FAA Nationwide Ground Stop: What International Aviation Law Requires

Introduction

The FAA ground stop on November 13, 2026, suspended aircraft departures across the United States after communications problems affected the national air traffic control system. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) imposed the restriction as a safety measure, while international arrivals required separate operational handling. The disruption raised immediate questions about flight cancellations, connections through American airports, and the legal rights of passengers traveling between countries.

The United States has broad authority to regulate aviation within its territory. That authority operates alongside international obligations established by the 1944 Convention on International Civil Aviation, commonly known as the Chicago Convention. The treaty recognizes national airspace sovereignty while providing a framework for aviation safety, air navigation services, international cooperation, and the treatment of foreign aircraft.

The legal consequences of the ground stop depend on distinctions that are easily overlooked during a nationwide disruption. The FAA’s authority to suspend departures is separate from an airline’s obligation to refund a ticket or compensate a passenger. International aviation law does not establish a universal payment for every delayed flight, and the rights available under American, European, British, Canadian, and Australian law differ substantially.

1. FAA Ground Stop: What Happened on November 13

On Friday, November 13, 2026, the FAA ordered a nationwide ground stop following reported communications difficulties involving Air Route Traffic Control Centers. U.S. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy announced that the issue affected the 22 centers responsible for managing aircraft traveling between regions of the country. FAA technicians were investigating the disruption when the initial announcements were made.

The restriction primarily concerned departures. Aircraft already airborne were permitted to continue operating under air traffic control instructions, while international flights approaching the United States were subject to individual operational decisions. The nationwide character of the measure distinguished it from the ground stops ordinarily imposed at particular airports because of weather, equipment problems, or congestion.

The immediate cause was described as a communications problem. That description identified the operational difficulty prompting the FAA’s response, but it did not establish which technical component had failed, whether the incident involved a single point of failure, or how the disruption developed across the network. Those questions require evidence beyond the announcement of the restriction.

1.1 The Nationwide Departure Suspension

The nationwide departure suspension was issued shortly before 4 p.m. Eastern Time, according to contemporaneous aviation reporting. Departing aircraft were instructed to remain on the ground until further notice. The instruction disrupted an aviation system in which airports, airlines, and air traffic control facilities depend on coordinated movements across multiple regions.

A ground stop differs from the closure of American airspace. It can prevent aircraft from departing without requiring every aircraft already in flight to land immediately. The distinction is particularly important for international flights: an aircraft approaching the United States may be able to continue toward its destination even while aircraft at American airports are unable to depart.

The November 2026 measure followed an earlier nationwide departure suspension on January 11, 2023, associated with a failure of the FAA’s Notice to Air Missions system. The September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks had prompted a substantially different aviation emergency involving the grounding and diversion of civil aircraft. The regulatory developments that followed those attacks are examined separately in the history of airport security and international aviation law.

1.2 The Communications Disruption and Its Consequences

Air Route Traffic Control Centers manage aircraft traveling through substantial portions of controlled airspace, particularly during the en route stages of flight. Their work depends on communication with pilots and coordination with other control facilities. A disruption affecting these functions can reduce the capacity of the system to maintain predictable aircraft movements.

Transportation Secretary Duffy’s statement established that the authorities were responding to a problem affecting the centers. It did not, by itself, demonstrate that all communications equipment at every center had become inoperative. Nor did it establish that every delayed or canceled flight nationwide resulted from the same technical event.

The practical consequences could extend beyond the period of the departure restriction. An aircraft held at its origin may subsequently arrive late at another airport, causing delays to later flights scheduled to use the same aircraft. Crews may also encounter duty-time limitations, and passengers may miss international connections. These secondary effects require separate assessment when determining the cause of a particular cancellation or delay.

2. Why the FAA Ordered a Nationwide Ground Stop

The FAA’s stated justification concerned aviation safety. Air traffic control depends on the reliable exchange of instructions and information, especially where aircraft move between areas managed by different control facilities. When the authority responsible for coordinating those movements identifies a serious operational constraint, limiting new departures can prevent additional aircraft from entering an already restricted system.

