With over four decades of experience in almost every layer of aviation – including cabin crew member, Boeing 737 captain, compliance manager and now Director General for Civil Aviation – Captain Charles Pace has firsthand experience of a significant change occurring within international aviation. “Conflict zones are one of the most significant and sensitive challenges facing aviation today,” he shares. Unlike previous decades where conflicts usually centred on remote localised areas, today’s geopolitical environment is much more volatile, with many global conflicts unfolding around major aviation hubs and primary commercial flight paths, directly affecting usable airspace.

The Russia-Ukraine conflict and the Middle East’s instability has placed serious restrictions on large sections of east-west airspace, forcing airlines onto longer alternative flight paths, explains Captain Pace. “There are very few available routes to pass through if you’re transporting passengers to India or China, having to avoid Russian and Middle Eastern flight corridors.” The consequent reroutings cause severe operational, financial and safety complications due to increased flight times, higher fuel costs and the technical hazards of navigating high mountainous terrain where emergency descents may be required.

“Under international aviation principles, airspace is meant to remain open and navigable yet this understanding is becoming increasingly difficult to sustain in the current climate,” he highlights. “Even routes that may not be directly dangerous can become inaccessible because of wider geopolitical entanglements.”

The skies are thus no longer politically neutral…

Discussing the challenges in balancing aviation safety, political realities and commercial pressures, the Director General is candid: “in pure safety terms, airlines would avoid conflict regions altogether.” Yet the interconnected nature of global aviation and commerce means governments and operators cannot terminate strategically important routes and transit hubs. The uncomfortable truth is that while the aviation industry should ideally consider political circumstances and sanctions in its safety decisions, it must adjust its risk appetite to factor in economic well being – because the alternative, lower risk approach presents other complications and impracticalities.

“Can we really shut down a whole area at length without serious repercussions?” he asks. “Yes, the safety of passengers and crew need to be top priority, but an overzealous approach could well be unsustainable. You can’t just eliminate hubs like Doha, Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Bahrain and Oman because the aviation industry and cargo industry would take an absolute battering.”

These key issues were discussed at the World Overflight Risk Conference (WORC2026), hosted in Malta in April, and strategically positioning the island as a serious participant in global safety discussions. Facilitating direct exchanges between regulators, airlines, insurers, intelligence specialists and security experts from 43 countries, the conference examined how emerging pressures (including rapidly evolving technology) are reshaping resilience and performance across the aviation sector, as well as how airlines assess risk and safety.

Historically, discussions around aviation risk have focused on aircraft and operational procedures but this year, crew confidence was among the topics covered. Regulators and airlines are increasingly having to recognise the human aspect of operating in conflict zones, and the psychological impact on crews is now considered a major safety priority.

Airlines are facing last-minute crew absenteeism as flight staff become uneasy seeing news coverage of military strikes near scheduled destinations. Some airlines are even allowing staff to decline particular rosters, as psychologically distressed crews can become a safety factor themselves; “the last thing you want is a nervous crew, especially in the cockpit.” Captain Pace’s own experiences as a pilot during the Israeli-Lebanon war involved take offs surrounded by explosions and landings near destroyed aircraft. “I can assure you, this creates anxiety,” he confirms.

The WORC also examined emerging threats including drones, Global Navigation Satellite System interference, and hybrid warfare. Captain Pace identifies drones as the single most worrying long-term aviation threat, highlighting that modern warfare has seen a fundamental change in the relationship between technology, violence and aviation security, including the growing detachment and desensitisation towards the human element of conflict.

“Traditional warfare involved an attacker’s physical proximity to a dangerous environment.” In contrast, modern remote systems are operated from a great distance without any personal risk to the perpetrator. “Technology is making it easier for operators to kill someone with alarming precision, without even leaving the safety of their seat. Now, you just need a person’s location and can simply direct a drone, armed with explosives, to strike a specific building, floor and room. Basically, you could be eating pizza while taking out a target in seconds. If that doesn’t scare you, I don’t know what does.”

The drone issue extends beyond terrorism into security, public safety, accessibility and social behaviour. Captain Pace emphasises that complacency is not an option for a country so dependent on aviation connectivity – describing the protection of island states’ aviation infrastructure as mission critical. “As drones are relatively cheap, easy to build and widely available, anyone with minimal training can now operate a device and cause major disruption. Individuals with limited experience are flying close to controlled airspace, used by commercial aviation. If we’re saying drones are a serious threat, then we need to appreciate that reality properly. The airport, runways and surrounding infrastructure must be protected to the highest level like the Grand Harbour.”

He also cautions against the prevailing attitude that Malta is insulated from global security threats. “I think we’re too quick to assume we’re not vulnerable just because Malta isn’t directly involved in geopolitical conflicts or actively fighting anyone. It’s important to understand that even if the probability of a threat is low, the impact – should something happen – would be extremely high so we really need to pay more attention.” Pointing out a related issue, Captain Pace says “if a prime minister or senior official in any other country were giving a speech and a drone suddenly appeared overhead, security forces wouldn’t take that lightly. Yet in Malta, we still have a laissez-faire mentality around this.”

It is also important not to underestimate the seriousness of uncontrolled drone activity around populated areas. He raises legitimate concerns over the invasion of privacy given that civilian operators can spy on individuals in their homes, observe residents’ movements for criminal purposes or cause harm by flying close to people at public events and private occasions.

Another dilemma for the aviation industry is gaining access to reliable intelligence for determining flight routes, guiding risk assessments and aiding critical decisions. “Civil aviation relies heavily on governments and military authorities sharing accurate and timely information,” Captain explains. Conversely, he acknowledges that parties involved in conflict are unlikely to fully disclose known intelligence for national security reasons and to maintain their upper hand in the element of surprise.

Consequently, genuine international cooperation regarding intelligence-sharing is difficult. Another complication is that information received can be incomplete or not fully verifiable, obliging airlines and regulators to make decisions based on rapidly changing and imperfect information. In such an environment, operators are reacting quickly despite uncertainty, and regulators are providing guidance without wanting to assume direct liability; “the decisions are rarely black and white.”

Despite these extensive challenges, Captain Pace is confident in the global network’s resilience and adaptability, particularly as modern technology makes the aforementioned fast responsiveness possible. Today’s real-time cockpit communication systems are a distinct contrast to the former telex-based world of Captain Pace’s early days in the industry, and information flow and responsiveness are now significantly more advanced.

Nevertheless, technological progress itself must be morally neutral because technology can both empower and destabilise aviation, i.e. the same systems that improve navigation, communication and operational safety can also be exploited maliciously through hacking and surveillance.

Ultimately, aviation in a time of conflict is a matter of judgment, responsibility and courage rather than simple procedural compliance. As Captain Pace pragmatically clarifies, “flying is not like driving a car where you can just pull over to the side of the road and stick your hazard lights on when a crisis hits. Once you're in the sky, you need somewhere safe to get down. Real aviation safety leadership depends on experienced operational people and strong organisations being willing to act decisively and make unpopular but necessary decisions, even when there are commercial consequences attached.”