Platform
Modules
By sector
By sector
By standard
Blog
News
Events
AAMedP-1.23
National military medical services training and authorising their own flight surgeons in aviation medicine
AAMedP-1.23 sets NATO's minimum aviation medicine training for flight surgeons, covered by STANAG 7231, and binds nations rather than commercial suppliers.
AAMedP-1.23 is the NATO Allied Aeromedical Publication that sets the minimum aviation medicine training NATO nations agree their flight surgeons must complete. It exists so that a flight surgeon qualified by one nation is recognisable to another: the document's own aim is "to standardise the minimum aviation medicine training for flight surgeons in order to promote safety and efficiency in the operation of military aircraft." It is covered by STANAG 7231, the ratified agreement through which NATO nations commit to using it; AAMedP-1.23 itself is the technical training content that the STANAG gives force to once a nation adopts it. Edition A Version 1 was promulgated in November 2019.
This is a document written as an agreement between NATO's nations, not as instructions to a commercial role. It never addresses a supplier, manufacturer or contractor at any point. It addresses flight surgeons directly, and the national military medical training establishments, instructors and authorities that prepare and assess them: instructors "are to have in-depth knowledge of the physiological and clinical aspects of aviation medicine," and ongoing training is approved or accredited by "the competent authority" or "the Medical Assessor," roles that sit inside a nation's own military medical service rather than anywhere a supplier operates.
Clause 1.2 sets out a three-part commitment nations make. Flight surgeons receive this training as a minimum. They must have completed it before being authorised to conduct aircrew medical examinations. And once qualified, they continue to receive periodic refresher training and engage in continuing professional development. Like other Allied Publications, nations can and do adopt it with reservations rather than word for word: this edition's front matter records specific reservations from the Czech Republic, France and the United States, each against a particular practical-training element, for example where a nation does not currently provide training on a centrifuge or in a ground-based disorientation trainer.
Chapter 1 sets four general points for the basic course: it must end in an exit examination to confirm sufficient knowledge has been gained; instruction on life-support and escape equipment should combine generic principles with training on the equipment specific to a flight surgeon's own aircraft type; instructors themselves must hold in-depth knowledge of the physiological and clinical aspects of aviation medicine; and, where possible, flight surgeons get practical experience of hypoxia, positive-G forces and disorientation.
Chapter 2 sets the syllabus: a minimum of 60 hours of theoretical and practical instruction across ten subject areas, running from the history and physics of aviation medicine through clinical aviation medicine, accident investigation, human and organisational factors, aviation medicine policy, survival and life-support equipment, aeromedical evacuation and civil aviation medicine, and closing with a set of recommended practical demonstrations. AAMedP-1.23 lists the detailed subjects under each of those headings; this page does not reproduce that syllabus, since it is training content for a medical audience rather than something a supplier needs to see.
Chapter 3 sets the ongoing commitment once a flight surgeon is qualified: at least 10 hours a year of refresher training or aviation-medicine-specific continuing medical education. That commitment can be met through hours provided by, or conducted under the supervision of, the competent aeromedical centre or the Medical Assessor; through attendance at scientific meetings and flight deck, jump seat, simulator or piloting experience approved by the competent authority; or through specific scientific meetings the competent authority is expected to accredit. The document names no fixed split between formal instruction and these more experiential routes, leaving that judgement to the competent authority.
There is no organisational certification anywhere in AAMedP-1.23; it is evaluated at the level of the individual flight surgeon, never a company or a unit. The basic course ends in an exit examination, and refresher hours, meeting attendance and accreditation of scientific meetings are approved by the competent authority or the Medical Assessor each nation names within its own military medical service. Authorisation to conduct aircrew medical examinations follows only once that training is complete. None of this is a scheme an organisation could hold: no accredited body audits a company against AAMedP-1.23, and the document names no certificate at all.
commitment to use this publication; the cover that gives AAMedP-1.23 its force. AAMedP-1.23 is the technical training content; STANAG 7231 is the nations' agreement to use it.
