Platform
Modules
By sector
By sector
By standard
Blog
News
Events
STANAG 3368
NATO nations and the designers of the aircraft those nations procure
STANAG 3368 is NATO's agreement requiring aircraft designs to include an engine starting system independent of ground facilities, providing at least two starts when ground equipment is unavailable.
STANAG 3368 is the NATO standardization agreement on internal aircraft engine starting systems. Most STANAGs are a cover: the agreement by which NATO nations commit to implement a separate Allied Publication that carries the technical detail. This one is different. Its "STANDARD" field is answered "N.A.", and the requirement sits directly in the agreement clause itself: "The design of aircraft shall incorporate an engine starting system independent of ground facilities, to allow at least two (2) starts when ground starting equipment is not available." The document adds one clarification: "The internal engine starting capability may or may not be the normal means of starting the engine" - the requirement is for an independent fallback to exist, not for it to be how the aircraft starts day to day.
This is Edition 4, promulgated 7 November 2014, and it supersedes STANAG 3368, Edition 3 (reference MAS(AIR)403-ASP/3368).
A STANAG binds a nation, not a design team directly. STANAG 3368 "is considered implemented when the provisions specified therein have been included in the national documentation concerned with reference to STANAG 3368," with national and partner-nation decisions recorded in the NATO Standardization Document Database (NSDD). Nations "are invited to report on their effective implementation of the STANAG using the form in Annex H to AAP-03(J)," and partner nations report adoption "using the form in Annex G to AAP-03(J)."
In practice, the requirement reaches a design team only where a contract or a tender names STANAG
source and how they integrate), it is a decision that belongs at the design stage: retrofitting an independent starting path into a finished airframe is a different, harder problem than designing one in from the outset.
This STANAG "is to be reviewed at least once every three years," with the result recorded in the NSDD. Its own "OTHER RELATED DOCUMENTS" field reads "None." The only other publication it names is AAP-03, cited solely for the Annex G and Annex H forms nations use to report implementation and adoption, not as a technical requirement the design clause must meet.
The document names no certification, audit or inspection scheme, and no accredited or notified body appears anywhere in it. What it describes is a national ratification, implementation and review cycle run through NATO's own machinery. Whether a given aircraft's starting architecture actually delivers the required independent starts is a question for whatever airworthiness or acceptance process a procuring nation applies; this document does not describe that mechanism.
STANAG 3368 sets one design requirement for aircraft engine starting systems, not a management system: whether an aircraft's starting architecture actually provides at least two independent starts without ground equipment is a question of engineering design and physical test, not software. What that leaves to evidence is the paperwork around it: design records that show the independent starting path was considered from the outset, the analysis or test evidence behind the "at least two (2) starts" requirement, and the trail an airworthiness or quality clause asks for afterward.
ComplyTrain holds that evidence as a modern, auditable system: version-controlled design records, reviews tied to named individuals and dates, and corrective actions when a gap turns up, all searchable when a contracting nation or a prime contractor's quality clause asks for it. It does not design or test an aircraft's starting system and does not decide whether a given architecture meets the requirement.
The applicable tier here, and whatever else it comes with, is set by the contract and the customer's quality clause. If you are working out what sits alongside STANAG 3368, the standards explorer covers the related NATO air publications, and we are glad to talk through what that means in practice.
Tell us how you need to work with STANAG 3368 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 in general. It binds a nation once that nation ratifies it, and it reaches a design team through a contract or a tender that names STANAG 3368, not by existing on its own. Whether it applies to a given programme is set by the tasking or contract in front of you.
No. Unlike most STANAGs, its "STANDARD" field is answered "N.A.": the requirement, that aircraft design include an engine starting system independent of ground facilities, sits in the agreement itself rather than in a separate Allied Publication.
Edition 4, promulgated 7 November 2014. It supersedes STANAG 3368, Edition 3, which the cover identifies by its reference, MAS(AIR)403-ASP/3368.
No. There is no accredited certification for STANAG 3368 to hold, and ComplyTrain does not claim one. What we support is the evidence trail around design records for this kind of engineering work, at an informational level.
At least once every three years, with the result recorded in the NATO Standardization Document Database.
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.