Platform
Modules
By sector
By sector
By standard
Blog
News
Events
AEP-56
Airfield engineers, pavement survey teams and NATO-led service providers responsible for assessing and maintaining NATO airfield pavements
NATO's method for scoring airfield pavement condition through visual distress surveys (PCI), used to plan maintenance, repairs and aircraft operating restrictions.
AEP-56, the NATO Standard Method for Airfield Pavement Condition Index (PCI) Surveys, is an Allied Engineering Publication that gives NATO nations a single, repeatable way to score how deteriorated an airfield's runways, taxiways and aprons are. The score itself, the Pavement Condition Index, runs from 0 (a failed pavement) to 100 (excellent), and it is produced by walking the pavement, recording specific visible defects, and running the results through a fixed calculation, not by opinion or general impression. Edition B, Version 1 was promulgated in August 2026 and supersedes the prior edition, which nations are instructed to destroy. The agreement of NATO nations to use AEP-56 is recorded in STANAG 7181, and nations may ratify with reservations: Croatia's records that its air force contracts the survey to a civilian service rather than running it in-house, and Norway's substitutes a trained contractor on a five-year cycle for the base method's implied approach.
The document is addressed to the people who actually do the work. Annex F is written for "NATO Led Service Providers" applying the method "at existing or planned airfields as well as during deployed operations," and Chapter 5 describes airfield managers and pavement engineers who consult with aircraft operators, maintainers and manufacturers to decide what a given PCI figure should mean for their airfield. It is not addressed to a certifying body, and it creates none.
A pavement network is broken down in three stages before anyone inspects anything (Chapter 2). It is divided into branches by use, a runway, a taxiway, an apron, then into sections of uniform construction, traffic and condition history, then into standard-size sample units: roughly 465 m² for asphalt pavement or 20 slabs for concrete pavement. Which sample units actually get inspected is a statistical choice: survey every unit, calculate the number needed for a 95% confidence level using the formula in clause 2.1, or use simpler fixed percentages the document reports as common practice, 50% of runway keel, 25% of the rest of the runway, 33% of taxiways, 25% of aprons. Units with an unrepresentative distress, a utility cut or an oil spill, are inspected separately as "additional samples" so they do not distort the statistical result for the section as a whole.
Each chosen sample unit is walked and its distress recorded against a defined catalogue: seventeen distress types for asphalt pavement, numbered 41 to 57 (Annex A), covering structural failure such as alligator cracking and rutting, surface defects such as bleeding, raveling and weathering, and dimensional distortion such as corrugation, depression and swell; sixteen distress types for concrete pavement, numbered 61 to 76 (Annex B), covering slab cracking and breakup, joint seal damage and spalling, and settlement or pumping. Most distress types carry three severity levels, low, medium, high, defined by a measurable criterion, a crack width in millimetres, a rut depth, a percentage of missing aggregate, rather than a subjective call, and each has its own rule for how it is measured (area, length or slab count).
Turning that data into a PCI figure follows a fixed procedure (Chapter 4). Each distress and severity combination becomes a density percentage, looked up against a deduct-value curve (Annex C for asphalt, Annex D for concrete), then reduced through an iterative correction process until the highest corrected deduct value is found. The PCI is 100 minus that value. Section, branch and network PCI figures are all area-weighted averages of the level beneath them (clause 4.3), so one poor sample unit does not stand for a whole network without that weighting being applied. AEP-56 states plainly that "this STANAG does not require the use of a particular automated PCI calculations software" (clause 4.4): manual calculation is a recognised practice, and each nation chooses its own tool, the commercial PAVER package being one named example.
Two things about the catalogue are worth knowing before working with it. First, three separate condition-rating scales sit on top of the same PCI number, a seven-band scale, a five-band scale the document attributes to the French, and a three-band simplified scale, a system the document notes "was adopted by and is also described in ASTM D5340." Second, the distress catalogue carries a second, ASTM-style numbering convention in braces alongside its primary 41-76 numbers, and the document warns this convention "produces multiple distresses with the same numerical identifier," so working from the bracketed numbers alone risks confusing two different defects.
