American Pilots Detained in Guinea

Two American pilots, Fabio Espinal Nunez of New Jersey and Brad Schlenker of Illinois, have been detained in Guinea since late December 2025 following what their families describe as a routine refueling stop during an international business aviation flight. The pilots were flying a Brazilian family on a private Gulfstream IV from Suriname to Dubai. 

Initially, while in the air, they were asked if they had a landing permit specific to Guinea. They were unaware of a special permit, but requested and allegedly received clearance to land at least three times before landing at Ahmed Sékou Touré International Airport in Conakry for a fuel stop, with the intention of continuing their flight. 

Family members and U.S. media outlets report that the pilots had filed flight plans and received air traffic control clearance to land for fuel. Upon arrival, however, Guinean security forces reportedly surrounded the aircraft with approximately 100 heavily armed personnel who were screaming at the pilots in French and detained both men on the tarmac. Dogs searched the plane several times. 

The Allegations and the Clearance Dispute

Guinean authorities later charged the pilots with offenses related to unauthorized landing or entry into national airspace, despite the pilots’ insistence that they had permission to land through normal aviation channels. Public reporting has not included any official Guinean charging documents or judicial filings explaining why the asserted clearance was deemed invalid.

International aviation law recognizes that each state exercises complete sovereignty over the airspace above its territory, a principle codified in Article 1 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation, commonly known as the Chicago Convention. 

While international flight operations rely on standardized procedures and coordination, sovereignty allows states to criminalize unauthorized entry or landing under domestic law.

What remains unresolved is whether Guinean civil aviation authorities initially granted clearance and whether another government entity later rejected or overrode that authorization. Aviation industry reporting has described the case as hinging on conflicting interpretations of clearance validity rather than allegations of espionage or other national security offenses.

Detention Conditions and Legal Proceedings

Family members have described difficult detention conditions, including limited access to food, medical care, and legal resources. Family members have said they receive phone calls daily and that they are being treated better than other prisoners due to being American. Relatives have relied on outside assistance to provide basic necessities to the pilots while they remain incarcerated. 

According to aviation industry reporting, the pilots’ legal team has pursued relief through Guinean courts, including escalation to Guinea’s Supreme Court. As of early 2026, no public ruling has resulted in their release, and the charges remain pending. According to the fiancé of one of the pilots, an appellate court approved their release with bail, but the military interfered with the ruling. 

Limits of U.S. Government Intervention

When U.S. citizens are detained abroad, the U.S. government cannot dismiss foreign charges or compel a foreign court to act. Its authority is largely limited to diplomatic engagement and consular assistance. Under Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, detained foreign nationals must be informed of their right to communicate with their consulate and receive visits from consular officers 

The U.S. Department of State explains that consular officers can monitor detention conditions, provide lists of local attorneys, and facilitate communication with family members, but cannot interfere with local judicial proceedings or serve as defense counsel. Families of the detained pilots have expressed frustration with the pace of progress while acknowledging those legal limitations. 

Guinea’s Broader Legal and Political Context

The case has drawn attention in part because of Guinea’s political environment following a 2021 military coup. Human rights organizations have documented arbitrary detentions, restrictions on media and political opposition, and delays in the country’s transition back to civilian rule. 

Human Rights Watch has warned that Guinea’s security forces and judicial institutions operate with limited transparency and weak civilian oversight, factors that complicate due process for both citizens and foreign nationals. The U.S. Department of State’s travel guidance for Guinea similarly warns of civil unrest and unpredictable enforcement actions.

Why the Case Matters

Beyond the fate of two individuals, the case has raised concerns within the aviation community about how landing clearances are documented, transmitted, and later interpreted across jurisdictions. Business aviation flights often rely on layered approvals involving flight planners, air traffic control, overflight permits, and ground handlers. When those approvals are disputed after landing, pilots may have little recourse once criminal proceedings begin.

The central factual question remains unresolved: if Guinean authorities granted clearance to land for fuel, why was that clearance later treated as invalid? Until Guinean courts publicly address that issue, the case will remain a cautionary example of how seemingly routine international flight operations can intersect with sovereign enforcement power, with life-altering consequences.