The facts: NOTAMs with far-reaching effects
Already since the 5 March 2025 in Antwerp is the NOTAM A1458/25 active. It explicitly prohibits all flights by aircraft powered by AVGAS-100LL engines - unless there is a PPR authorisation (Prior Permission Required) before. However, this authorisation is de facto no longer issuedas the pilots concerned confirm. The last possibility for individual exceptions is also ruled out due to "exhausted quotas".
On 1 May 2025 followed Ostend-Bruges with a similar ban - and here, too, the reference to "environmental protection" is used as a blanket justification. What both airports have in common is not only their location in Flanders, but also their political sponsorship by the Flemish regional governmentwhich has set itself ambitious environmental targets.
Technically and legally problematic
AVGAS 100LL is a leaded aviation fuel that is used worldwide in general aviation - especially for piston-engined aircraft. Although the introduction of lead-free alternatives like UL94 or G100UL However, these fuels are still in the process of being introduced or are only certified and available in individual cases.
There is a general ban on the use of AVGAS 100LL. at European level. Although a Production ban from 2025 under discussionhowever, there are currently neither an import ban nor a ban on use for the tried and tested fuel. Corresponding Transition periods until at least 2032 are considered realistic - especially as technical conversions, certifications and infrastructure measures take time.
Also Air quality data speak against a general ban: The Federal Environment Agency in Germany has repeatedly confirmed that lead exposure from general aviation negligibly low and is well below the permissible limits. According to studies, the main sources of remaining lead emissions are Industrial processes and abrasion from tyres and brakes - but not aerodromes with AVGAS operations.
Legal escalation: lawsuit failed - but resistance is growing
One Coalition of Belgian aircraft owners had one in Antwerp Urgent application against the NOTAM placed. The legal support of the IAOPA (International Council of Aircraft Owner and Pilot Associations) was not included - for reasons that remain unclear. The Belgian court rejected the application and based its decision on an alleged AVGAS ban already in force in the EU. In the opinion of numerous aviation experts, this justification is not durable.
The IAOPA Europerepresented by Chairman Michael Erbas well as the national AOPAs in Luxembourg, Germany and the Netherlands, have clearly positioned themselves against the procedure. They are currently working on legal steps - including possible crowdfunding financing for lawsuitsto prevent precedents from being set.
International associations such as the GAMA (General Aviation Manufacturers Association) and Europe Air Sports see the measures as a disproportionate interference with the mobility and safety of general aviation. Even aeroplanes of the Belgian Coast Guard are affected because some of their maritime reconnaissance aircraft are fuelled with AVGAS - a questionable side effect in terms of security policy.
A dangerous precedent for Europe
The concerns of the aviation organisations are clear: If a European-authorised airport denies access to European aircraft with authorised fuelThe basic principle of harmonisation and freedom of movement in European airspace is undermined. Such restrictions could can also be arbitrarily introduced elsewhereif this case is not legally clarified.
The AOPA Luxembourg formulates it clearly:
"We support the goal of a lead-free future - but not through chaos, illegality and marginalisation. The move by Ostend and Antwerp is an attack on the freedoms of aviation."
The request to the Belgian authorities is clear: Withdrawal of the bans or full scientific justification in accordance with EU law.
A structured transition instead of political symbolism
The European aviation industry is working intensively on alternative fuelsbut the transition must be Legally compliant, technically sound and economically feasible be. The current situation is a warning: well-intentioned environmental protection must not be allowed to turn into technological refusal or political actionism end.
Conclusion:
The actions in Antwerp and Ostend raise fundamental questions about proportionality and the rule of law in the European aviation area. It is to be hoped that legal clarifications and pressure from international aviation associations will lead to environmental policy objectives and reliable framework conditions for general aviation being harmonised - instead of unilaterally imposing bans that cause more harm than good.
Source references:
AOPA