Suppliers can reduce revision risk in First Article Inspection by treating the drawing as controlled technical data, not as a file someone happens to have. The practical control is to verify the required drawing revision from the authorized customer source, compare it to the purchase order and applicable specifications, lock the FAI package to that revision, and retain evidence of the check. The “latest” revision is not always the correct one if the PO, contract, deviation, or customer authorization calls out a different effective revision.
Start with the authorized source
The supplier should use the customer-approved source for drawings, models, specifications, and engineering changes. This may be a customer portal, PLM exchange, supplier quality system, controlled document package, or another contractually defined method.
Email attachments, saved desktop copies, shared drive extracts, and prior-job folders are common failure points. They may be useful for reference only if the supplier’s document control process confirms that they match the authorized revision and are still valid for the order.
Check more than the drawing title block
For FAI, the revision check should include the full technical baseline that affects the part, not only the drawing revision. Depending on the product and customer flowdown, this may include:
- Purchase order revision and line-item requirements
- Drawing revision and sheet revisions
- 3D model or dataset revision, if authority is model-based
- Parts list, BOM, or material specification revisions
- Special process specifications and approved processor requirements
- Engineering change notices, deviations, waivers, or temporary authorizations
- Customer-specific AS9102 or FAI submission instructions
A mismatch between any of these items should stop the FAI package from being released until the customer or internal quality authority resolves it. Proceeding with assumptions is how suppliers end up with an FAI against the wrong configuration.
Make the revision check a required FAI step
A controlled FAI process should require a documented revision verification before ballooning, inspection planning, or final FAI submission. The FAI record should identify the exact drawing, model, specification, and change levels used. This is especially important when AS9102 forms are generated from a digital FAI tool, QMS, MES, or inspection planning system.
Good practice is to prevent uncontrolled re-use of old ballooned drawings or inspection plans unless they are explicitly revalidated against the current order and technical baseline. Copying a prior FAI can save time, but it can also carry forward obsolete characteristics, notes, or specification references.
Control local copies and system integrations
In brownfield environments, drawing revision data may be split across ERP, MES, PLM, QMS, customer portals, and local file repositories. These systems often do not agree automatically. A supplier may receive the PO in ERP, the drawing through a portal, the inspection plan in QMS, and the router in MES. If the integrations are weak, manual reconciliation is still required.
Full replacement of these systems is usually unrealistic in aerospace-grade and similarly regulated supply chains. Qualification burden, validation cost, downtime risk, integration complexity, traceability obligations, change control, and long asset lifecycles usually make targeted controls more practical than a broad system replacement.
Where systems are integrated, the integration still needs validation and governance. A PLM-to-QMS or portal-to-FAI workflow only helps if master data, effectivity rules, access controls, audit trails, and change notifications are maintained correctly.
Use clear hold points for uncertainty
If the supplier cannot prove which revision is required, the work should be placed on hold or escalated through the defined customer and quality channels. Typical triggers include a PO that lists one revision while the portal shows another, a drawing updated after order acceptance, missing sheet revisions, conflicting model and drawing authority, or unclear engineering change effectivity.
Using the wrong revision can make the FAI unacceptable, require reinspection or resubmission, or expose a configuration nonconformance. The exact disposition depends on the customer, contract, product risk, and quality system requirements. A document control check does not guarantee acceptance, but it gives the supplier traceable evidence that the correct technical baseline was used.