A ground stop is a traffic-management measure, not a finding that an accident is imminent. It allows controllers to manage the aircraft already operating while reducing the number of additional flights requiring clearances, routing decisions, and coordination. The effectiveness and proportionality of a particular restriction depend on the conditions confronting the authorities when it is imposed.

The November 13 decision therefore needs to be assessed according to the information then available to the FAA. The existence of a communications problem explains the general safety rationale. Whether a nationwide restriction was the least disruptive feasible response is a different question, requiring operational records, information about alternative measures, and the agency’s assessment of the risks.

2.1 Air Traffic Control Centers and Operational Safety

American air traffic control is organized through facilities performing different functions. Airport towers manage movements at and around airports, terminal facilities handle aircraft approaching and departing metropolitan areas, and Air Route Traffic Control Centers manage broader segments of en route airspace.

These functions are connected. An aircraft departing one airport may pass through several areas of responsibility before arriving at its destination. Coordination failures can complicate the transfer of control, the assignment of routes and altitudes, and the management of traffic flows. A communications disturbance affecting the en route system may consequently create difficulties beyond the facilities where the problem first appears.

The safety significance of the disruption cannot be measured solely by counting canceled flights. An operational restriction may prevent hazardous conditions without any resulting accident or loss of separation. Conversely, the absence of a reported accident does not establish whether the underlying communications system functioned adequately or whether available safeguards performed as intended.

2.2 Federal Authority and National Ground-Stop Procedures

Under Title 49 of the United States Code, the federal government has authority over the use and management of navigable airspace. Section 40103 provides the statutory basis for assigning and regulating the use of that airspace, while Section 44701 concerns minimum standards and regulations for aviation safety. These powers support the FAA’s administration of air traffic and its adoption of operational safety measures.

FAA Order JO 7210.3EE, Facility Operation and Administration, contains specific national ground-stop procedures. Section 18-13-4 requires consideration of less restrictive traffic-management initiatives before a national ground stop is implemented. It also addresses coordination with affected facilities, dissemination of operational advisories, monitoring of the restriction, and its modification or cancellation.

Those procedures are significant because a nationwide ground stop imposes substantial operational costs. A national restriction may nevertheless be justified when the problem cannot safely be managed through local or regional controls. The applicable standard must be assessed in light of the information, time, and technical options available to the decision-makers.

The published procedures establish what the FAA requires of its personnel. They do not prove whether the procedures were followed on November 13. That determination would depend on records of the agency’s decisions, communications, assessments, and available alternatives.

3. International Flights Entering U.S. Airspace

A nationwide American ground stop has consequences for international aviation even when its immediate instructions primarily govern departures from U.S. airports. Flights traveling from Canada, Europe, Latin America, Asia, and other regions may rely on American airports as destinations or connections. Aircraft already approaching the United States must continue to operate under applicable air traffic control instructions.

The distinction between departures and arrivals is essential. Suspending new departures can reduce demands on a communications system while controllers continue managing aircraft already airborne. International arrivals may still require revised routes, arrival sequencing, holding instructions, or other traffic-management measures.

The treatment of each flight depends on its position, destination, available airspace, fuel requirements, and operational conditions. A general announcement that arrivals are being handled individually does not establish that every inbound flight will land as scheduled or that every affected airline will operate under the same restrictions.

3.1 International Arrivals, Diversions, and Emergencies

An international flight approaching the United States remains subject to the instructions of the air traffic authorities responsible for the airspace through which it is traveling. Entry into American sovereign airspace brings the aircraft within the relevant United States regulatory framework, subject to applicable international obligations.

If a destination airport cannot accommodate an aircraft, the operator may need to consider an alternative airport. A diversion involves operational planning, communication with air traffic control, fuel requirements, airport availability, and the legal requirements governing entry into another state. The circumstances differ considerably between a routine operational diversion and an emergency involving an aircraft in distress.

