On February 11 2026, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) issued a NOTAM closing the airspace in a radius of 10 miles around El Paso up to 17,999 feet to all traffic, for undisclosed ‘special security reasons’. This NOTAM was circulated with very little warning and was valid for 10 days. It caused a de-facto closure of El Paso International Airport and a grounding of all operations in that area. All air traffic was affected, including rescue and police operations, media, private aviation, passenger, commercial and even military flights. The US had not seen anything like this since 9/11 and even then, the NOTAMs were not issued for such prolonged periods of time. The NOTAM was then unexpectedly lifted a few hours later and Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy announced on X that the Department of War and the FAA had acted swiftly to address a cartel drone intrusion.
Wording, timing and explanations
The NOTAM was very unusual, not least because police and hospital flights are usually exempt from such airspace closure, as are military flights, especially as El Paso is home to the US Army’s Biggs Airfield at Fort Bliss. Was it a sign of unpreparedness or was there a real threat to all flights?
The short notice of the NOTAM caused multiple scheduled flights to be cancelled and airlines’ aircraft got trapped in El Paso. The duration of the NOTAM was particularly unusual. Why close a portion of airspace for ten days to address a cartel drone intrusion? Such a duration sounds excessively long and arbitrary. This points to either precipitation or some kind of political powerplay.
As for the somewhat vague ‘special security reasons’ mentioned – scant details were available. Why not mention counter drone operations? The NOTAM was issued under title 14 CFR 99.7: “Administrator in the interest of national security, pursuant to agreement between the FAA and the Department of Defense, or between the FAA and a U.S. Federal security or intelligence agency.”
To enter the area, pilots had to coordinate with Joint Task Force – Southern Border (JTF-SB), a US Northern Command military task force for conducting operations on the southern border with 9,600+ military members.
Military lasers drones and party balloons?
A few days later, multiple media outlets reported that the US military had used laser-based weapons to counter the ‘drone incursion’, and it transpired that they were not drones but party balloons.
Beyond the anecdotal aspect of the story, it reveals some elements that are worthy of careful consideration. Drones can represent a real security threat to society, not only to aviation, and this must not be taken lightly. And while it may have been party balloons this time, that does not mean it could not be drones the next time.
Counter drone operations involve multiple agencies and require a great deal of coordination. Local police, state police, border control, military and aviation authorities must work hand in hand, and this was clearly not the case here. Multiple reports mentioned that the military deployed a laser based weapon known as LOCUST, which caused sufficient worries at the FAA to trigger the airspace closure.
The case for threat identification and safety
Defending airspace against unauthorised drones is not an easy task. Detecting such a threat is complicated and using weapons against drones is even harder. The reaction times are short and the flying dynamics make drones difficult to shoot at.
Counter drone systems range from radio and GPS jammers to automated guns and lasers, which are potentially dangerous to humans. High-intensity lasers can cause a drone to melt down, but also blind a pilot or a passenger temporarily or definitely. Relying exclusively on automation to pull the trigger presents a risk of misidentification, which becomes critical if the weapon can present a danger to safety. Having a human making the final decision makes a system slow but it still is the best solution at the moment. Besides, this also raises a question about using hazardous systems for counter drone systems. Is it acceptable to use lasers and firearms to protect an airspace against drones, with other traffic around?
Did safety culture prevail?
Following calls for a full explanation and clarity into the El Paso airspace closure, Transportation Secretary Duffy said on February 20 that the shutdown was not a mistake and that he would be briefing lawmakers in the coming days.
The full details of what happened behind the scenes will likely remain confidential and nobody can say that the FAA acted in an unsafe way. A full airspace closure for ten days was probably an overreaction but it was certainly better than putting air traffic at risk. Multi-domain activities like drone and counter drone operations involve actors way beyond aviation and the safety culture that characterises the aviation industry shall continue to prevail, for the safety of the passengers and crews.
Thanks to Mathew Lewallen for the initial research on this topic.
