Connect981 – Content Dev

RSC Cluster: AS9102 First Article Inspection and Net-Inspect

The AS9102 First Article Inspection and Net-Inspect Cluster breaks down how first articles are executed, reviewed, and submitted in real aerospace environments. It clearly explains Forms 1 through 3, partial FAI triggers, drawing changes, and inspection responsibility. The content also maps system handoffs between internal execution tools and Net-Inspect, helping teams avoid submission errors and audit findings. This cluster turns FAI from a recurring fire drill into a repeatable, auditable process.

  • Net-Inspect

    Net-Inspect commonly refers to a cloud-based quality and supplier collaboration platform widely used in the aerospace and defense industry to exchange inspection and production data between OEMs and their suppliers.

    What Net-Inspect is in an aerospace context

    In regulated aerospace manufacturing, Net-Inspect is typically used as a secure, web-based portal where suppliers upload and manage product quality records requested by customers. These records often include:

    • AS9102 first article inspection (FAI) reports and supporting data
    • In-process and final inspection results
    • Certificates of conformance and related documents
    • Nonconformance information when required by customer process

    Prime manufacturers and Tier 1s may configure Net-Inspect to standardize how suppliers submit data, route it for review, and maintain an accessible history of inspection evidence.

    How it shows up in operations

    On the shop floor and in quality departments, Net-Inspect typically appears as a required step in fulfilling customer contract requirements. Common operational uses include:

    • Entering dimensional and characteristic results for FAI and production lots into customer-defined forms
    • Uploading ballooned drawings, material certs, and test reports to accompany AS9102 forms
    • Responding to customer feedback or rejection of submitted inspection packages
    • Maintaining a record of submitted FAIs linked to part numbers, revisions, and purchase orders

    Organizations often need to align internal systems (such as MES, ERP, or internal FAI tools) with Net-Inspect so that data can be transferred consistently and with minimal re-entry.

    Scope and boundaries

    Net-Inspect, in this sense, is:

    • A specific commercial software platform and portal used primarily for aerospace quality and supplier data exchange
    • Focused on documentation and evidence of quality and compliance rather than full production scheduling or shop-floor control

    It is not, by itself:

    • A complete enterprise resource planning (ERP) system
    • A full manufacturing execution system (MES) for routing, dispatching, and real-time work-in-process control
    • A general-purpose document management system for all internal quality records

    Common confusion

    Net-Inspect is sometimes informally used as a shorthand for the entire FAI process, especially in organizations where a specific customer mandates Net-Inspect submissions. It is more accurate to treat Net-Inspect as one possible system or portal used to submit AS9102/FAI data, not as the FAI process itself. The process requirements still come from standards (such as AS9102) and customer contracts, regardless of which portal or tool is used.

    Link to AS9102 and FAI workflows

    In many aerospace programs, Net-Inspect is the primary mechanism for submitting AS9102 first article inspection packages to customers. Suppliers may:

    • Create or import Form 1, Form 2, and Form 3 data into Net-Inspect
    • Attach supporting evidence like ballooned drawings and certificates
    • Track approval or rejection of FAIs within the portal

    Organizations often design their internal FAI workflows so that data originates in internal systems (spreadsheets, FAI software, or MES) and is then transferred or re-keyed into Net-Inspect to satisfy customer-specific submission requirements.

  • characteristic number

    A characteristic number is a unique identifier assigned to a specific requirement, feature, or attribute on an engineering drawing or specification. In regulated manufacturing environments, it is commonly used to link each requirement to inspection records, data entry fields, or quality documentation for traceability.

    How characteristic numbers are used

    In practice, characteristic numbers typically:

    • Appear on ballooned or numbered engineering drawings next to dimensions, notes, tolerances, and other requirements
    • Map directly to line items in inspection forms, electronic inspection plans, or FAI (First Article Inspection) reports
    • Provide a stable reference for recording measured values, results (pass/fail), and any associated nonconformances
    • Support traceability between design requirements, shop floor inspection activities, and quality records in MES, QMS, or FAI software

    Each characteristic number should be unique within the scope of the drawing or inspection plan so that a reviewer can unambiguously connect the documented result back to the original requirement.

    What a characteristic number is not

    • It is not the measured value itself; it is a reference that points to the requirement being measured.
    • It is not inherently a risk or criticality rating, although systems may separately flag some characteristic numbers as key, critical, or safety-related.
    • It is not limited to dimensional data; it can also identify notes, material requirements, finishes, processes, or documentation checks.