Article 25 of the Chicago Convention addresses assistance to aircraft in distress within a contracting state’s territory, subject to the Convention’s terms. It does not convert an ordinary flight delay into an emergency or require states to disregard aviation safety restrictions. The provision becomes relevant when the condition of the aircraft calls for assistance, rather than simply because its intended arrival time has changed.

3.2 Cross-Border Coordination and ICAO Contingency Arrangements

International aviation depends on coordination between national air traffic service providers. Aircraft routinely cross boundaries between flight information regions, which are established for the provision of flight information and alerting services. These operational boundaries are not necessarily identical to territorial borders.

Annex 11 to the Chicago Convention addresses air traffic services and contains material concerning contingency arrangements for disruptions. Its Attachment C provides guidance for planning the continuation or adjustment of air traffic services when normal arrangements are interrupted. The legal status of such guidance must be distinguished from binding treaty provisions and applicable ICAO Standards.

A serious disruption may require coordination with neighboring authorities, the adjustment of routes, and the communication of restrictions to aircraft operators. These measures are intended to preserve safety while maintaining operations where practicable. They do not guarantee that international flights will remain unaffected when a major national air traffic control system is impaired.

4. What the Chicago Convention Requires of the United States

The Chicago Convention provides the principal treaty framework governing international civil aviation. It does not establish an international authority that replaces national air traffic controllers or directly administers American airspace. Its system rests on state sovereignty, cooperation, internationally agreed standards, and the exchange of information necessary for safe international operations.

A nationwide FAA ground stop therefore engages international aviation law without necessarily constituting an international legal dispute. The United States retains responsibility for exercising its aviation powers consistently with the Convention, while other contracting states and foreign airlines remain subject to the provisions applicable to their operations.

The treaty also requires careful interpretation. Provisions concerning airspace restrictions, aviation facilities, international standardization, and the avoidance of unnecessary delays address different obligations. None should be treated as creating an unrestricted right for an airline to depart during an established safety emergency.

4.1 Airspace Sovereignty and Emergency Restrictions

Article 1 of the Chicago Convention recognizes that every state has complete and exclusive sovereignty over the airspace above its territory. The United States consequently possesses authority to regulate civil aircraft operating within American sovereign airspace, including through measures intended to protect aviation safety.

Article 9 permits specified restrictions or prohibitions on flights over particular areas of territory under the conditions established by the Convention. It includes provisions concerning exceptional circumstances and emergencies. The article addresses restrictions on flight over territory and should not automatically be identified as the direct legal basis for every FAA departure restriction.

The FAA’s nationwide ground stop is more directly understood through American statutory authority and air traffic management procedures. The international dimension arises because foreign aircraft and international services may be affected by the exercise of that authority. The distinction between territorial regulation and impermissible enforcement abroad is central to enforcement jurisdiction in international law.

4.2 Air Navigation Infrastructure and International Standards

Article 28 of the Chicago Convention addresses air navigation facilities and standard systems. Its obligations are qualified by the phrase “so far as it may find practicable” and concern the provision of facilities and services to facilitate international air navigation in accordance with standards and practices recommended or established under the Convention.

Article 37 concerns cooperation toward a high degree of uniformity in aviation regulations, standards, procedures, and organization. The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) develops Standards and Recommended Practices through the institutional arrangements established by the Convention. Article 38 provides a mechanism for states to notify differences between their practices and applicable international Standards.

These provisions make communications reliability and contingency planning legitimate subjects of international aviation oversight. They do not establish that every technical failure is automatically a breach of the Chicago Convention. A legal assessment would require identification of the specific obligation concerned, its qualifications, the relevant standards, and the conduct of the state.

4.3 Aviation Safety and the Prevention of Unnecessary Delays

Article 22 requires contracting states to adopt practicable measures facilitating and expediting international air navigation and preventing unnecessary delays, particularly in the administration of immigration, quarantine, customs, and clearance procedures. It is a facilitation obligation, not an unconditional guarantee that international flights will operate without interruption.

