An AS9102 First Article Inspection is the aerospace industry’s standardized way of proving that a manufacturing process can produce a part that matches its engineering design exactly. Published by the International Aerospace Quality Group, the standard gives suppliers and their customers a common set of forms and rules for documenting that verification before full production begins. Every dimension, material, special process, and functional test tied to the design gets accounted for on three specific forms and tied back to a ballooned drawing, creating a complete audit trail from the part number down to the last measured feature.
The current version of the standard is Revision C, released in July 2023. It is what customer auditors and registrars now expect to see on any new submission.
When a First Article Inspection Is Required
A full FAI is required the first time a manufacturer produces a part from a new design or on an unproven production line. Once a full FAI has been approved, later changes usually don’t require repeating the whole process. The standard allows a partial (or “Delta”) FAI that covers only the affected characteristics.
A Delta FAI is triggered by any change that could alter whether the finished part still meets its design requirements. The common triggers are:
- A change to the manufacturing process, such as moving from manual machining to CNC, changing an inspection method, or swapping tooling or materials.
- Relocating production equipment to a different building or site.
- Any design revision that affects fit, form, or function.
- Bringing in a new sub-tier supplier for a material or special process.
- Updates to numerical control programs or embedded software that could affect the finished product.
- A production lapse of two or more years, which requires re-evaluation of the affected characteristics.
- A natural or man-made event, such as a facility flood, power surge, or fire, that may have adversely affected the process.
When a two-year lapse triggers re-evaluation, most customers expect a full FAI rather than a partial one, though the standard allows either if the organization documents its rationale for choosing the partial route.1Lockheed Martin. RMS Supplier FAI Requirements Operators lose familiarity, calibration drifts, and sub-tier suppliers may have quietly changed their own processes in the interim.
The Three Required Forms
Every FAI package is built around three standardized forms. A customer reviewing a submission from a supplier in Germany sees the same structure as one from a shop in Wichita.
Form 1: Part Number Accountability
Form 1 is the top-level identification sheet. It captures the part name, serial number, drawing revision level, and any engineering changes incorporated into the product that aren’t yet reflected in the current drawing revision. It also records whether the FAI is full or partial and, if partial, the reason for re-accomplishment. Under Revision C, Form 1 requires identification of the part type (detail part, sub-assembly, software, or commercial off-the-shelf item) and carries the signature fields that lock all three forms. The individual who reviews the package and the individual who approves it must be different people.2SAE International. SAE 9102 Form 1 – Part Number Accountability
Form 2: Product Accountability
Form 2 tracks every material, special process, and functional test tied to the part’s design characteristics. Each row identifies a material or process by name and specification number, the supplier who provided it, whether that supplier has customer approval, and the certificate of conformance number proving the material or process meets spec. If the design calls for functional testing such as vibration, pressure, or electrical, Form 2 captures the test procedure number and acceptance report number.3IAQG. Appendix B – 9102 Forms and Supporting Form Instructions
This is where sub-tier documentation gets pulled in. Heat treat certifications, plating reports, raw material test reports, and special process completion records all feed into Form 2. A “No” in the customer approval field is a red flag that must be resolved before the FAI can close.
Form 3: Characteristic Accountability
Form 3 is where the verification lives. Every design characteristic in the technical data package gets its own row, with the engineering requirement in one column and the actual measured result in the next. If the drawing calls for a hole diameter of 0.500 ± 0.005 inches, Form 3 records the nominal requirement and the exact value the inspector measured on the physical part.4IAQG. SAE 9102 Form 3 – Characteristic Accountability Inspection/Test Results
Results must be recorded in the same units specified on the drawing. For characteristics verified with go/no-go gauges, a pass/fail notation is acceptable. For measurements taken by coordinate measuring machines, the standard is stricter: raw coordinate data alone isn’t sufficient for something like a positional tolerance. The form must show the actual positional value calculated from that data so the result is directly comparable to the design requirement.
When automated inspection equipment generates reports that support the verification, those reports can be attached to the FAI rather than transcribed line by line. The characteristic numbers on Form 3 must be clearly linked to the corresponding entries in the attached report, and the results must be directly comparable to the design characteristic.
Ballooning the Drawing
Before anyone fills out Form 3, the engineering drawing has to be ballooned. Every design characteristic on the drawing gets a unique number: dimensions, tolerances, surface finish callouts, material notes, and process notes. Each balloon number corresponds to a row on Form 3, creating a visual link between the drawing and the inspection record.
Every drawing note that contains a verifiable requirement also gets a balloon. This is where inexperienced teams trip up: they balloon the geometric dimensions but skip notes like “break all sharp edges” or “surface roughness 63 Ra max.” Those notes define design characteristics just as much as a positional tolerance does, and the customer will reject a FAI package that doesn’t account for them.
Modern FAI software can automate much of this work, using optical character recognition to detect dimensions and geometric tolerancing frames on a PDF drawing and auto-populate Form 3 fields. A human review pass is still necessary to catch notes and callouts the software misreads.