    Common context in aerospace and AS9102

    In aerospace first article inspection (AS9102), each requirement on the ballooned drawing is assigned a characteristic number. That number is then used in the AS9102 Form 3 (characteristic accountability and verification details) to:

    • Identify the requirement being verified (dimension, note, specification, etc.)
    • Record measured results and inspection methods
    • Document any nonconformances related to that requirement

    This linkage helps auditors and customers confirm that every identified requirement on the drawing has a corresponding inspection record, without implying approval or compliance on its own.

    Common confusion

    • Characteristic number vs. balloon number: On many drawings these are effectively the same, because each balloon on the drawing contains the characteristic number. Some organizations use the terms interchangeably.
    • Characteristic number vs. characteristic ID in software: Digital systems may generate internal IDs that differ from the visible drawing number. In that case, the system should still preserve the original characteristic number as a reference back to the drawing.
    • Characteristic number vs. critical characteristic: A critical or key characteristic is a classification of importance or risk. The characteristic number is simply the identifier; separate attributes or flags usually indicate criticality.

  • Form 2

    Form 2 is the Second Form used in the AS9102 First Article Inspection (FAI) package. It is the standardized document where manufacturers record material information, special process details, and functional test data that demonstrate a part meets engineering and specification requirements.

    What Form 2 typically includes

    While exact layouts can vary by implementation or software, Form 2 commonly captures:

    • Material specifications and codes (e.g., alloys, tempers, raw material callouts)
    • Material certifications, lot numbers, and heat numbers
    • Special processes applied to the part (e.g., heat treat, plating, welding, NDT, coatings)
    • Special process specifications, revisions, and acceptance criteria
    • Approval or qualification references for special process sources
    • Functional tests performed, including procedure references and results

    In practice, Form 2 connects the physical part to its material pedigree and controlled processes, supporting traceability and demonstrating that all required special processes and functional tests were properly executed.

    Operational use in manufacturing systems

    In industrial and aerospace environments, Form 2 data may be:

    • Linked to bills of material (BOM), routings, and operation steps in MES or ERP
    • Tied to supplier certifications, special process approvals, and test records
    • Referenced to work orders, lots, and serial numbers for traceability
    • Managed and version-controlled within QMS, PLM, or FAI software tools

    Software can help enforce required fields, ensure correct specification references, and maintain audit-ready records, but it does not itself guarantee conformance to AS9102; correct setup, data entry, and process discipline remain necessary.

    Relationship to Forms 1 and 3

    Form 2 is one of three core AS9102 forms:

    • Form 1: Part number accountability and basic FAI part information.
    • Form 2: Material, special process, and functional test data.
    • Form 3: Characteristic accountability, listing each drawing or specification characteristic and its inspection results.

    All three forms are usually treated as a single FAI package and may be combined or extended by additional attachments, depending on customer or program requirements.

    Common confusion

    • Form 2 vs. Form 3: Form 2 focuses on materials, special processes, and functional tests at the part level. Form 3 is used for individual dimensional and design characteristics.
    • Form 2 vs. internal shop forms: Some organizations use internal process sheets or travelers with similar information. These do not replace Form 2 for AS9102 FAI, but data from them can be used to populate the official form.

    Context: AS9102 Rev C

    Under AS9102 Rev C, Form 2 content and structure are more clearly defined than in earlier revisions, especially regarding traceability to material certifications and special process approvals. Many aerospace manufacturers configure digital FAI workflows so that Form 2 pulls directly from approved supplier lists, special process qualifications, and test records maintained in MES, ERP, PLM, or dedicated FAI software.

  • How should FAIRs be linked to serialized parts in an aerospace ERP or MES?

    They should be linked indirectly first, and directly only where the manufacturing context justifies it.

    In practice, a FAIR is usually evidence that a part revision and its approved manufacturing process were demonstrated under a defined configuration. That means the primary link should normally be to the part number, revision, site or work center context, routing or process version where relevant, and the work order, lot, or first production run that generated the FAIR evidence. Serialized units should then inherit that relationship through genealogy and as-built records, rather than each serial number carrying a standalone FAIR record as if the FAIR were unique to that unit.

    If you attach FAIRs directly to every serialized part with no effectivity logic, you usually create duplication, confusion during revision changes, and weak auditability. If you never associate serialized units to the FAIR context at all, you lose traceability when someone asks which FAIR supported a shipped serial number and whether later process or design changes broke that linkage.

    Recommended linkage model

    • Link the FAIR record to the part number and revision.

