MES can automatically trigger AS9102 FAI activities by applying configured rules to production, engineering, quality, and supply chain events. Common triggers include a new part number, a new drawing or revision, an engineering change, a routing or process change, a supplier or manufacturing location change, a long production gap, or a customer-specific FAI requirement. The MES can initiate the workflow, but it does not make the FAI compliant by itself. The quality of the result depends on master data, integration with PLM, ERP, QMS, and document control systems, and the site’s approved AS9102 procedure.
What the MES can trigger
In a mature implementation, the MES can create or route an FAI task when a configured condition is detected. That task may require quality engineering review, characteristic inspection, evidence attachment, approvals, and controlled release before shipment or production continuation.
Typical MES-triggered activities include:
- Opening a full or partial FAI workflow for a work order, serial number, lot, or part revision.
- Flagging the operation or traveler as requiring FAI before the next production or shipment gate.
- Prompting the operator or inspector to collect dimensional, material, special process, and functional evidence.
- Linking the FAI package to the applicable drawing, specification, routing, bill of material, and purchase order requirements.
- Routing the record to quality, manufacturing engineering, or customer representative review where required.
- Preventing closure, shipment, or release if required FAI steps are incomplete, if that control is approved and integrated with ERP or shipping processes.
Where the trigger logic usually comes from
The MES normally needs signals from other systems. PLM or document control usually owns the released drawing, model, specification, and revision status. ERP usually owns demand, work orders, purchase orders, inventory, and shipment controls. QMS may own nonconformance, corrective action, deviation, and approval workflows. The MES typically sits at the execution layer and turns these upstream changes into shop-floor actions.
Common trigger inputs include:
- Part number or revision change from PLM or ERP.
- New or revised routing, operation, tooling, or manufacturing plan.
- New supplier, processor, production line, machine, or manufacturing site.
- Customer flow-down requiring FAI or delta FAI.
- Production restart after an inactivity period, where defined by customer, contract, or internal procedure.
- Characteristic plan changes, including key characteristics or critical-to-quality features.
- Nonconformance, repair, or change activity that invalidates part of the previous FAI baseline.
Full FAI versus partial FAI matters
The MES should not assume every trigger requires a full AS9102 FAI. Many events require a partial or delta FAI focused on the affected characteristics, materials, processes, or assemblies. That decision is usually governed by the organization’s AS9102 procedure, customer requirements, and quality engineering judgment.
If the trigger logic is too broad, the plant creates unnecessary inspection burden and schedule delays. If it is too narrow, the site may miss required FAI activity. Both failure modes are common in brownfield environments where part masters, routings, drawing revisions, and inspection plans are not consistently aligned.
What must be in place first
Automatic triggering is only reliable when the underlying data is controlled. At minimum, the site usually needs clear ownership of part revision, drawing revision, routing revision, bill of material revision, inspection characteristics, supplier identity, and customer-specific requirements. If these are maintained manually or inconsistently across MES, ERP, PLM, and QMS, the trigger will be fragile.
Practical prerequisites include:
- Approved AS9102 and customer-specific FAI procedures.
- Controlled master data for parts, revisions, routings, operations, and inspection plans.
- Integration rules between PLM, ERP, MES, QMS, and document control.
- Defined criteria for full FAI, partial FAI, and no FAI required.
- Change control for trigger rules and workflow changes.
- Validation or documented testing appropriate to the regulated environment.
- Audit trails showing why the FAI was triggered, who reviewed it, and what evidence was accepted.
What MES should not be expected to do alone
MES should not be treated as the sole authority for AS9102 applicability unless the required engineering, quality, customer, and configuration data actually resides there and is controlled there. In most aerospace environments, it does not. MES can enforce execution gates and collect evidence, but AS9102 decisions often depend on design authority, customer flow-downs, manufacturing process changes, supplier controls, and approved quality procedures.
MES also does not eliminate the need for human review. Quality engineering typically still needs to confirm whether the trigger requires full or partial FAI, whether the characteristic set is complete, whether the correct revision baseline is used, and whether exceptions are properly documented.
Brownfield implementation reality
In existing aerospace plants, automatic FAI triggering is usually added incrementally. Full replacement of MES, ERP, PLM, or QMS just to support FAI triggering is often unrealistic because of qualification burden, validation cost, downtime risk, integration complexity, traceability obligations, and long equipment lifecycles.
A more practical pattern is to start with a small set of high-confidence triggers, such as new part, revision change, and first production order, then expand to process, supplier, location, and inactivity triggers once the data and ownership model are stable. Manual review gates are commonly retained, especially during early deployment or where customer requirements vary by program.
Main failure modes
- False negatives: the MES fails to trigger FAI because engineering or supplier changes are not integrated or mapped correctly.
- False positives: the MES triggers FAI too often because it cannot distinguish meaningful changes from administrative changes.
- Revision mismatch: the FAI package references a different drawing, routing, BOM, or specification revision than the work order.
- Incomplete characteristics: ballooned characteristics or inspection requirements are missing, outdated, or not tied to the released design baseline.
- Weak audit trail: the system cannot show why the FAI was triggered, overridden, approved, or bypassed.
- Uncontrolled rule changes: trigger logic is modified without change control, testing, or quality approval.
The defensible answer is that MES can trigger AS9102 FAI activities, but only as part of a controlled configuration and data flow. The trigger should be treated as a validated quality execution control, not as a generic automation feature.