Measuring the Part
With the forms prepared and the drawing ballooned, a quality inspector measures the actual part against every characteristic listed on Form 3. Tools range from handheld calipers and micrometers for simple features to coordinate measuring machines and optical comparators for complex geometry. Every instrument used must be calibrated and traceable to a recognized standard.
The inspector records each measured value alongside its design requirement. If every result falls within tolerance, the package is on track for approval.
When a Measurement Falls Out of Tolerance
A non-conformance found during the FAI doesn’t automatically kill the submission, but it does create a mandatory detour. The out-of-tolerance characteristic must be documented with its actual measured value, and the organization must initiate corrective action addressing the root cause. The intent is not just to fix the immediate part but to validate that the corrective action prevents recurrence.
Revision C changed the terminology here. Instead of marking the FAI as “complete” or “not complete,” the form now asks whether the FAI contains a documented non-conformance. If it does, the non-conformance record must accompany the submission. Customers handle these differently. Some will accept a package with a documented non-conformance and an approved disposition such as a use-as-is concession. Others will reject it outright and require re-inspection on a new part after the corrective action has been implemented.
Submitting the Package
Once the inspector has verified all characteristics and a designated quality representative has reviewed the complete package, the FAI is submitted to the customer. Most submissions today go through electronic quality management portals, though some contracts still require physical document binders. The package includes all three completed forms, the ballooned drawing, any attached inspection reports, material certifications, and non-conformance records if applicable.
Review timelines vary by customer and contract. Some OEMs turn around approvals in a few weeks. Others take considerably longer, especially for complex assemblies with hundreds of characteristics. Production may be restricted or paused during the review period depending on the contract terms. Shipping parts before FAI approval is a fast way to generate a major quality escape.
What Changed in Revision C
Revision C, released in July 2023, introduced several meaningful changes beyond cosmetic field renaming:5IAQG. 9102 Summary of Changes
- Organizations must have a documented process to plan for the FAI, including verifying the revision level of any embedded or deliverable software.
- Each item in a bill of materials must have a separate FAI. The standard also clarifies that the FAI is not a product acceptance document; it verifies the process, not the individual part.
- Form 2 and Form 3 no longer carry their own signature fields. A single signature block on Form 1 now locks all three forms, with the reviewer and approver required to be different individuals.
- Suppliers performing special processes can satisfy Form 2 requirements either by creating their own FAI or by providing a detailed certificate of conformance.
- The “complete/not complete” designation was replaced with a field asking whether the FAI contains a documented non-conformance.
- The language on when a partial FAI is required was updated to focus on whether previous characteristics have been “invalidated or are not represented” rather than the older “potential to affect fit, form, and function” phrasing.
Organizations still working from Revision B forms should update their templates and procedures. Customer auditors and registrars now reference Revision C during AS9100 surveillance audits.
What Happens If the FAI Is Rejected
A rejected FAI stops production. No parts ship until the issues are corrected, new parts are manufactured if necessary, and the package is resubmitted and approved. Direct costs include scrap, rework, expedited shipping to recover lost schedule time, and the quality engineering hours spent diagnosing and correcting the root cause. The indirect cost is often worse: a pattern of rejections erodes customer credibility and can lead to increased source inspection or removal from the approved supplier list.
On government contracts, contracting officers are required to document repeated submissions of nonconforming items in the contractor’s performance record, which directly affects future award decisions.6Acquisition.GOV. FAR 46.407 – Nonconforming Supplies or Services
How AS9102 Fits with AS9100
AS9102 sits within the broader AS9100 quality management system framework. Clause 8.5.1.3 of AS9100 Revision D requires organizations to verify that their production processes can consistently produce conforming products and specifically calls for inspection of a representative item from the first production run. AS9102 provides the standardized method for performing that inspection.7IAQG. 9102 First Article Inspection Requirement
One distinction catches some suppliers off guard: AS9100 certification does not automatically require the use of AS9102 forms. The requirement to use AS9102 comes from customer contracts, not from the quality management system standard itself. If your contract mandates AS9102, you must use it. If it doesn’t, you could technically satisfy the AS9100 FAI requirement with your own internal process, though in practice nearly every aerospace OEM flows AS9102 down through purchase orders.
How Long You Have to Keep the Records
Aerospace record retention comes from multiple overlapping sources, and the longest applicable period governs. Federal regulations require production approval holders to retain manufacturing records for at least five years, extending to ten years for critical components identified under the certification rules.8eCFR. 14 CFR Part 21 – Certification Procedures for Products and Articles The Federal Acquisition Regulation separately requires contractors to make records available for at least three years after final payment, though contracts routinely specify longer periods.9Acquisition.GOV. FAR 4.703 – Policy
In practice, most aerospace contracts specify retention well beyond these minimums. A ten-year clause is common, and some defense programs require records for the life of the platform, which can mean decades. If a part fails in service twenty years from now, investigators need access to the original FAI data to determine whether the failure traces back to a manufacturing issue or a design flaw.