AEP-56 does not tell a reader what PCI is acceptable. It supplies the measurement, and Chapter 5 shows how individual nations build their own thresholds on top of it. The United States sets different minimum PCI values for primary, secondary and tertiary pavement, restricts gross aircraft load "to 75% of the calculated rated load" once a pavement's PCI falls below 40, and requires a named command-level sign-off before cargo aircraft can operate below that figure; the Netherlands uses a simpler warning-and-minimum PCI pair by pavement type. The PCI can also feed a FOD (foreign object damage) index built from a subset of the same distress data, and some nations combine it further with a structural ratio and a skid-resistance measure into a wider engineering assessment rating. None of those thresholds are AEP-56 requirements; they are national practice the document reports as illustration of how the score gets used once it exists.
The PCI "does not measure structural capacity, nor provide a direct measurement of skid resistance or roughness" (clause 1.4): it is a surface-condition score, not a structural or friction assessment, and an organisation that needs those needs separate methods. AEP-56 also says plainly that it "does not address all of the safety problems associated with its use," leaving safety and regulatory practice to the user, which is what the safety considerations in Annex F exist to flag rather than resolve. And the method sets no minimum acceptable PCI of its own: every action level and load restriction described in Chapter 5 belongs to the nation reporting it, not to AEP-56.
AEP-56 is operational, technical guidance, an airfield survey method, not a management system standard. The work itself, walking each sample unit, measuring crack widths and spall extents against the Annex A and Annex B definitions, and calculating a PCI, happens in the field and in a spreadsheet or a PAVER-type tool. No software does that work for an organisation, and this page will not pretend otherwise.
What ComplyTrain supports is the documentation and evidence trail around it: a controlled survey procedure stating which distress definitions, severity criteria and calculation method the organisation has adopted; training records showing survey personnel, in-house or contracted, are competent against the Annex A and Annex B criteria; equipment records for the measuring devices the method specifies; and a controlled register of PCI calculation forms and section, branch and network summary reports, so a maintenance or load-restriction decision taken against a PCI figure has a documented trail back to the survey data behind it.
What ComplyTrain does not do: it does not perform the physical pavement survey, calculate a PCI, or set the minimum acceptable PCI, maintenance trigger or load restriction for a given airfield. Those figures are a matter of national or contractual practice, illustrated but not mandated by AEP-56 itself, and the tier that applies to a given programme is set by the contract and the customer's quality clause. Explore the related standards to see what sits alongside AEP-56, including STANAG 7181 and STANAG 4720, or talk to us about the evidence trail your airfield pavement survey programme needs to hold.
Tell us how you need to work with AEP-56 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 by itself. AEP-56 acquires force through STANAG 7181, which records NATO nations' agreement to use it, and nations can ratify with reservations: Croatia's contracts the survey to a civilian service, and Norway's runs a five-yearly contractor cycle instead of the base method. Whether a given organisation must apply it depends on the national programme or contract that invokes it.
No. Calculating a PCI means walking the pavement, measuring specific distress against the Annex A and Annex B definitions, and running the result through the Chapter 4 procedure or a tool like PAVER. That is field and engineering work. ComplyTrain holds the procedures, training records and reports around it.
No. It is a measurement method, not a threshold. Chapter 5 shows how individual nations, the United States and the Netherlands among them, have built their own minimum PCI values, action levels and load restrictions on top of the score, but those figures are national practice, not requirements of AEP-56 itself.
The PCI scores overall pavement condition across all seventeen (asphalt) or sixteen (concrete) distress types. The FOD index is a separate calculation, described in Chapter 5, built from only the subset of distresses that tend to produce foreign object damage, and it is used alongside the PCI rather than replacing it.
No. AEP-56 states directly that it "does not require the use of a particular automated PCI calculations software." Manual calculation using the forms in Annex E is a recognised method, and commercial tools such as PAVER are named only as an example nations may choose.
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.