    • Link it to the manufacturing definition in effect at the time, such as routing version, operation set, inspection plan, tooling set, or approved method, if your systems can represent that cleanly.

    • Link it to the originating production context, typically work order, traveler, batch, or the first serialized unit or units produced under that configuration.

    • Store effectivity dates or change-state boundaries so the system can determine when the FAIR is valid, superseded, or potentially impacted.

    • Link each serialized part to its as-built genealogy, which should include the work order, operation history, material lots, inspection results, and revision state. That genealogy is what lets you infer which FAIR package applies.

    Where a customer, internal quality process, or system design requires a direct serial-level pointer, use a reference link from the serial record to the governing FAIR identifier. But that serial-level link should still point back to a controlled FAIR object with revision and effectivity, not to a loose document attachment.

    What the ERP or MES should actually hold

    At minimum, the combined ERP and MES landscape should be able to answer these questions reliably:

    • Which FAIR package supports this part number and revision?

    • Which work order, lot, or first-run serials generated the FAIR?

    • Which serialized units were built under the same approved configuration?

    • What change events would require review, partial update, or new first article activity?

    • Can the FAIR references be traced to the exact inspection results, material certs, and process records used as evidence?

    If the system cannot answer those questions without manual reconstruction from PDFs, shared drives, and tribal knowledge, the linkage is too weak for a regulated aerospace environment.

    Direct serial linkage is useful in some cases

    Direct linkage at the serialized-part level can make sense when:

    • The first article was executed on one or a small number of specific serial numbers and those units are important as reference builds.

    • The product has highly individualized configuration, making lot or family-based inheritance unreliable.

    • Customer requirements or internal procedures expect a serial-level evidence chain.

    • The ERP or MES supports serial effectivity and controlled document associations well enough to avoid duplicate maintenance.

    Even then, the FAIR should still be managed as a controlled quality object with status, supersession, and change history. A plain file attached to a serial record is usually not enough.

    Brownfield reality

    In many aerospace plants, ERP owns the item, revision, order, and serial master while MES, QMS, or a separate FAI tool holds the execution details and FAIR package. In that case, do not force one system to become the source of truth for everything unless you are prepared for significant revalidation, migration effort, and disruption.

    A more durable pattern is:

    • ERP holds the serialized item master and order context.

    • MES holds execution, genealogy, and inspection transactions.

    • QMS or FAI software holds the FAIR object and approval workflow.

    • Integration links them through stable identifiers such as part number, revision, work order, operation, lot, serial number, and FAIR ID.

    This is less elegant than a single-platform model, but it is often more realistic in qualified environments with legacy systems, limited downtime windows, and long asset lifecycles. Full replacement strategies often fail here because the qualification burden, validation cost, integration complexity, and operational risk are higher than expected.

    Common failure modes

    • Using document attachments instead of controlled object relationships.

    • No revision or effectivity model, so obsolete FAIRs still appear valid.

    • Serial numbers exist in ERP, but execution evidence sits in MES with no reliable key mapping.

    • Partial FAI, delta FAI, or process-change triggers are managed outside the system and never reflected in linkage status.

    • Operators or quality staff manually enter FAIR references, creating inconsistency across serial records.

    • One FAIR is treated as permanently valid even after tooling, source, routing, or design changes.

    Practical recommendation

    Use a controlled FAIR record linked to part revision and manufacturing context, then relate serialized units through work order and genealogy. Add direct serial references only when needed for effectivity clarity or customer traceability. The best model is the one your ERP, MES, QMS, and document controls can sustain under change control, with validated integrations and clear ownership of master data.

    No single linkage pattern is correct for every plant. The right answer depends on how you manage revisions, serial effectivity, first article triggers, and system interoperability. But as a rule, FAIRs should support serialized traceability through a governed data model, not through ad hoc file attachments or one-off manual links.

  • How detailed do material and special process entries need to be on Form 2?

    They should be detailed enough to clearly identify the actual material and special processes used for the part, without forcing reviewers to guess or cross-reference vague shorthand.

    For Form 2, the practical standard is not “list everything imaginable.” It is “list enough to support objective traceability back to the engineering requirements and the actual manufacturing record.” If an entry is too generic, it creates avoidable risk during review, internal audit, customer verification, or later investigation.

    In most cases, that means the entry should include the specific material or process designation used on the part and the applicable specification identifier. If revision level, source, or processor is needed to remove ambiguity in your environment or by customer flowdown, include it. If your company procedure, customer requirement, or digital FAI workflow defines a stricter convention, that local rule governs.

