Platform
Modules
By sector
By sector
By standard
Blog
News
Events
STANAG 4702
NATO nations and NATO bodies, and the manufacturers that meet AEP-80 once a national programme applies it under contract
STANAG 4702 is NATO's agreement committing ratifying nations to implement AEP-80, the Allied Engineering Publication setting rotary-wing unmanned aircraft airworthiness requirements.
STANAG 4702 is the NATO standardization agreement that gives force to AEP-80, Edition B, the Allied Engineering Publication setting airworthiness requirements for rotary-wing unmanned aircraft systems. A STANAG is not itself a technical specification: it is the agreement by which NATO nations commit to implement one, and the actual requirements sit in the Allied Publication it covers. This STANAG responds to an interoperability requirement stated plainly in the document: "To use common standards for the production of airworthiness requirements for Rotary Wing Unmanned Aerial Systems." Read plainly, that means the STANAG exists so that NATO nations design and certify rotary-wing military UAS against a shared airworthiness code, not so that a single national standard applies everywhere automatically.
This is Edition 2, promulgated 24 November 2016. It supersedes STANAG 4702 Edition 1.
The mechanism that matters here: a STANAG binds a nation, not a manufacturer. 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 implementation," and the national response is recorded in the NATO Standardization Document Database (NSDD). Once ratified, "This STANAG is effective upon receipt and ready to be used by the implementing nations and NATO bodies," and partner nations "are invited to adopt this STANAG." The document also names a more specific implementation test: it "is considered to be implemented when qualification and proficiency standards described in this standard are acknowledged and implemented into national regulations and manuals." A manufacturer meets AEP-80 only where a contract or a tender brings it in by name, not because the STANAG exists on its own.
Nations report their effective implementation "using the form in Annex H to AAP-03(J)"; partner nations report their adoption of the STANAG the same way, "using the form in Annex G to AAP-03(J)." The STANAG "is to be reviewed at least once every three years," with the result "recorded within the NSDD," and nations or NATO bodies may propose changes at any time through a standardization proposal to the tasking authority.
No certification exists here, and the document names none. What it describes is a national ratification, implementation and review cycle run through NATO's own machinery, not an audit against this STANAG as such. The airworthiness requirements in AEP-80, and how a national authority applies them to a specific aircraft type, are that publication's subject, not this cover agreement's.
STANAG 4702 and AEP-80 describe a technical airworthiness code and the agreement that gives it force, not a management system: the work of evidencing rotary-wing UAS airworthiness sits with a programme's own engineering and airworthiness teams working against AEP-80, not in software. What this STANAG's own machinery leaves to evidence is the paperwork around it: procedures that correctly reference AEP-80 and this STANAG, training records showing engineering and quality staff have been trained against the current edition, and the trail a national authority or a customer's quality clause asks for afterwards.
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 gap turns up, all searchable when a higher headquarters or a customer's quality clause asks for it. It does not carry out airworthiness substantiation itself, does not decide how a nation ratifies or implements the agreement, and does not replace the ratification and reporting nations carry out themselves through the NSDD and the AAP-03(J) forms.
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 4702, the standards explorer covers the related NATO airworthiness publications, and we are glad to talk through what that means in practice.
Tell us how you need to work with STANAG 4702 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 manufacturer through a contract or a tender that names AEP-80 or this STANAG, 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 4702 is the agreement: the letter of promulgation, the ratification record, and the reporting and review machinery. AEP-80 is the publication itself, the Allied Engineering Publication that sets out the actual rotary-wing UAS airworthiness requirements. The STANAG is the cover; AEP-80 is the content.
Not through this agreement. STANAG 4702 names no certification scheme of its own; it only records that nations agree to implement AEP-80. Any certification of a specific aircraft is a matter for AEP-80 itself and the national authority applying it.
Edition 2, promulgated 24 November 2016. It supersedes STANAG 4702 Edition 1; the document available to us does not give that earlier edition's date.
No. There is no accredited certification for STANAG 4702 or AEP-80 to hold, and ComplyTrain does not claim one. What we support is the evidence trail around procedures and training for rotary-wing UAS airworthiness work, at an informational level.
At least once every three years, with the result recorded in the NATO Standardization Document Database. Nations and NATO bodies can also propose changes at any time through a standardization proposal to the tasking authority.
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.