Feds end "10-day" closure of El Paso airspace after less than 10 hours

"In its notice, the FAA also restricted air space extended in a radius of 10 nautical miles from the airport. However, less than 10 hours later and without any additional explanation, the FAA ended the restrictions. "The temporary closure of airspace over El Paso has been lifted," the federal agency said on social media. "There is no threat to commercial aviation. All flights will resume as normal.""

"In announcing the closure on Tuesday night, the FAA offered no explanation for the closure aside from determining that the area was classified as "national defense airspace," and adding that the United States government may use "deadly force" against any airborne aircraft. Local officials in El Paso and statewide were not given advance notice for the air space closure."

"The El Paso airport serves more than 3 million customers a month, and according to the 2020 US Census, it lies in the 22nd most-populous city in the United States. The lack of communication from federal officials regarding such a disruptive closure, and then its abrupt end, raise serious questions about the coordination among federal agencies, especially if the FAA was making the closure on behalf of another federal body, such as the US Department of Defense."

The Federal Aviation Administration halted flights into and out of El Paso International Airport late Tuesday and announced restrictions that would remain for 10 days, including airspace limited to a 10-nautical-mile radius. Less than 10 hours later the FAA abruptly ended the restrictions and said there was no threat to commercial aviation and flights would resume. The closure was classified as "national defense airspace" and warned that the United States government may use "deadly force" against airborne aircraft. Local and state officials received no advance notice and were given no information when restrictions were lifted, creating disruption at a busy airport and raising concerns about federal coordination and credibility.

Read at Ars Technica