Platform
Modules
By sector
By sector
By standard
Blog
News
Events
AATMP-13
Airfield operating authorities and NATO Led Service Providers responsible for testing and maintaining runway surface friction
AATMP-13 sets the NATO Maintenance Friction Levels used to test runway surface friction, and the corrective maintenance and NOTAM actions a low reading triggers.
AATMP-13 is the NATO Allied Air Traffic Management Publication (AATMP) that standardizes how participating nations measure runway surface friction, the grip a runway pavement still offers a braking aircraft. Its stated purpose is so that nations can "maintain airfields in a timely and effective manner" and "carry out aircraft operations safely." It does not bind a supplier or a company directly: nations record their agreement to use it in STANAG 3634, and it reaches an airfield through a nation's own implementation of that agreement, or a tasking or contract that names it, not by existing on its own.
The document draws a line between two measurements that share a name but not a purpose. Maintenance Friction Levels come from standardized testing, run with a self-wetting continuous friction measuring device fitted with a smooth tread tyre, and are used mainly by engineers to plan and fund pavement maintenance. Operating Friction Levels come from testing under real ambient conditions and are compared against agreed thresholds to advise Operators, and through them aircrew, on braking action in the conditions of the moment. AATMP-13 states plainly that correlation between the two "has not yet been officially established," and that it only standardizes the first: setting Operating Friction Levels stays "the responsibility of individual participating nations," informed by recommendations in two civil documents rather than fixed by this publication.
A nation may substitute a decelerometer vehicle or a locked-wheel spot measuring device for the reference continuous device, but only once it holds adequate correlation data against a recognised continuous device and has run enough tests to validate the analysis; it must then make other participating nations aware whenever it uses the substitute device, and provide the supporting correlation evidence if another nation asks for it. Testing itself is expected when a runway is first constructed, after resurfacing, and periodically after that, with each nation setting its own interval based on factors such as aircraft type, usage frequency, climate and pavement type.
Three variables are standardized so results are comparable between nations: the minimum number and layout of survey runs, the method used to calculate the friction values, and the size and layout of areas of low friction that count as significant. Paragraph 10 scales the minimum number of standard survey runs with runway width - six runs for a 30 m, 45 m or 60 m wide runway, rising to eight for a 90 m runway - run parallel to the centreline and covering its full length, with more recommended where formation take-offs are routine. The average of all survey runs is the Maintenance Friction Level, though paragraph 11 notes that a significant low-reading section of runway (broadly, around 100 m) can trigger rectification even when the overall average is acceptable.
Annex A sets two thresholds for each of nine device types, at two standard test speeds: a Maintenance Planning Level, defined as the friction level below which corrective maintenance action should be initiated, and a lower Minimum Friction Level, defined as the level below which information that the runway may be slippery when wet should be made available. Paragraph 12 carries the two thresholds at different weight. Below the Maintenance Planning Level, corrective maintenance action should be initiated - a recommendation. Below the Minimum Friction Level, corrective maintenance action shall be taken, and the runway's slippery-when-wet status must be promulgated by NOTAM - both mandatory. Paragraph 13's further set of factors, including pavement drainage, surface age and contamination, prevailing winds and operational requirements, is meant to inform the remedial action chosen, not just the trigger for taking one.
AATMP-13 addresses "participating nations" and, in practice, the Operating Authorities and Operators that run a NATO airfield day to day. A dedicated annex is written for a further role: the NATO Led Service Provider implementing the STANAG "at existing or planned airfields as well as during deployed operations." That annex sets out a general checklist before implementation - checking the publication's suitability for the type of operation, its currency, the related documents, and the ratification and reservation status of the nations involved - followed by a determination of whether existing airfield facilities and procedures already comply. It also lists specific safety considerations, consequences and mitigations covering a low pavement friction coefficient, incorrect friction measurement, inappropriate remedial action, and the training of airfield pavement maintenance personnel. None of this replaces the full safety surveys already required under STANAG 4720's ATM Safety Management System; the document is explicit that those "shall still be carried out" regardless.
AATMP-13 describes operational and engineering work - running survey runs, calibrating and correlating test equipment, calculating a Maintenance Friction Level, deciding whether a reading crosses a threshold - that happens on the runway, not in software. ComplyTrain does not measure friction or make that engineering judgement. What it supports is the documentation behind it: a controlled testing procedure, records of each survey run and the Maintenance Friction Level calculated from them, calibration and correlation records for whichever device is used, and a logged decision trail showing when a reading crossed the Maintenance Planning Level or the Minimum Friction Level and what corrective maintenance action or NOTAM followed. It is equally a place to hold a NATO Led Service Provider's own implementation checklist - suitability, currency, related documents, ratification status, compliance determination - as a maintained record rather than a one-off exercise repeated from memory each time.
Which tier of standards actually attaches to a given airfield or contract is set by the contract and the customer's quality clause, not by us. See what else sits alongside AATMP-13 and STANAG 3634 in the standards explorer, and talk to us about the evidence trail behind a runway friction testing programme.
Tell us how you need to work with AATMP-13 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.
Not on its own. It binds through STANAG 3634, which nations ratify, and reaches a particular airfield through a nation's own implementation of that agreement or a tasking or contract that names it. Whether it applies to a given airfield or operation is a question for the contract or the operating nation, not the document itself.
Maintenance Friction Levels come from standardized testing and are used to plan and fund pavement maintenance; they are the levels AATMP-13 fixes in Annex A. Operating Friction Levels come from ambient-condition testing and feed real-time braking-action advice to aircrew; AATMP-13 leaves setting those to each nation, and states that no official correlation between the two has yet been established.
No. The document names no accredited body, notified body or government surveillance scheme. Compliance is self-verified by the operating authority or NATO Led Service Provider running the airfield, against the criteria the STANAG/AATMP itself sets out.
A friction reading below the Minimum Friction Level in Annex A. At that point corrective maintenance action must be taken and information that the runway may be slippery when wet must be promulgated by NOTAM. A reading below the higher Maintenance Planning Level only recommends corrective maintenance; it does not itself require a NOTAM.
Yes, a decelerometer vehicle or a locked-wheel spot measuring device may be used instead of the reference continuous friction measuring device, but only once adequate correlation data against a recognised continuous device exists and enough tests have been run to validate the analysis, and other participating nations must be told whenever it is used.
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.