2019. Air Accidents Investigation Branch. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/aaib-reports/aircraft-accident-report-aar-1-2020-piper-pa-46-310p-malibu-n264db-21-january-2019 (Accessed: 4 October 2026).
Associated Press (2026) ‘Crews find “debris field” from 6-person medical flight missing over the Atlantic en route to Boston’, AP News, 3 October. Available at: https://apnews.com/article/ccb6014ac35e2af11879e28e6c8527df (Accessed: 4 October 2026).
Bermuda (2018) Civil Aviation (Investigation of Air Accidents and Incidents) Regulations 2018, BR 144/2018, made and operative 10 December 2018. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5f69d278e90e077f603512f3/Accident_Regulations_Bermuda_2018.pdf (Accessed: 4 October 2026).
Canada (1989) Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board Act, S.C. 1989, c. 3, assented to 29 June 1989. Available at: https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-23.4/ (Accessed: 4 October 2026).
Convention on International Civil Aviation (1944) signed at Chicago, 7 December 1944, entered into force 4 April 1947, 15 UNTS 295, ICAO Doc 7300. Available at: https://treaties.un.org/Pages/showDetails.aspx?clang=_en&objid=0800000280163d69 (Accessed: 4 October 2026).
Geddes, D. and Quigley, K. (2026) ‘Coast Guard discovers debris from missing aircraft south of Nantucket’, The Inquirer and Mirror, 3 October. Available at: https://www.ack.net/news/coast-guard-discovers-debris-from-aircraft-south-of-nantucket/article_572b1355-4ab1-4c0f-9b65-1f4a031c2ff3.html (Accessed: 4 October 2026).
Graziadei, J. (2026) ‘Coast Guard Searching For Missing Plane In Waters South Of Nantucket’, Nantucket Current, 3 October. Available at: https://nantucketcurrent.com/news/coast-guard-search-underway-for-plane-in-waters-south-of-nantucket (Accessed: 4 October 2026).
International Civil Aviation Organization (2024a) Annex 12 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation: Search and Rescue. 9th ed. Montréal: ICAO. Available at: https://store.icao.int/en/annex-12-search-and-rescue (Accessed: 4 October 2026).
International Civil Aviation Organization (2024b) Annex 13 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation: Aircraft Accident and Incident Investigation. 13th ed. Montréal: ICAO. Available at: https://store.icao.int/en/annex-13-aircraft-accident-and-incident-investigation (Accessed: 4 October 2026).
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (2026) ‘Maritime Zones and Boundaries’ [online], updated 18 March 2026. Available at: https://www.noaa.gov/maritime-zones-and-boundaries (Accessed: 4 October 2026).
Skyport (2026) Statement concerning Canadian-registered air ambulance C-GRJP, 3 October 2026, reproduced in Skelton, G.F. (2026) ‘Air ambulance missing between Bermuda and Boston’, Bermuda Broadcasting Company [online]. Available at: https://bbc.bm/air-ambulance-missing-between-bermuda-and-boston (Accessed: 4 October 2026).
United States (2026) Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49, Part 831, §§ 831.20 and 831.22, Investigation Procedures [online]. Available at: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-49/subtitle-B/chapter-VIII/part-831/subpart-B/section-831.20 and https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-49/subtitle-B/chapter-VIII/part-831/subpart-B/section-831.22 (Accessed: 4 October 2026).
United States Coast Guard (2026) The U.S. Coast Guard Addendum to the United States National Search and Rescue Supplement (NSS) to the International Aeronautical and Maritime Search and Rescue Manual (IAMSAR), CI 16130.2I, 2 February 2026. Washington, DC: U.S. Coast Guard. Available at: (Accessed: 4 October 2026).