Platform
Modules
By sector
By sector
By standard
Blog
News
Events
ATP-3.3.8.1
NATO member states building UAS operator and pilot training programmes, and the training organisations that deliver courses under a national programme or contract
ATP-3.3.8.1 sets NATO's minimum training and skill requirements for UAS and RPA operators and pilots, split into risk-tiered Basic UAS Qualification and mission-focused Combined/Joint Mission Qualification levels, binding through STANAG 4670.
ATP-3.3.8.1, Allied Tactical Publication, is NATO's minimum training standard for the people who operate and fly unmanned aircraft systems (UAS), including remotely piloted aircraft (RPA) pilots. It does not itself run any training or certify anyone. Participating member states "agree to adopt these guidelines as a basis for the training of UAS operators/pilots, adapting them where necessary to meet the special requirements associated with the UAS type, mission, and role," and a member state implements it by ratifying STANAG 4670 and issuing "the necessary orders and instructions putting the contents of this publication into effect." There is no route by which the document reaches a company directly: it names "member states," "national UAS training programs" and "military services" throughout, and no contractor, industry training provider or civilian school anywhere in the text. A training organisation delivering this kind of instruction does so inside whichever national programme, order or contract a member state's own implementation creates, not as a party the document itself addresses. Edition C, Version 1 was promulgated on 23 September 2025 and supersedes Edition B, Version 1; the document in front of us does not say what changed between the two.
The publication defines two separate frameworks. Basic UAS Qualification (BUQ, Chapter 3) sets the foundational academic and flight skills an operator or pilot needs to fly a UAS safely in the airspace it will use, and Combined/Joint Mission Qualification (C/JMQ, Chapter 4) adds mission-specific skills for employing a UAS in NATO combined and joint operations. The two are related but distinct: C/JMQ levels "build upon, but do not necessarily correlate to, the BUQ levels." A member state can mutually recognise "a UAS operator/pilot's qualification to operate a specific UAS type" trained under this publication when that operator's aircraft flies in another member state's airspace, which is the practical payoff of every nation training against the same baseline.
BUQ splits into three categories, Open, Specific and Certified, in rising order of risk. A mission is scored on five factors, aircraft weight, airspace class, line-of-sight status, whether the payload is armed or releasable, and whether passengers are carried, and the scores are summed: "6 or less" gives the Open category, "7-12" the Specific category, and "13 or more" the Certified category. A colour-coded classification chart can still raise the category regardless of the numeric total, and national trainers are expected to use "sound judgement" adapting the model to their own UAS types and missions. Where a specific training item cannot be accomplished or does not apply "due to system capabilities, operating limitations, or mission requirements," it may be omitted, provided the training programme records the reason.
Chapter 3 lays out BUQ content as tables of subject areas against the three categories rather than as narrative text. At subject level, the academic side covers meteorology, flight safety and human factors, air law and national/international regulation, aerodynamics, mission planning, and communications; the flight side covers before-flight preparation, contact and handling flight, navigation, instrument procedures at the higher categories, emergency handling and after-flight procedures. A separate instructor and test-system skill set applies to anyone training others, covering learning theory, instructional presentation and test-plan design. Higher categories add subject areas on top of the lower ones rather than replacing them, and the document notes that its BUQ training requirements "are similar to the training requirements detailed in both ICAO's Manual on Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems and Annex 1, Personnel Licensing" - it is not written from scratch against civil aviation practice.
Chapter 4 defines four C/JMQ levels, A through D, each covering more of the mission set: named here at subject level only, they build from basic intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) support through to advanced ISR and, at the higher levels, fire-support coordination and combat search-and-rescue and personnel-recovery support. Similar qualification standards "may also apply to other crew members participating in these UAS combined/joint missions," not only the pilot or operator at the controls. The document does not set out flight procedures, tactics or weapons employment; it names subject areas for a national programme to build a syllabus against.
Qualification is not a one-off event. "UAS operators shall maintain proficiency and currency to conform to minimum member state requirements," and operators "should be subject to periodic theoretical, practical, and medical evaluation by designated military service examiners," with each member state setting its own frequency. Medical fitness standards for a UAS pilot or operator are left entirely to "individual member state guidelines" - the document sets none itself.
No organisation is certified against this document. Individual competence is: "the military services can certify operators/pilots who successfully demonstrate satisfactory knowledge and performance of ground and flight operations via evaluations and flight checks in accordance with military service standards" - a national military service assessing its own people, not a third-party body assessing a company. Separately, national training programmes are appraised for compliance: "the skills detailed here will be used as a baseline by the appropriate inspectors, such as a NATO Standardization Team, for appraisal of member state UAS training programs to verify compliance with this publication." A member state hosting operations from another nation "should accept the approved training certification program for operator/pilots similarly to current pilot certification agreements" - the recognition runs between member states, not between a training provider and an accreditation body.
ATP-3.3.8.1 is an operational training standard: the work of meeting it happens in how a UAS training programme is designed, delivered and evaluated, not in software. For an organisation delivering UAS operator or pilot training under a national programme or contract, ComplyTrain gives you a place to hold the procedure that maps a training curriculum to the BUQ subject areas and C/JMQ levels this publication sets out, keep the training and currency records a periodic evaluation or a NATO Standardization Team inspection would expect to see, and track which risk category, Open, Specific or Certified, applies to a given aircraft and mission profile. Two concrete examples: a controlled curriculum-review record that checks a training syllabus against the required academic and flight subjects before a course is signed off, and a recurrent-training log evidencing an operator's ongoing proficiency and currency between evaluations.
ComplyTrain does not deliver flight training, does not conduct the flight checks or medical evaluations a military service uses to certify an operator, and does not replace a member state's own approval of a national training programme. Which standards sit alongside ATP-3.3.8.1 for a given UAS programme, and which tier of qualification a contract actually calls for, is set by that programme's tasking authority and its quality clause, not by us. If you are building or documenting UAS operator training, explore the related standards or talk to us about how the records fit together.
Tell us how you need to work with ATP-3.3.8.1 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 STANAG 4670: a member state ratifies the STANAG and then implements this ATP by issuing its own orders and instructions. Whether it applies to a given programme is a question for that member state's implementation and, for a supplier or training organisation, the contract or national requirement that invokes it, not something the document imposes by existing.
Basic UAS Qualification (BUQ) sets the foundational academic and flight skills to operate a UAS safely, tiered into Open, Specific and Certified by mission risk. Combined/Joint Mission Qualification (C/JMQ) is a separate, four-level framework (A through D) of mission-specific skills for employing a UAS in NATO combined and joint operations. The document says the C/JMQ levels build on BUQ but "do not necessarily correlate to" it.
No organisation-level certification scheme is named in the document. It has military services certify individual operators and pilots through evaluations and flight checks, and it has national training programmes appraised for compliance by inspectors such as a NATO Standardization Team. Both are national, government-run processes; neither is a certificate a training company holds.
The document states that Edition C, Version 1, promulgated 23 September 2025, supersedes Edition B, Version 1, and that the earlier edition is to be destroyed under local document-destruction procedure. It does not itself describe what content changed between the two editions.
No. It names subject areas, such as ISR support and, at the higher C/JMQ levels, fire-support coordination and personnel-recovery support, at a category level so that a national programme can build a syllabus against them. It does not set out flight procedures, tactics or weapons-employment detail.
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.