The Convention recognizes that international aviation requires both efficient movement and effective safety regulation. A ground stop imposed because of a genuine air traffic control constraint cannot be characterized as internationally unlawful merely because it causes delay. The legality of an official measure depends on the applicable obligation and the circumstances in which the measure was adopted.

Article 11 is also relevant to the treatment of aircraft engaged in international air navigation. It requires a contracting state’s laws and regulations relating to the admission, departure, operation, and navigation of aircraft to be applied to aircraft of all contracting states without distinction as to nationality, subject to the Convention. Whether discriminatory treatment occurred in a particular disruption would require evidence about how the restriction was implemented.

5. U.S. Flight Cancellations, Refunds, and Airline Assistance

American aviation consumer protection law distinguishes cancellation and significant schedule changes from other forms of delay. Under the U.S. Department of Transportation’s refund rules, a passenger whose flight is canceled, or significantly changed or delayed, may be entitled to a refund when the passenger does not accept alternative transportation or other offered compensation.

For international itineraries, the Department of Transportation identifies a scheduled departure at least six hours earlier or an arrival at least six hours later as examples of significant changes. The assessment concerns the relevant itinerary and the regulatory conditions, not simply the length of time a passenger waits at a departure gate. A canceled flight can separately give rise to refund rights.

The reason for a cancellation does not ordinarily eliminate the refund entitlement where the applicable regulatory conditions are satisfied. A refund is also different from a payment for inconvenience. American law does not establish a universal system of fixed cash compensation for every flight delayed because of air traffic control restrictions.

Airlines may offer rebooking, meals, accommodation, or other assistance under their contracts and customer-service commitments. Those commitments must be considered according to their terms, including distinctions between disruptions within an airline’s control and those caused by external circumstances. An FAA-imposed restriction may therefore produce a refund entitlement without producing an additional obligation to pay for every resulting expense.

Separate rules apply to extended tarmac delays at covered U.S. airports. Under the Department of Transportation’s tarmac-delay framework, airlines generally must provide an opportunity to deplane before the relevant three-hour domestic or four-hour international limit, subject to specified safety, security, and air traffic control exceptions. The rules also establish requirements concerning essential onboard assistance, including food and water at the applicable interval. Their operation depends on the circumstances of the particular aircraft and delay.

6. International Passenger Rights After the Ground Stop

Passengers affected by the FAA ground stop may be protected by more than one legal regime. The governing rules depend on the itinerary, the airline, the places of departure and arrival, and the particular remedy sought. An American air traffic control decision does not automatically displace passenger protections arising under foreign legislation or an applicable international treaty.

The available remedies must also be separated. A ticket refund restores the price of transportation that the passenger does not receive or elects not to accept under the applicable rules. Care and assistance address immediate needs during disruption. Compensation for delay may require additional conditions, while damages under the Montreal Convention concern legally recoverable loss rather than an automatic payment.

Differences between legal systems become especially important for international connecting journeys. A passenger departing Europe for the United States may have rights under European legislation that a passenger beginning a separate journey at an American airport does not possess. The same ground stop can consequently produce different legal outcomes for travelers affected by similar operational delays.

6.1 The 1999 Montreal Convention and Delay Damages

The Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air, adopted in Montreal in 1999, establishes rules governing carrier liability in qualifying international carriage. Article 1 defines its scope, including carriage between the territories of two states parties and certain journeys involving an agreed stopping place in another state.

Article 19 addresses damage occasioned by delay in the carriage of passengers, baggage, or cargo. A carrier may avoid liability by proving that it and its servants and agents took all measures reasonably required to avoid the damage, or that taking such measures was impossible. The provision requires attention to the delay, the alleged loss, causation, and the carrier’s response.

The Montreal Convention does not award a fixed amount whenever a flight arrives late. A passenger claiming delay damages must establish a legally recoverable loss under the applicable rules. Expenses resulting from a missed connection or another disruption may raise such questions, but recovery is not automatic simply because expenditure followed the delay.

The ordinary limit for passenger-delay liability under Article 22(1) was revised to 6,303 Special Drawing Rights, effective December 28, 2024, through the Convention’s periodic review mechanism. That figure is a liability limitation rather than a standard award.