    What “enough detail” usually looks like

    • Materials: identify the material in a way that ties back to the drawing, BOM, certification, and receiving or lot records. Generic descriptions alone are usually not sufficient if multiple alloys, tempers, forms, or specs could fit the same plain-language name.

    • Special processes: identify the process by its applicable specification or controlled process reference, not just a broad label like heat treat, plating, or NDT.

    • Source traceability: include the approved processor or supplier when that is part of the required evidence trail or necessary to connect to certs and outside processing records.

    • Revision or issue status: include it when omission would make the entry ambiguous or when your FAI method requires alignment to controlled specification revisions.

    If the drawing calls out a process in a very specific way, Form 2 should reflect that specificity. If the requirement is broad, your entry still needs to identify what was actually performed.

    What is usually not enough

    • Material names with no specification reference where multiple compliant materials are possible

    • Process labels like “painted” or “anodized” with no controlled spec or process reference

    • Internal shorthand that only one planner or quality engineer understands

    • Entries that do not tie back to certs, router steps, supplier paperwork, or approved processor records

    Tradeoffs and failure modes

    Over-detail is usually safer than under-detail, but it has costs. If teams manually copy long specifications, processor names, and revision strings into Form 2, transcription errors become more likely. That is common in brownfield environments where ERP, MES, QMS, and FAI software are not cleanly integrated.

    Under-detail causes a different problem: the FAI may look complete while still being weak on evidence. That often surfaces later when someone tries to reconcile Form 2 against a drawing revision, cert package, purchase order, or outside processing record.

    So the real objective is controlled specificity: enough detail to preserve traceability and reviewability, but ideally pulled from governed source data rather than retyped by hand.

    In mixed-system environments

    If your plant uses a combination of ERP, paper routers, supplier cert packets, and a separate FAI tool, consistency depends heavily on master data quality and mapping discipline. Form 2 quality often degrades when material names in ERP do not match engineering callouts, or when outside processes are tracked differently across purchasing, quality, and production.

    That is why full replacement is often not the practical answer. In regulated, long-lifecycle operations, replacing ERP, MES, QMS, and FAI processes at once can fail because of validation burden, downtime risk, integration complexity, and the need to preserve traceability across legacy records. In many cases, tighter data governance and better field-level integration are more realistic than a wholesale reset.

    If you are unsure about a specific entry, use this test: could a qualified reviewer determine exactly what material or special process was required, what was actually used, and which records prove it, without relying on tribal knowledge? If not, the entry is probably not detailed enough.

  • FAI

    FAI, in regulated manufacturing and especially aerospace, commonly refers to First Article Inspection. It is a formal, documented process used to verify that the first production item (or initial run of items) fully meets all specified design, drawing, and specification requirements before broader release into regular production.

    What FAI includes

    In typical industrial and aerospace contexts, First Article Inspection includes:

    • Producing a part or assembly using standard production processes, tooling, programs, and operators
    • Reviewing and confirming all engineering data, drawings, specifications, and planning are current and correctly applied
    • Measuring and recording key characteristics and dimensions against the design requirements
    • Verifying materials, special processes, and certifications (for example heat treatment, coatings, or non-destructive testing) match requirements
    • Documenting results in a structured FAI report, often using standardized forms such as those aligned with AS9102 in aerospace

    FAI is usually required when:

    • A new part is introduced
    • A part design changes in a way that could affect fit, form, or function
    • Manufacturing methods, location, tooling, or key suppliers change
    • Production resumes after a long interruption, subject to customer or internal requirements

    Operational meaning in manufacturing systems

    Operationally, FAI appears as a controlled activity within quality and operations workflows, and may involve:

    • Quality planning that flags which parts or changes require FAI
    • Work orders or production orders linked to an FAI requirement in MES, ERP, or PLM systems
    • Electronic collection of measurement data and evidence (for example inspection results, certificates, process parameters)
    • Document control for FAI reports and related records, subject to audit and customer review
    • Integration of FAI status into supplier scorecards, part approval status, and release decisions

    In aerospace supplier management, FAI performance and completeness may be monitored as part of quality metrics on supplier scorecards, alongside defect rates, escape incidents, and documentation accuracy.

