Platform
Modules
By sector
By sector
By standard
Blog
News
Events
AAMedP-1.9
Military flight surgeons, medical officers, ophthalmologists and optometrists who investigate and manage a suspected laser eye injury in aircrew
AAMedP-1.9 is NATO's Allied Aeromedical Publication giving military medical officers clinical guidance for investigating and managing a suspected laser eye injury in aircrew, agreed by nations under STANAG 7165. It names no certification scheme.
AAMedP-1.9 is NATO's Allied Aeromedical Publication for the initial investigation and immediate management of a suspected laser eye injury in aircrew. Edition C, Version 1 was promulgated in September 2025 and supersedes Edition B, Version 1. Its purpose is consistency: a military medical officer anywhere in NATO takes the same history, runs a comparable initial examination, and reaches a decision on returning an aircrew member to flying duties on a consistent basis, whatever nation they serve.
This is a document for the flight surgeon, the examining medical officer and the ophthalmologists and optometrists a case is referred to, not for a general equipment manufacturer or software supplier. Nothing in it names a contract clause, a certification scheme, or any other route by which a company is bound. Chapter 1 sets out why the publication exists: lasers are increasingly used by the military, including in force exercises, and are capable of producing serious eye injury even at distance, so aircrew and other personnel need a shared understanding of the risk. It goes on to describe, in general terms, how a laser can affect vision: a lingering but temporary glare or after-image with no lasting damage, as distinct from actual injury to the cornea, lens or retina. The clinical thresholds, wavelengths and exposure levels the chapter discusses are not reproduced on this page.
Chapter 2 sets out the pathway a suspected laser incident follows: a baseline examination of aircrew on entry to and exit from a laser-risk environment, a structured post-incident history taken using the questions at Annex A, a post-incident clinical examination, treatment, and a return-to-duty assessment, alongside guidance on the psychological impact of an incident and on educating aircrew before one occurs. Each stage is addressed to the examining medical officer. This page names that they exist, because they shape what a nation's aeromedical service needs to have in place, but it does not reproduce the examination technique, the treatment, or the criteria used to judge fitness to fly: those are a qualified clinician's professional judgement, not a compliance criterion a reader applies themselves.
The document is precise even about vocabulary: it asks an examiner taking a post-incident history to avoid one commonly used word for what an aircrew member saw, because its meaning varies too much between people, and to use a more specific word instead, so that reports of an incident compare properly across nations.
Annex A is a structured set of questions covering the circumstances of a suspected exposure and its possible effects, for the examiner to work through with the aircrew member. Annex B reproduces the test chart Chapter 2 refers to. Neither is reproduced here.
AAMedP-1.9 sits under STANAG 7165, the NATO agreement recording nations' commitment to use it, approved by the nations in the Military Committee Air Standardization Board. That is the cover which gives the publication its force: a national armed force applies AAMedP-1.9 once that nation has adopted the STANAG, not by virtue of the document existing. Two nations recorded reservations against it at the time of promulgation, over aspects of the specialist care Chapter 2 describes; this page does not detail them, because they are a national capacity question rather than anything an external organisation supplies.
AAMedP-1.9 names no certification, accreditation or notified-body scheme, and no organisation is assessed against it. What it describes is an individual flight surgeon or medical officer's clinical judgement, working through a structured examination and referral pathway with the aircrew member in front of them. That is professional clinical practice governed by national medical standards and each nation's own military medical service, not something a company, a management system or a product is certified or audited against.
AAMedP-1.9 places no obligation on a software supplier, a manufacturer or a quality-management vendor: it is clinical guidance written for military medical officers, not a management-system, product or supplier-facing standard. There is no documentation set, training record or audit trail here for a compliance platform to hold, because the work the document describes, taking a history, examining a patient, deciding on treatment and fitness to fly, is a clinical act performed by a qualified clinician, not a process a company evidences to a customer or an assessor.
What ComplyTrain does not do: it does not examine, diagnose, treat, or make any clinical judgement about an aircrew member's eyes, and it has no role in a nation's aeromedical or flight-medicine service. That work stays entirely with the qualified military clinician. Where this publication becomes relevant to an organisation ComplyTrain does serve is indirect at most, where a contract or a quality clause references the wider NATO aeromedical standardisation family this document sits within. The standards explorer shows the other Allied Publications in that family, and we are glad to talk through what a specific contract or tasking is actually asking an organisation to evidence.
Tell us how you need to work with AAMedP-1.9 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.
It binds NATO nations through STANAG 7165, the agreement recording their commitment to use it, and nations recorded reservations against specific aspects of it at the time of promulgation. It reaches a national armed force through that agreement, not through a customer contract or a market regulation.
It names that an initial examination, a post-incident history and examination, treatment and a return-to-duty assessment all take place, in Chapter 2, but it leaves the clinical judgement itself to a qualified flight surgeon or medical officer. This page does not reproduce examination technique, treatment or fitness-to-fly criteria.
No. AAMedP-1.9 names no certification, accreditation or notified-body scheme for an organisation. What it describes is an individual clinician's examination and treatment of an aircrew member, which is professional medical practice, not a certificate a company or unit holds.
STANAG 7165 is the NATO agreement recording nations' commitment to use AAMedP-1.9; it is the cover that gives the publication its force. AAMedP-1.9 is the publication itself, the document that sets out the initial investigation and immediate management of a suspected laser eye injury in aircrew.
Not directly. AAMedP-1.9 addresses flight surgeons, medical officers and the ophthalmologists and optometrists they refer a case to, not an equipment manufacturer or software supplier, and it names no clause that binds one. A supplier of laser safety equipment or protective devices may find the wider aeromedical standardisation family this document sits within relevant to a specific contract, but that relevance comes from the contract, not from AAMedP-1.9 itself.
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.