Platform
Modules
By sector
By sector
By standard
Blog
News
Events
STANAG 3455
NATO nations and the engineers and drafters who reference the standard on aircraft electrical circuit diagrams
STANAG 3455 is NATO's agreement committing member nations to use IEC 60617 or IEEE 315 symbols for aircraft electrical circuits in national documentation and drawings.
STANAG 3455 is the NATO standardization agreement on basic symbols for aircraft electrical circuits. A STANAG is not itself a technical specification: it is the agreement by which NATO nations commit to implement one, and here the actual symbols live in one of two existing civil standards. The document states its aim plainly as being "to ensure commonality of understanding and use of basic symbols for aircraft electric circuits" across NATO nations, and participating nations "agree to implement" IEC 60617:2012 DB, "Graphical Symbols for Diagrams," or IEEE 315, "Graphic Symbols for Electrical and Electronics Diagrams." The two are alternatives: a nation's documentation can use either, not both.
This is Edition 6, promulgated 9 February 2023. It supersedes an earlier edition of this same STANAG, dated 24 March 2014.
The STANAG defines implementation narrowly and concretely. It "is implemented when the basic symbols for aircraft electrical circuits detailed in IEC 60617 or IEEE 315 are used in national documentation," and, just as importantly, "the standard used must be stated on the drawing or relevant documentation." That second sentence is the one checkable requirement the STANAG adds on top of the two civil standards themselves: it is not enough to use consistent symbols, the drawing or document has to say which convention it is following. Read plainly, that means the point of the agreement is interoperability between nations reading each other's aircraft electrical diagrams, not a new set of symbols to design against.
Neither civil standard is reproduced here. IEC 60617:2012 DB is obtained from IEC on its own commercial terms, and IEEE 315 is obtained from IEEE, in each case independently of this STANAG. The document itself lists "OTHER RELATED DOCUMENTS" as "None," so there is nothing else it points a reader toward beyond those two standards and the AAP-03 review procedure described below.
The mechanism that matters here: a STANAG binds a nation, not a supplier. Nations "are invited to examine their ratification of the STANAG and, if they have not already done so, advise the NSO of their intention regarding its ratification and implementation," and the national response is recorded in the NATO Standardization Document Database (NSDD). The agreement itself "is effective upon receipt for use by the participating nations and NATO bodies." A supplier or a drawing office meets IEC 60617 or IEEE 315, or this STANAG, only where a contract or a tender brings one of them in by name, not because the STANAG exists on its own.
No certification exists here, and the document names none. What it describes is a national ratification, implementation and review cycle: nations record their ratification in the NSDD, and the STANAG is reviewed in accordance with AAP-03, with the result recorded there too. Whether a given set of drawings actually and consistently states the symbol standard in use is the kind of thing a nation's own drawing-office practice or a customer's quality clause checks, not something NATO assesses centrally.
STANAG 3455 describes a documentation-control practice, not a management system: the work of choosing a symbol standard and using it consistently on aircraft electrical drawings sits with engineering and drawing-office staff, not in software. What that leaves to evidence is the paperwork around it: a procedure that names which of IEC 60617 or IEEE 315 a programme uses, records or templates that show drawings state the standard as required, and training records showing drafters and engineers were briefed on the convention in force.
ComplyTrain holds that evidence as a modern, auditable system: version-controlled procedures, training records tied to named individuals and dates, and corrective actions when a drawing is found not to state the standard used, all searchable when a customer's quality clause asks for it. It does not produce or check the electrical circuit drawings themselves and does not decide which of IEC 60617 or IEEE 315 a programme should use.
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 3455, 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 3455 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 supplier or a drawing office through a contract or a tender that names STANAG 3455, IEC 60617 or IEEE 315, not by existing on its own. Whether it applies to a given programme is set by the tasking or contract in front of you.
STANAG 3455 is the agreement: the letter of promulgation, the ratification record, and the requirement to state which standard a set of drawings follows. IEC 60617:2012 DB and IEEE 315 are the civil standards that actually define the symbols; the STANAG names them as the two acceptable choices and does not reproduce either.
They are civil standards, sold by their own publishers. IEC 60617:2012 DB is obtained from IEC, and IEEE 315 from IEEE, on each publisher's own commercial terms. NATO's own STANAG 3455 document is free of charge through the NATO Standardization Document Database, but that free access does not extend to the civil standards it points to.
Edition 6, promulgated 9 February 2023. It supersedes STANAG 3455, Edition 5, dated 24 March 2014.
No. There is no accredited certification for STANAG 3455, IEC 60617 or IEEE 315 to hold, and ComplyTrain does not claim one. What we support is the evidence trail around choosing and correctly stating the symbol standard used, at an informational level.
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.