    What FAI is not

    To avoid confusion, FAI does not typically mean:

    • Routine in-process inspection or final inspection of every batch
    • A design validation test for new product development (though FAI supports design realization)
    • A full process capability study, even though some organizations may combine FAI with capability analysis

    Common confusion

    FAI is sometimes confused with or used alongside:

    • PPAP (Production Part Approval Process) in automotive and related industries. PPAP is a broader submission package that can include FAI-like dimensional results but also process documentation, capability studies, and more.
    • Initial Sample Inspection Report (ISIR), a term used in some sectors for a similar concept. An ISIR may serve a similar function but follows different templates and rules.
    • First Piece Inspection, which some organizations use for the first piece of every batch or shift. FAI, by contrast, focuses on initial qualification events or significant changes, not routine batch starts.

    Relation to the aerospace supplier scorecard context

    In the aerospace context, FAI is often a contractual or standard-based requirement. Suppliers may be evaluated on:

    • Timely completion and submission of FAI packages
    • Accuracy and completeness of FAI documentation and records
    • Stability of production following FAI, such as low nonconformance rates on the approved configuration

    Because of its traceability and documentation needs, FAI can drive how MES, QMS, and document control systems are configured to support regulated and long-lifecycle aerospace programs.

  • Dimensional Report

    A dimensional report is a formal record that documents the measured dimensions of a part or assembly and compares them to the design or specification requirements. It is commonly generated after an inspection activity and is used as objective evidence that the manufactured item meets, or does not meet, defined dimensional tolerances.

    What a dimensional report typically includes

    While formats vary by organization and customer, a dimensional report commonly contains:

    • Part and drawing identifiers (part number, revision, drawing number)
    • Inspection lot, work order, or serial number references
    • List of characteristics or features to be measured (often ballooned from the drawing)
    • Nominal dimension and tolerance for each characteristic
    • Actual measured values from inspection equipment
    • Pass/fail or in-tolerance/out-of-tolerance indication for each dimension
    • Measurement method and equipment identifiers, when required
    • Inspector identification and date, and sometimes approval signatures

    In regulated and aerospace environments, the dimensional report may be tied to first article inspection (FAI) packages, manufacturing records, or supplier deliverables.

    Operational use in manufacturing and quality systems

    In industrial operations, dimensional reports are used to:

    • Provide traceable evidence that critical dimensions meet design and customer requirements
    • Support first article inspection and qualification builds
    • Document results of in-process, final, or receiving inspection activities
    • Feed nonconformance, CAPA, or MRB workflows when dimensions are out of tolerance
    • Support audits and customer reviews of inspection and quality records

    Digital MES, QMS, or inspection systems often generate dimensional reports automatically from captured measurement data, linking them to work orders, inspection plans, and device history or as-built records.

    Relationship to standards and FAI

    In aerospace, dimensional reports are often part of AS9102 first article inspection documentation. The report lists drawing characteristics, their requirements, and the measured results that demonstrate conformity. Similar reporting approaches are used in other regulated sectors, even when different standards apply.

    What a dimensional report is not

    • It is not the same as a full device history record or manufacturing history, which includes process steps, materials, and other data, not only dimensions.
    • It is not a process capability study, although dimensional report data may be used as input to capability analysis.
    • It is not limited to first articles; it can be used for routine inspection, sample inspection, or special measurement studies.

    Common confusion

    • Dimensional report vs. inspection report: An inspection report is a broader term that may include visual checks, functional tests, and other attributes. A dimensional report focuses specifically on measured dimensions and tolerances.
    • Dimensional report vs. CMM report: A CMM report is a type of dimensional report generated from a coordinate measuring machine. Not all dimensional reports come from CMMs; they may use calipers, micrometers, optical systems, or manual gauges.

  • AS9102 Rev C

    AS9102 Rev C is the revision C version of the AS9102 standard that defines requirements for First Article Inspection (FAI) in the aerospace and defense industry. It specifies how organizations document and verify that a production process can consistently manufacture parts that meet engineering and specification requirements.

    The standard is widely applied to new part introductions, changes to design or manufacturing processes, and changes to manufacturing location or suppliers. AS9102 Rev C maintains the core intent of earlier revisions but refines definitions, clarifies applicability, and updates expectations for forms, documentation, and traceability.

    What AS9102 Rev C covers

    Within manufacturing operations, AS9102 Rev C commonly includes:

    • First Article Inspection (FAI) planning, including defining when a full or partial FAI is required
    • Characteristic accountability, such as listing all drawing and specification characteristics and their inspection results
    • Dimensional, material, and process verification, including evidence of special process and material conformance
    • Use of standard FAI forms, such as Form 1 (Part Number Accountability), Form 2 (Product Accountability), and Form 3 (Characteristic Accountability)
    • Record retention and traceability expectations for completed FAI packages

    In practice, AS9102 Rev C requirements may be met using paper packets, spreadsheets, or digital FAI and MES systems that capture characteristics, inspection results, and approvals tied to work orders or lots.

