El Salvador has made visible progress since adopting its 2022–2025 aviation safety plan, including the certification of Ilopango International Airport. But the latest ICAO data show that strengthening airport infrastructure is only part of the equation. The country still faces a wider challenge: ensuring that its capacity to regulate, certify and continuously oversee airports develops at the same pace.
When El Salvador published its National Aviation Safety Plan in 2022, Ilopango International Airport was still going through the certification process. The country was also targeting improvements in airport oversight, safety management and institutional capacity.
Four years later, one of those changes is clearly visible.
Ilopango was certified in 2024, a milestone the Civil Aviation Authority (AAC) described as part of the effort to ensure that the aerodrome complied with applicable safety regulations.
But certification of an individual airport tells only part of the story.
ICAO data published in October 2025 gave El Salvador an Effective Implementation score of 75.2% in Aerodromes and Ground Aids (AGA) — the area of aviation oversight covering aerodromes and their supporting systems.
That matters because El Salvador’s own 2022–2025 plan had set a target of at least 85% in both aerodrome oversight and accident investigation by its next USOAP audit.
The gap points to a challenge that goes beyond building or certifying infrastructure.
Airport development needs an oversight system behind it
Airport safety depends on physical infrastructure, but also on what happens after the infrastructure is built.
Authorities need enough technical capacity to certify facilities, conduct inspections, monitor operators and ensure that deficiencies are corrected. As traffic and airport activity grow, those responsibilities grow with them.
El Salvador had already recognised this in its national plan.
The document identified certification, continuous surveillance and the resolution of safety deficiencies among the areas requiring greater attention. It also singled out the aerodrome sector as one of the parts of the national aviation system that needed improvement.
This makes the 75.2% figure particularly relevant. It is not simply a judgement on the condition of runways or airport facilities. It reflects the broader State system responsible for ensuring that aerodromes continue to meet safety requirements over time.
ICAO’s detailed 2025 assessment shows that El Salvador performs strongly in some parts of that framework while weaker results remain in areas linked to technical personnel, certification processes and continuing surveillance.
For airport operators and policymakers, that distinction is important: an airport can reach a major certification milestone while the wider oversight system still has room to strengthen.
The 2025 ICAO audit created a new checkpoint
The end of the national plan also coincided with a major external review.
ICAO completed a Universal Safety Oversight Audit Programme audit of El Salvador from 16 to 28 July 2025.
Ahead of the audit, the AAC had been working on regulatory updates, staff preparation, documentation and internal assessments. The authority’s own preparation material shows that the exercise covered multiple parts of the civil aviation system, from aircraft operations and airworthiness to air navigation, aerodromes and accident investigation.
The audit therefore gives El Salvador a new reference point after the four-year safety plan.
There is one important limitation, however. The 2022 plan recorded an overall Effective Implementation score of 89.64%, but ICAO’s audit protocols have since evolved. The old and newer figures should therefore not be treated as a simple like-for-like measure of whether aviation safety has risen or fallen.
The more meaningful question is whether the specific weaknesses identified by El Salvador are being addressed.
On aerodromes, the latest available ICAO figure suggests that work remains.
Progress is real — but safety capacity must scale with it
That does not make the 2022–2025 cycle a story of missed targets.
Ilopango’s certification is a concrete change from the position described when the plan was written. The country has also undergone a new ICAO audit and continued updating its safety-management framework, including the approval of a new edition of its RAC 19 Safety Management Regulation in July 2025.
The more useful lesson is that airport development and aviation oversight are two different layers of the same system.
One creates capacity on the ground. The other ensures that this capacity continues to operate safely.
That distinction becomes increasingly important as aviation markets expand. New infrastructure, additional operations or airport certifications also create more demand for inspectors, technical expertise, surveillance processes, safety data and regulatory follow-up.
El Salvador’s own safety plan recognised some of those pressures. Alongside infrastructure constraints, it identified limited resources, safety culture and institutional capacity among the challenges facing the national aviation system.
The issue is therefore no longer simply whether the country can deliver individual projects or certifications. It is whether the system responsible for supervising them can develop at the same pace.
The post-2025 challenge
El Salvador’s plan was designed to run through 2025. It also called for continuous monitoring of its safety initiatives and for progress to be measured against national objectives.
The end of that cycle leaves a more nuanced picture than a single audit score can provide.
An important airport certification has been completed. The regulatory framework has continued to evolve. A new ICAO audit has provided another external assessment of the country’s aviation system.
At the same time, aerodrome oversight stood at 75.2% in ICAO’s October 2025 data, below the 85% level El Salvador had targeted.
For the next phase of the country’s aviation safety strategy, the central challenge is therefore increasingly clear: infrastructure progress needs to be matched by the institutional capacity to oversee it.