Article 22(5) provides an exception where damage results from conduct undertaken with intent to cause damage, or recklessly with knowledge that damage would probably result. When the conduct involves an employee or agent, it must also be established that the person acted within the scope of employment.

An FAA ground stop does not conclusively answer an Article 19 claim. The court or other competent decision-maker would need to examine the relationship between the restriction and the passenger’s loss, together with any reasonable measures available to the carrier. A nationwide order may be powerful evidence of an external operational constraint, but it does not resolve every element of liability.

6.2 EU261 and the October 2026 CJEU Judgment

Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 establishes passenger rights for flights within its territorial and carrier-based scope. Among other situations, it applies to departures from covered European airports and to certain flights arriving from third countries when operated by qualifying European carriers. Passengers affected by the FAA ground stop must first establish that their itinerary falls within the regulation.

The regulation distinguishes reimbursement and rerouting, care during disruption, and fixed compensation. An airline may be exempt from paying fixed compensation under Article 5(3) where it proves that the relevant cancellation or long delay resulted from extraordinary circumstances that could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken. The exemption does not remove the regulation’s separate obligations to provide applicable care and assistance.

On October 8, 2026, the Court of Justice of the European Union delivered its judgment in D (Air Traffic Management Decision), Case C-108/26 RX. The Court rejected the proposition that an air traffic management decision qualifies automatically as an extraordinary circumstance merely because it originates outside the airline. The event giving rise to the decision must be examined under the established legal test.

That reasoning is particularly relevant to the November FAA disruption. An airline cannot establish an exemption solely by showing that the FAA ordered departures to stop. The assessment must consider the underlying event, whether it was inherent in the airline’s normal activity, whether it was beyond the carrier’s actual control, and whether the carrier adopted the reasonable measures required by the regulation.

The precise technical cause of the November 13 disruption had not been established in the initial official announcements. It would therefore be premature to classify every resulting cancellation or delay conclusively under Article 5(3). A more detailed account of the governing compensation rules and the legislative changes appears in the analysis of EU flight delay compensation.

The European Union adopted Regulation (EU) 2026/2202 in September 2026, amending the existing passenger-rights framework. Although the measure entered into force in October 2026, its substantive amendments generally apply from October 23, 2027. Flights affected on November 13, 2026, must therefore be assessed under the legal rules applicable at that time, rather than under provisions scheduled to apply later.

6.3 UK261 and Comparable Air Traffic Disruptions

The United Kingdom maintains its own air passenger rights regime, commonly referred to as UK261. It applies to flights departing from the United Kingdom and to specified arrivals operated by qualifying UK or European carriers. A passenger traveling from the United States to Britain may therefore have different statutory rights depending on the operating airline.

UK261 distinguishes obligations to provide care and assistance from fixed compensation. Extraordinary circumstances may relieve an airline of fixed compensation obligations where the relevant legal conditions are satisfied. They do not, by themselves, remove the separate duty to assist passengers whose disrupted flights fall within the regime.

The UK Civil Aviation Authority considered the consequences of a National Air Traffic Services technical disruption in September 2026. It indicated that delays and cancellations caused by that incident were likely to involve extraordinary circumstances, while emphasizing that its assessment was guidance and that individual claims remained fact-sensitive. The October 2026 CJEU judgment does not automatically determine the interpretation of UK law following the United Kingdom’s departure from the European Union.

Operational disruptions can consequently produce different compensation outcomes even where their immediate cause is outside an airline’s ordinary activity. Similar distinctions arise in other European aviation disputes, including those considered in the analysis of the Brussels Airport strike and passenger compensation. The relevant inquiry remains the particular flight, the applicable legal system, and the facts supporting or defeating the claim.

6.4 Canadian and Australian Passenger Remedies

Canada’s Air Passenger Protection Regulations, SOR/2019-150, apply to qualifying flights to, from, and within Canada. Section 10 identifies circumstances outside an airline’s control and expressly includes instructions from air traffic control. An FAA-imposed ground stop may therefore fall within that category when it directly causes a disruption to a covered Canadian journey.

