Platform
Modules
By sector
By sector
By standard
Blog
News
Events
AEP-2902
National Authorities selecting combat helmet test criteria, and the test facilities that carry out non-ballistic evaluation of combat helmets
NATO non-ballistic test methods and evaluation criteria for combat helmets, covering blunt impact, penetration, retention, coverage, ageing and human factors, with ballistic performance handled separately under STANAG 2920.
AEP-2902, Non-Ballistic Test Methods and Evaluation Criteria for Combat Helmets, is a NATO Allied Engineering Publication, Edition A Version 1, promulgated in February 2019. It sets out how combat helmets are tested and scored for everything except ballistic performance: blunt impact, penetration by sharp objects, structural rigidity, retention and stability, coverage of the head, the helmet cover and mounting points, snag hazard, ageing and environmental durability, marking, flammability, primary blast durability, combat identification, human factors, and paint adhesion. Nations record their agreement to use it through STANAG 2902, the Standardization Agreement that covers this publication, in the same way every Allied Engineering Publication rides on the STANAG that ratifies it.
The document speaks to National Authorities and test facilities rather than to a helmet manufacturer directly. A National Authority decides which chapters and sample sizes apply to a given helmet programme, based on the role the helmet will fulfil - dismounted, mounted, parachutist, public order, engineering or maritime - and a test facility carries out the testing and signs the resulting report. A manufacturer meets the document only through whatever a specific tender or contract requires.
Ballistic test standards and methods, Behind Helmet Blunt Trauma, Back Face Deformation, and visual pattern or camouflage emissivity are all out of scope here. The ballistic testing lives instead in STANAG 2920, so a helmet accepted against AEP-2902 alone has said nothing about how it performs against bullets or fragments; camouflage emissivity is left to each nation's own requirements.
Blunt impact protection (Chapter 4) offers nine alternative test methods for the helmet shell, each borrowed from a different civilian standard - BS 6658, EN 397, ECE R22.05, FMVSS 218 - with its own drop height, anvil shape and pass threshold; a National Authority chooses the method that matches its own risk assessment. Visor and mandible guard impacts get their own dedicated rigs and criteria. Rotational blunt impact has no agreed test method yet: the document says plainly that it is not currently possible to define one reliably, and points instead to ongoing civilian research. Resistance to penetration (Chapter 5) drops a striker onto a helmet mounted on a headform wired to detect contact, using either a mountaineering-derived or a vehicle-helmet-derived method; the vehicle Type B standard is the one recommended. Structural rigidity (Chapter 7) cyclically loads the shell and checks afterwards for cracking, delamination and permanent deformation; any crack or delamination that runs through the shell thickness is an automatic failure.
Retention and stability (Chapter 8) uses three separate chin-strap tests - a dynamic drop-mass test, a static test with a simulated jaw, and a static test that clamps the helmet directly to simulate a blast pulling at the strap - plus a stability test and an ease-of-release test measuring the force needed to open the buckle under load. Coverage (Chapter 9) is assessed against anatomical landmarks - the nasion, the external auditory meatus, the superior nuchal line - comparing full-shell, high-cut, mid-cut and low-cut designs, and the additional facial coverage a visor or mandible guard provides. The cover must fit securely, resist tearing and fading in accordance with STANAG 2333, and be flame resistant (Chapter 10); mounting points must conform to STANAG 4694 or one of two rail designs set out in Annex B (Chapter 11).
Age and environmental testing (Chapter 13) sets a minimum storage life of 10 years and a minimum service life of 5 years, and covers heat distortion, temperature shock, altitude and vibration - helmets in operational use or during storage and transport via wheeled vehicle, rail, air, or ship may experience vibration that loosens or causes de-bonding and fracture between attachment points or mechanical interfaces, which is the rationale for the vibration test even though it is optional. Every helmet is marked with its name, manufacturer, size, origin, date of manufacture, NATO stock number, contract, serial and batch numbers (Chapter 14). Flammability testing (Chapter 15) checks for liquid traps, self-extinguishing behaviour and flame spread on the cover material. Primary blast durability (Chapter 16) stands a dressed mannequin at set distances from a PE4 charge and visually scores whether protective items stayed attached and effective; a score of 1 or 2 is unacceptable.
