Platform
Modules
By sector
By sector
By standard
Blog
News
Events
STANAG 4811
Defence UAS manufacturers and integrators working to a contract that invokes STANAG 4811 or the AEP-107 publication it covers
STANAG 4811 is NATO's Edition 3 agreement covering AEP-107, which sets minimum functional and performance requirements for Sense and Avoid systems on unmanned aircraft operating in non-segregated airspace.
STANAG 4811 is the NATO Standardization Agreement covering Sense and Avoid (SAA) for Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS). This is Edition 3, promulgated 22 August 2025, and it converts what had been a non-binding NATO recommendation, STANREC 4811 Edition 2, into a full ratifiable agreement, stating it "is converted from STANREC 4811, Edition 2, after validation of AEP-107 by nations and industry."
A STANAG is the agreement by which NATO nations commit to implement a standard, not the technical specification itself. STANAG 4811's own text is short and administrative: an aim, three interoperability requirements, and the ratification, implementation and reporting machinery. The functional and performance requirements named in its title sit in a separate publication, AEP-107, Edition B, which the STANAG names as the standard participating nations "agree to implement". AEP-107 "provides minimum functional and performance requirements to ensure the safety and interoperability of SAA systems for UAS operations in non-segregated airspace" and "defines tailorable acceptable means of compliance for each requirement" - so anyone actually designing or verifying a Sense and Avoid system needs AEP-107's own text, not this cover agreement.
The stated aim is interoperability across three requirements: compatibility ("to ensure the safety of civil and military operations through acceptable interactions of equipment, operations, procedures, and humans"), interchangeability ("to support recognition and commonality of materiel solutions and industry standards"), and commonality ("to enable routine operations by standardizing operational procedures, functionality, performance, and approval processes"). None of the three is developed further in this document; the detail sits in AEP-107.
STANAG 4811 binds nations, not suppliers. It is effective "upon receipt for use by the participating nations and NATO bodies", and a given nation is bound through ratification, which NATO records in the NATO Standardization Documents Database (NSDD). Implementation is a separate, further step: the STANAG "is considered implemented when the standardized requirements in AEP-107 are used or are specified to be used" within one of four routes it names - SAA acquisition programmes, "certification, airworthiness, or certification processes", cross-border approvals of SAA-equipped UAS, or recognition of industry SAA standards. Once implemented, Allied nations and NATO bodies "shall provide implementation details through the electronic reporting tool"; partner nations are only "invited to provide their implementation details" the same way. A supplier or integrator meets STANAG 4811, or the AEP-107 requirements it covers, only where a contract or tender says so - the document sets no obligation reaching a supplier directly, and it names no NATO-wide effective date (its own "NATO Effective Date (NED)" field reads "Not applicable").
STANAG 4811 does not name a specific authority. It says implementation happens "by the appropriate authorities" through a nation's own "policy, regulation, order, or instruction", applied within that nation's "certification, airworthiness, or certification processes" or to facilitate "cross-border approvals of SAA equipped UAS". Which body that is, and what it actually checks, is left to the acquiring nation's own existing process - this STANAG does not set one out.
STANAG 4811 describes no certification scheme and no audit of its own. What it describes is nations reporting to NATO: ratification responses are "recorded in the NATO Standardization Documents Database (NSDD)", and Allies separately report implementation details through NATO's electronic reporting tool. Nobody is "STANAG 4811 certified", and the document never uses that language. Whatever certification, airworthiness review, or cross-border approval a given SAA-equipped UAS actually goes through is run by the acquiring nation's own certifying authority, against whatever acceptable means of compliance was chosen under AEP-107 - not against this cover agreement.
STANAG 4811 covers AEP-107, the Allied Engineering Publication that carries the actual functional and performance requirements and the acceptable means of compliance. Reviews of the STANAG itself run under AAP-03. It supersedes STANREC 4811, Edition 2, dated 14 December 2021, the recommendation it converts from - a document outside our catalogue.
STANAG 4811 and the AEP-107 requirements it covers are followed in UAS design, integration and airworthiness work, not in a compliance platform: an engineer designs the Sense and Avoid system against AEP-107's requirements, a certification or airworthiness authority reviews the result, and a quality function holds the records that prove it.
What ComplyTrain does for that kind of work generally is give a defence UAS supplier one auditable place to hold the design and verification procedures, the training records for the engineers and test staff involved, and the evidence trail - non-conformances, corrective actions, document control - that a customer's quality representative, a government surveillance visit, or a certification reviewer will ask to see.
ComplyTrain does not design a Sense and Avoid system, test one, determine whether a UAS meets AEP-107's requirements, or approve an aircraft to fly. Those are engineering, test and airworthiness decisions, carried out against the publication itself and whatever process the acquiring nation's certifying authority runs.
Which STANAGs and Allied Publications actually apply to a given UAS programme is set by the contract and the customer's quality clause, not by us. Browse the explorer to see what sits alongside STANAG 4811 and AEP-107, and talk to us about the evidence trail once you know which ones are in your contract.
Tell us how you need to work with STANAG 4811 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.
Only where a nation has ratified and implemented it, and it reaches a supplier only where a contract or tender invokes it. The STANAG's own "NATO Effective Date (NED)" field reads "Not applicable", so there is no blanket start date to point to.
STANAG 4811 is the NATO ratification agreement; AEP-107, Edition B is the publication that actually specifies the minimum functional and performance requirements for Sense and Avoid systems, and the tailorable acceptable means of compliance for each one. Ratifying STANAG 4811 is how a nation commits to implement AEP-107.
STANAG 4811 does not say. It states only that implementation happens "by the appropriate authorities" through a nation's own certification, airworthiness or approval processes, without naming which body that is.
No. STANAG 4811 describes nations ratifying and reporting implementation to NATO, recorded in the NATO Standardization Documents Database. It describes no certification or audit scheme for a supplier, a product, or an aircraft.
Edition 3 converts what had been STANREC 4811, Edition 2, a non-binding NATO recommendation dated 14 December 2021, into a ratifiable agreement, following validation of AEP-107 "by nations and industry".
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.