Classification as an outside-control event does not eliminate every obligation imposed on the airline. Under Section 10(3), the carrier must provide specified information and, subject to the regulation’s conditions, alternative travel arrangements or a refund. For qualifying delays, the provision addresses a delay of three hours or more; cancellations are treated separately. The absence of ordinary compensation for inconvenience must be distinguished from these continuing obligations.

Australian law requires a different assessment. Where the Australian Consumer Law applies, consumer guarantees may govern the provision of travel services, including obligations concerning reasonable care, skill, and time for performance. Their application depends on the nature of the service and the cause of the disruption.

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has explained that consumer guarantees are unlikely to provide a remedy when a delay or cancellation results from the actions of an independent third party, such as a government closing airspace or imposing flight restrictions. In those circumstances, refund or rebooking rights will generally depend on the terms and conditions of the booking.

An FAA ground stop may fall within that reasoning, but its consequences cannot be determined without examining the particular journey and contractual arrangements. Australian statutory protections should not be presumed to apply to every international ticket merely because the passenger resides in Australia or an Australian airline is involved.

These differences show why an airline’s response to a nationwide air traffic control restriction cannot be assessed under a single international compensation formula. The Montreal Convention, regional passenger-rights legislation, national consumer law, and contractual obligations address distinct aspects of the disruption.

7. Investigation and Responsibility for the FAA Disruption

Determining why the November 13 ground stop became necessary is primarily a technical and operational question. Investigators would need to establish which communications functions were affected, how the problem influenced air traffic control operations, and whether available safeguards permitted the continuation of some services. The initial public statements did not provide a sufficient basis for definitive findings on those questions.

The FAA’s operational response requires separate examination. Order JO 7210.3EE provides the relevant national ground-stop procedures, including consideration of less restrictive traffic-management measures. Whether those procedures were satisfied depends on the information available to the agency, the urgency of the restriction, and the operational alternatives that could reasonably have been implemented.

An equipment failure, procedural shortcoming, or disruption affecting international services does not automatically establish an internationally wrongful act. Under the general law of state responsibility, the relevant inquiry requires conduct attributable to a state and a breach of an international obligation binding on that state. Those elements are explained more fully in the principles of state responsibility in international law.

The Chicago Convention supplies obligations concerning international aviation, but none should be converted into a guarantee against technical failure. A claim of international responsibility would require identification of the specific treaty obligation allegedly breached, its scope and qualifications, and the conduct said to violate it. The available facts surrounding the initial ground stop did not establish such a breach.

Airline liability presents a separate question. The FAA may have imposed the restriction, but passengers ordinarily assert contractual, regulatory, or treaty-based claims against the carriers responsible for their transportation. The merits of those claims depend on the legal regime governing the itinerary and the evidence concerning the disruption and its consequences.

Conclusion

The November 13, 2026, FAA nationwide ground stop illustrates the relationship between domestic aviation authority and the international rules governing civil air transport. The United States possesses substantial powers to manage its airspace and restrict departures for safety reasons. Those powers operate within a treaty system that also requires cooperation, aviation standardization, and the provision of air navigation services subject to the Chicago Convention’s terms.

For international passengers, the immediate legal question is usually whether the airline must refund, reroute, assist, or compensate them. American consumer protection rules, the Montreal Convention, EU261, UK261, Canadian regulations, and Australian law provide different answers. The nature of the interruption may influence liability, but the existence of an FAA ground stop alone does not determine every claim.

The strongest conclusion supported by the initial facts is that the FAA imposed a nationwide safety restriction in response to reported communications difficulties. Whether the underlying event exposed a regulatory failure, justified particular compensation exemptions, or involved a breach of an international obligation requires further evidence. International aviation law provides the standards through which those questions can be examined; it does not permit their resolution by assumption.

References

Air Passenger Protection Regulations (2019) SOR/2019-150, registered 22 May 2019, Canada. Available at: https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-2019-150/FullText.html (Accessed: 13 November 2026).

