Background to the halon ban
Halon extinguishing agents were considered the standard in aviation for decades. They are highly effective, electrically non-conductive, residue-free and comparatively gentle on materials. It is precisely these properties that make them ideal for use in cockpits and cabins. At the same time, halons are among the substances with particularly high ozone depletion potential. Their use has therefore been banned in the civilian sector for many years.
Temporary exemptions were authorised internationally for aviation, as no equivalent alternatives were available for a long time. These exemptions are now coming to an end. From 1 January 2026, fire extinguishers containing halon may no longer be operated or used. The European Union has made it clear that no further extension of the deadline is planned.
Shortage of alternatives and drastic price trends
The time overlap with commercial air traffic is particularly problematic. Airlines have to retrofit their fire extinguishers at the same time as general aviation. This means that extremely high demand meets a very limited supply.
Halotron 2 is currently the only extinguishing agent that fulfils both aviation law requirements and environmental regulations. This extinguishing agent comes closest to halon in terms of its effect and is considered to be comparatively gentle on people and materials. However, production capacities are low, supply chains are tight and the market is virtually empty. Prices of around 1,800 euros per portable fire extinguisher are no longer an exception, and delivery times are often unclear or cannot be specified at all.
For many private and club owners, this represents a considerable economic burden, especially for older aircraft with a low market value.
The legal dilemma from 2026
At the beginning of 2026, a contradictory situation arises: a halon fire extinguisher on board is a violation of applicable environmental law. However, the complete absence of a fire extinguisher may - depending on the aircraft category - constitute a violation of aviation equipment regulations.
This constellation is causing great uncertainty for many owners, especially in the ELA-2 class, where fire extinguishers are still formally mandatory.
Clear situation with ELA 1 and touring motor gliders
There is an important clarification for ELA-1 aircraft with a maximum take-off mass of up to 1,200 kilograms and for motorised touring gliders. According to European operating regulations, these aircraft are not required to carry a fire extinguisher. Older national regulations take a back seat here, as European law takes precedence.
This results in a clear situation for this group: Neither a halon fire extinguisher nor a halon-free replacement is mandatory. The absence of a fire extinguisher does not constitute an offence.
Focus ELA 2: Statistically hardly relevant fire incidents
The assessment of ELA-2 aircraft is much more complex. However, an analysis of European accident and incident data shows that the actual risk of cabin fires is extremely low. In the past ten years, only three incidents of in-flight fire or corresponding precursors have been recorded in ELA-2 aircraft across Europe.
Two of these cases occurred in hot air balloons and were without serious personal injury. The remaining case involved an ELA-2 fixed-wing aircraft, but no serious injuries were documented. It is not known whether a fire extinguisher was used at all in this case.
These figures emphasise that cabin fires in non-commercial flight operations are extremely rare. Strict approval regulations for materials, electrical systems and installations contribute significantly to this.
Real fire risks usually lie outside the cabin
In practice, fire incidents occur much more frequently outside the cabin, for example in the engine compartment during take-off, on overheated brakes after landing or during ground operations. For such scenarios, commercially available fire extinguishers to EN3 standard are sufficient in many cases.
For fires involving lithium-ion batteries, for example in tablets or smartphones, the use of a fire extinguisher in a cramped aircraft cabin is considered problematic anyway. Fireproof, airtight special bags are a much more sensible solution here. Even modern extinguishing agents can be a considerable strain on the respiratory tract in poorly ventilated cabins.
Current efforts to find a practical solution
International aviation associations are currently lobbying the European authorities to categorise portable fire extinguishers in non-commercial operation as so-called „non-installed equipment“. As these devices are not permanently attached to the aircraft, they could be treated similarly to mobile navigation devices in regulatory terms.
At the same time, it is argued that the very low number of relevant fire incidents does not justify disproportionate costs and market distortions. The aim is to enable the use of suitable fire extinguishers on a voluntary basis and not to put owners in a legal or economic predicament.
Conclusion and outlook
The end of halon fire extinguishers is understandable and logical from an environmental and climate protection perspective. However, the implementation will affect general aviation under difficult conditions. There is legal certainty for ELA-1 aircraft, while the situation for ELA-2 aircraft is still in flux.
Anyone who is currently able and willing to invest in halon-free fire extinguishers is thereby increasing their own equipment safety. However, in view of the statistical safety situation, a mandatory and nationwide conversion hardly seems proportionate. The decisive factor will be whether it is possible to create a practicable European solution in good time that sensibly combines environmental requirements, flight safety and the reality of general aviation.
Source references:
AOPA