    Operational meaning in manufacturing

    For regulated aerospace manufacturing environments, AS9102 Rev C commonly shows up as:

    • A customer or contract requirement to perform and document FAI for specified parts
    • Configured FAI workflows in MES, QMS, or FAI software, often including ballooned drawings and characteristic lists
    • Defined triggers for re-accomplishing FAI after design changes, process changes, or supplier changes
    • Evidence packages used in AS9100 audits, customer audits, or source inspections

    Common confusion

    • AS9102 vs. AS9102 Rev C: “AS9102” refers to the standard in general, while “AS9102 Rev C” refers specifically to the current revision C text of that standard. Many users say “AS9102” even when they are applying Rev C.
    • AS9102 vs. AS9100: AS9102 Rev C addresses First Article Inspection requirements. AS9100 is a broader aerospace quality management system standard. An organization may follow AS9100 as its QMS framework and use AS9102 Rev C for its FAI processes within that system.

    Relation to digital systems

    In modern aerospace operations, AS9102 Rev C requirements are often implemented using:

    • MES or digital traveler systems that mark operations as FAI-relevant
    • Integrated FAI modules that manage ballooned characteristics, measurement entries, and electronic sign-offs
    • QMS or document control systems that store FAI reports for audit and customer access

    The standard itself is technology-neutral; references to digital tools relate to how organizations operationalize and document compliance to AS9102 Rev C within their manufacturing and quality systems.

  • AS9102

    AS9102 is an aerospace industry standard that defines requirements and documentation formats for conducting First Article Inspection (FAI) on production parts and assemblies. It is used by organizations in the aerospace and defense supply chain to objectively verify that manufacturing processes can consistently produce parts that conform to engineering drawings, specifications, and purchase order requirements.

    What AS9102 Includes

    AS9102 commonly refers to:

    • A structured First Article Inspection process that verifies that a new or changed production process can make a part that meets all design requirements.
    • Standardized FAI forms (often referred to as Form 1, Form 2, and Form 3) used to record part information, material and process data, and measurement results for all design characteristics.
    • Requirements for when an FAI is required, such as for first production runs, significant design changes, significant process changes, or changes in manufacturing location, tooling, or supplier.
    • Expectations for retaining and controlling FAI records so they are available for customers and audits.

    In production environments, AS9102 shows up in workflows as ballooned drawings or models with numbered characteristics, inspection plans linked to those characteristics, and completed FAI reports that tie each measured result back to the requirement.

    What AS9102 Does Not Cover

    AS9102 does not:

    • Define general quality management system requirements for an organization (this is covered more broadly by standards such as AS9100).
    • Replace ongoing in-process or final inspection plans; it focuses on a representative part at a specific point in the lifecycle, not continuous inspection.
    • Specify particular measurement methods or equipment, although it expects that appropriate, capable methods are used.

    Operational Use in Manufacturing Systems

    In industrial and regulated environments, AS9102 FAI is often managed using a combination of CAD, PLM, MES, QMS, and supplier portals. Common operational elements include:

    • Ballooning drawings or models so every dimension, note, and requirement is assigned a unique characteristic number.
    • Creating AS9102 inspection plans that link each characteristic to an inspection method and result field.
    • Collecting measurement data, often directly at the machine or inspection station, and recording it on AS9102 Form 3.
    • Capturing process, material, and special process information (such as heat treat or plating) on Forms 1 and 2.
    • Storing FAI packages, including forms, measurement data, and supporting records, in controlled document or QMS repositories.

    Common Confusion

    • AS9102 vs AS9100: AS9100 is a broader aerospace quality management system standard. AS9102 is focused specifically on First Article Inspection requirements and documentation.
    • AS9102 vs FAI: First Article Inspection is a generic practice used in many industries. AS9102 refers to a specific aerospace FAI standard and report format. Some organizations use the term FAI loosely, but AS9102 has defined forms and rules.
    • AS9102 vs ongoing inspection: AS9102 verifies the capability of the process at defined events. It does not replace routine inspection, SPC, or control plans used in daily production.

    Context in Regulated Aerospace Manufacturing

    In aerospace and defense operations, AS9102 FAI reports are often required by customers for new part introductions, supplier approvals, and significant changes. They are used as part of audit evidence to demonstrate traceability of design characteristics to measured results and to show that manufacturing and inspection processes are defined, repeatable, and controlled within the wider quality system.