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (n.d.) Travel delays and cancellations [online]. Available at: https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/specific-products-and-activities/travel-delays-and-cancellations (Accessed: 13 November 2026).

Code of Federal Regulations (2026) Title 14, § 259.4, ‘Contingency Plan for Lengthy Tarmac Delays’. Available at: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-II/subchapter-A/part-259/section-259.4 (Accessed: 13 November 2026).

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) (2010) Schedule 2, Australian Consumer Law, as amended. Australia. Available at: https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2004A00109/latest/downloads (Accessed: 13 November 2026).

Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air (1999) Adopted at Montreal on 28 May 1999; entered into force on 4 November 2003. ICAO Doc 9740. Available at: https://www.icao.int/sites/default/files/sustainability/Documents/Consumer%20Protection/Mtl99_EN.pdf (Accessed: 13 November 2026).

Convention on International Civil Aviation (1944) Signed at Chicago on 7 December 1944; entered into force on 4 April 1947. ICAO Doc 7300, 9th edn, 2006. Available at: https://www.icao.int/sites/default/files/2024-12/7300_cons.pdf (Accessed: 13 November 2026).

Court of Justice of the European Union (2026) D (Air traffic management decision), Case C-108/26 RX, judgment of 8 October 2026, ECLI:EU:C:2026:838. Available at: https://juris.curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?cid=2685752&dir=&docid=315964&doclang=EN&mode=req&occ=first&pageIndex=0&part=1&text= (Accessed: 13 November 2026).

Federal Aviation Administration (2025) Order JO 7210.3EE: Facility Operation and Administration, incorporating Changes 1–3, Chapter 18, Section 13, ‘Ground Stop(s)’. Washington, DC: Federal Aviation Administration. Available at: https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/foa_html/chap18_section_13.html (Accessed: 13 November 2026).

Funk, J. (2026) ‘Flights halted at airports across US due to air traffic control communications problems’, Associated Press, 13 November [online]. Available at: https://apnews.com/article/f81b0904331dafad6133f291e5f531a8 (Accessed: 13 November 2026).

International Civil Aviation Organization (2018) Annex 11 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation: Air Traffic Services. 15th edn. Montreal: International Civil Aviation Organization. Available at: https://store.icao.int/en/annex-11-air-traffic-services (Accessed: 13 November 2026).

International Civil Aviation Organization (2024) International air travel liability limits set to increase, enhancing customer compensation, 18 October [online]. Available at: https://www.icao.int/news/international-air-travel-liability-limits-set-increase-enhancing-customer-compensation-0 (Accessed: 13 November 2026).

International Law Commission (2001) Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts. Annex to United Nations General Assembly Resolution 56/83, 12 December 2001. UN Doc. A/RES/56/83. Available at: https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/draft_articles/9_6_2001.pdf (Accessed: 13 November 2026).

Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (2004) Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91. Official Journal of the European Union, L 46, 17 February, pp. 1–8. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2004/261/oj (Accessed: 13 November 2026).

Regulation (EU) 2026/2202 (2026) Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2026 amending Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 and Council Regulation (EC) No 2027/97. Official Journal of the European Union, L, 2026/2202, 2 October. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2026/2202/oj (Accessed: 13 November 2026).

UK Civil Aviation Authority (2026) CAA statement on passenger compensation following NATS disruption on 8 September, 9 September [online]. Available at: https://www.caa.co.uk/newsroom/news/caa-statement-on-passenger-compensation-following-nats-disruption-on-8-september/ (Accessed: 13 November 2026).

United States Code (2026) Title 49, § 40103, ‘Sovereignty and use of airspace’. Available at: https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/119-118/t49/s40103/ (Accessed: 13 November 2026).

United States Code (2026) Title 49, § 44701, ‘General requirements’. Available at: https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/119-136/t49/s44701/ (Accessed: 13 November 2026).

United States Department of Transportation (n.d.) Refunds [online]. Available at: https://www.transportation.gov/individuals/aviation-consumer-protection/refunds (Accessed: 13 November 2026).