Chapter 18 is the longest in the document and covers head-size anthropometry against a sizing table, fit and adjustment, stability, ease of donning with gloves, physical and thermal comfort, mass, centre of mass, inertia, and situational awareness - field of view, auditory awareness, speech intelligibility - plus integration with body armour, eyewear, hearing protection, respirators, vehicles, weapons, load carriage and gloves. Most of it is subjective, rating-scale testing with representative users rather than instrumented pass/fail criteria; where a number does appear, such as the recommended upper threshold of 1.5 kg for user acceptance of a helmet's mass, the document is explicit that it is a recommendation rather than a hard limit.
There is no accredited or NATO-awarded certification of a helmet or a company here, and the document is explicit that passing it proves only what it tests: compliance with this STANAG does not certify the adequacy of helmets to meet regulations for use on public roads or competitive events, by vehicle users. What happens instead is that a National Authority selects the chapters and sample sizes relevant to its own procurement, a test facility runs them, and the final report is dated and signed by an authorised representative of the test facility, referencing the chapters and tests conducted for the helmet's selected role.
AEP-2902 is covered by STANAG 2902, the Standardization Agreement nations ratify to use it. It points to STANAG 2920 for the ballistic, Behind Helmet Blunt Trauma and Back Face Deformation testing it deliberately excludes, to STANAG 4694 for one of its two accepted mounting-rail designs, and to STANAG 2129 and ATP-91 together for where combat identification patches sit on the helmet and cover. AECTP-400 is one of several vibration test methods the age and environmental testing chapter allows. Outside the catalogue, the document leans on civilian test standards it does not attempt to replace - STANAG 2333 for cover material properties, BSI BS 6658:1985 for blunt impact and penetration rigs, EN 960:2006 for headforms, EN 397:2012 and ECE R22.05 for alternative impact methods, and the EN 13087 series for retention, stability and field-of-view testing - none of which are catalogued here, so none are linked. As with all NATO documents, AEP-2902 is free of charge and not sold; it is retrieved from the NATO Standardization Document Database or through a national standardization authority, never from a third-party copy.
AEP-2902 is a technical test-method standard, not a management-system standard: the work it describes is physical testing in an accredited laboratory - drop towers, headforms, environmental chambers, a blast range - and no software replaces that. What ComplyTrain supports is the paper trail around it: the sample-size and test-method decisions a National Authority makes for a given helmet programme, the calibration certificates and accreditation records a test facility produces on request, the signed final report for each chapter tested, and the helmet marking record - name, manufacturer, size, origin, date of manufacture, NATO stock number, contract, serial and batch numbers - that ties a specific helmet back to its test evidence. Training records for the people running or reviewing the tests sit alongside that evidence the same way they would for any other technical procedure.
ComplyTrain does not run the drop tests, calibrate the equipment, or decide which chapters and sample sizes a National Authority should select for a given procurement; that judgement and that physical testing belong to the test facility and the National Authority, and stay theirs. Which chapters a specific contract requires, and what evidence tier a customer's quality clause expects, is set by the contract, not by us. The standards explorer shows what else sits alongside AEP-2902, including STANAG 2920 for the ballistic testing this document excludes, and our team is glad to talk through how you would hold the evidence trail.
Tell us how you need to work with AEP-2902 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 through the STANAG that covers it, STANAG 2902, which nations ratify rather than the AEP itself. AEP-2902 becomes concrete for a specific helmet programme when a National Authority's tender or contract requires testing against the chapters it sets out.
No. The document explicitly excludes ballistic test standards and methods, Behind Helmet Blunt Trauma and Back Face Deformation, and points to STANAG 2920 for those instead. A helmet accepted against AEP-2902 alone has only been tested for the non-ballistic properties this document covers.
Not in the sense of an accredited or third-party certificate. A National Authority selects the chapters and sample sizes it wants tested, a test facility carries out the testing and signs the final report, and the National Authority reviews that evidence for its own procurement decision. The document itself is explicit that compliance does not certify a helmet's adequacy for unrelated regulatory schemes, such as road-use helmet regulations.
STANAG 2902 is the Standardization Agreement nations ratify; AEP-2902 is the Allied Engineering Publication underneath it that actually contains the test methods, sample sizes and evaluation criteria.
Directly from NATO. It is free of charge and retrieved from the NATO Standardization Document Database or through your national standardization authority, never as a paid or third-party copy.
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.