AAMedP-1.23 governs a nation's own aviation medicine training pipeline for its flight surgeons. It places no requirement on a cyber-security or compliance software vendor, and none on a defence contractor, unless a specific tender or contract asks that contractor to deliver or evidence flight surgeon training against it, for example a training-services contract. Where that happens, the practical work sits in holding training and refresher-hour records, exit-examination results and instructor qualification evidence, none of which is software work in itself. ComplyTrain's role there is the same as for any other documented process a contract calls for: controlled procedures, version-tracked training records and the audit trail that shows what training was delivered, to whom, and when.
What ComplyTrain does not do: it does not deliver, examine or accredit aviation medicine training, and it takes no part in a nation's decision to authorise a flight surgeon to examine aircrew. What sits alongside AAMedP-1.23 in a defence programme, and whether it touches your work at all, is set by the contract and the customer's quality clause, not by us. Browse the standards explorer for what else this Allied Publication connects to, and talk to us about the documentation trail behind whichever requirement actually applies to you.
Tell us how you need to work with AAMedP-1.23 and what you need from it. We will come back to you about what ComplyTrain can do.
Thank you. Your list is on its way to your inbox, and we will come back to you on what working with these standards in ComplyTrain involves, usually within one business day.
No supplier obligation appears anywhere in the document. AAMedP-1.23 is a NATO Allied Publication covered by STANAG 7231, the agreement NATO nations ratify to adopt it for their own military medical services; it governs how a nation trains its flight surgeons and does not reach a commercial contractor as a compliance requirement.
No. AAMedP-1.23 names no accreditation, audit or certification scheme, and it is evaluated at the level of the individual flight surgeon, not a company. Authorisation to conduct aircrew medical examinations is granted to a physician by their own nation's military medical service, and that is not a certificate an organisation can hold.
STANAG 7231 is the NATO agreement recording nations' commitment to use AAMedP-1.23; it is the cover that gives the publication its force. AAMedP-1.23 is the publication itself, the document that sets the training content, the syllabus and the refresher-training requirements for flight surgeons.
Yes, in Chapter 2, as a syllabus of ten subject areas covering a minimum of 60 hours of theoretical and practical instruction. This page does not reproduce that syllabus: it is training content written for a medical audience, not something a commercial reader needs, and nothing here should be read as medical guidance.
There is no third-party or accredited-body check. The basic course ends in an exit examination set by the training establishment, and ongoing refresher training and meeting attendance are approved or accredited by "the competent authority" or "the Medical Assessor" that each nation names within its own military medical service.
One system for the whole compliance programme. Start with the module you need most.
Collect information the same way every time, and decide in advance what happens next.
Know whether your controls are operating, not just whether a policy says they exist.
Turn the compliance work you already know about into a plan with owners, dependencies and dates.
Know what you can offer, and hold the evidence behind every configuration you offer it in.
Eight built-in reports across every module, scheduled, delivered, and filed where the evidence lives.
The sector news that matters to your organisation - read and rated by AI, and delivered as a scheduled digest in your own language.
AI reads the tender pack and pulls out the requirements, deadlines and rules - then helps you draft the response from your own approved content, with you reviewing every step.
One current register of the suppliers and partners you depend on - each risk-assessed, re-assessing itself on schedule, and wired straight into your risk register.
See every requirement you face - across every standard, plus your own contracts and policies - traced to the documents, evidence and processes that satisfy it.
Identify, score, treat and review your risks in one place - with AI to help anyone run a proper assessment, and a defensible trail behind every decision.
Assign training, prove it was understood, and hold the competence records an auditor asks for.
Draft compliance documents with AI, keep every version under control, and export them beautifully branded - all in one place.
Audits, corrective actions, processes and approvals in one quality system, organised around ISO 9001.
Medical device manufacturers operate under more regulatory pressure than almost any other sector outside pharmaceuticals. The rules govern how you design a device, how you make it, how you track it after it ships, and how you respond when something goes wrong.
Learn how EU dual-use export controls apply to encryption, sensors, and software, how classification works under Annex I, and why sending source code by email can count as an export.
A practical way to turn in-your-head risk management into a register that survives staff turnover and answers the risk questions now showing up in tenders.