AS9102 does not prescribe one universal way to mark partial or delta FAIRs on Form 1. It requires that the type and scope of the First Article Inspection be clearly identified and traceable. How you document this is ultimately governed by:
- Your internal AS9102 / FAI procedure and forms
- Customer or prime contract requirements (including portal formats like Net-Inspect)
- Your QMS document control and change control rules
Baseline expectations from AS9102
For partial and delta FAIRs, Form 1 must make it clear:
- What kind of FAIR is being submitted (full, partial, or delta)
- What configuration or prior FAIR it is based on
- Which changes or characteristics are within scope of the current FAIR
- How to locate the underlying documentation and records
If this information is missing or ambiguous, you increase the risk of audit findings, customer rejection, or confusion when troubleshooting escapes later.
Common practices for identifying partial and delta FAIRs on Form 1
Exact field labels can vary by template, but these are widely accepted patterns. Always align them with the current AS9102 revision and customer instructions.
1. Identify FAIR type explicitly
Use the dedicated FAIR type field if your Form 1 template has one. If not, organizations typically use a combination of the title, remarks, or an internal field to indicate:
- “Partial FAI” when only a defined subset of characteristics is being re-verified (for example, affected by a minor drawing change or process move).
- “Delta FAI” when the FAIR addresses specific changes since the last approved full FAIR (for example, drawing revision change, design change, or major process change).
On paper or PDF forms, this is usually handled by:
- Checking a box or circling the FAIR type if provided on the form, and
- Reinforcing it in a remarks or notes field, such as “Delta FAI per drawing rev C to D, see Ref. FAIR 12345.”
In digital systems (MES, eFAI tools, or customer portals), you will typically select the FAIR type from a dropdown and that selection is then visible on the Form 1 printout or PDF.
2. Reference the baseline FAIR and configuration
For partial and delta FAIRs, traceability back to the last full, approved FAIR and configuration is critical. You should typically document on Form 1:
- Baseline FAIR reference: prior FAIR number / identifier, date, and if applicable the customer approval reference.
- Baseline configuration: drawing or model number and revision, specification revisions, and router / planning reference at the time of the previous FAIR.
This is often done by:
- Completing a Form 1 field such as “Previous FAI Report No.” or “Baseline FAI Reference” if your template has it.
- If no dedicated field exists, using the remarks section, for example: “Partial FAI: based on full FAI #FAI-00123, dwg 123456 rev B.”
Without this linkage, you are effectively creating an isolated FAIR that is harder to defend in audits and harder for engineering and quality to interpret months or years later.
3. Define the scope of the partial or delta FAIR
Form 1 itself typically does not list all characteristics; that is done on Form 3 (and sometimes Form 2). However, Form 1 should still describe, in a concise but unambiguous way, what is in scope:
- Partial FAIR: Note the scope basis, such as “Partial FAI for process change: anodize line moved from Line 1 to Line 3; characteristics related to thickness, color, adhesion, and masking only.”
- Delta FAIR: Define the change context, such as “Delta FAI for drawing 123456 rev B to rev C: new slot feature and revised hole pattern only.”
On Form 3, you then call out and inspect only the affected characteristics, but Form 1 should still state at a summary level what subset is covered so reviewers do not assume a full FAIR was performed.
4. Use remarks or notes to close any gaps
Because many legacy Form 1 templates in brownfield environments were not built with partial/delta FAIR clarity in mind, the remarks section is often the only place to fully capture intent. Good practice is to include:
- The FAIR type and reason (for example, drawing change, NC programming change, process move, new supplier, tooling change).
- Explicit statement of scope (for example, “All ballooned characteristics affected by operation 30 CNC program change only”).
- Cross-reference to supporting documents (ECN/ECR, PCN, router/planning change, NCR or concession if applicable).
Using remarks to document this context is not a substitute for updating your internal procedures, but it does improve auditability while forms and systems are catching up.
5. Align with customer portals and digital FAI tools
Where FAIs are submitted through a customer system (for example, Net-Inspect, or a prime’s portal) or through a digital FAI module in your MES/QMS, you must follow the data model and field usage defined there. In practice this means:
- Selecting the correct FAIR type (initial, partial, or delta) in the portal.
- Linking to prior FAIRs using the portal’s reference fields.
- Ensuring the exported or printed Form 1 still contains the same clarity you would maintain on a paper form.
In mixed environments, it is common to maintain your own internal Form 1 plus the portal submission. In those cases, the internal Form 1 should mirror the FAIR type, scope, and references used in the customer system to avoid mismatches during audits.
6. Procedural and system considerations
For regulated, long-lifecycle programs, the Form 1 conventions you choose for partial and delta FAIRs should be documented and controlled in your QMS. In practice:
- Update your FAI work instruction or procedure to define exactly how FAIR type, scope, and references must be filled out on Form 1.
- Train inspectors and engineers on when a partial or delta FAIR is appropriate vs when a full FAIR is required.
- Configure digital forms in MES/QMS/PLM so that FAIR type and prior FAIR references are required fields for partial/delta FAIRs.
- Ensure revision to forms or workflows go through change control and, if applicable, revalidation of any electronic FAI tools.
Attempting to “standardize” by replacing all existing forms and systems at once often fails in aerospace and other highly regulated environments due to qualification, downtime, and integration risk. Incremental alignment of existing forms and systems, backed by clear procedures, is usually more realistic.
Summary
Partial and delta FAIRs should be documented on Form 1 so that a reviewer can immediately understand:
- That the FAIR is not a full initial FAI.
- Which prior FAIR and configuration it builds on.
- What subset of changes or characteristics are within scope.
The specific fields and language depend on your template, customer requirements, and digital tools, but clarity, traceability, and alignment with your QMS procedure are the non-negotiables.