OEMs most often reject an AS9102 FAIR because the package does not prove full, traceable conformance to the current design and build configuration. The rejection is usually not about the idea of first article inspection itself. It is usually about missing evidence, configuration mismatch, incomplete characteristic accountability, unresolved quality issues, or failure to follow the OEM’s customer-specific submission rules.
AS9102 defines a common structure, but it does not remove customer-specific requirements. Many OEMs add portal rules, naming conventions, additional fields, source inspection requirements, special process evidence, or approval workflows. A FAIR that is technically strong may still be returned if it does not meet those program-specific expectations.
Common rejection reasons
- Wrong drawing, model, specification, or revision level. The FAIR must match the released engineering definition used to build the part. Rejections are common when the drawing revision, CAD model, parts list, planning revision, or purchase order requirement does not align.
- Incomplete characteristic accountability. Every drawing, model, note, specification requirement, and referenced requirement must be accounted for. Missing balloon numbers, skipped notes, unverified title block requirements, or unaddressed specification callouts are frequent problems.
- Weak or missing objective evidence. OEMs expect evidence that supports the reported results. This may include inspection reports, material certificates, special process certifications, test records, CMM reports, or approved supplier documentation. Summary statements without traceable records are often not enough.
- Actual results are missing or not acceptable. Some customers reject results recorded only as “pass,” “OK,” or “conforms” when variable data is expected. Out-of-tolerance results also cannot be treated as acceptable unless there is a properly documented and approved disposition.
- Form 1, Form 2, or Form 3 errors. Common issues include incorrect part numbers, serial numbers, lot numbers, supplier codes, process names, material references, specification revisions, or signature dates. Small administrative errors can become rejection points when they break traceability.
- Material and special process traceability gaps. Heat lot traceability, raw material certifications, chemical or physical test evidence, and special process approvals must align with customer and program requirements. Gaps are especially visible for plating, heat treat, welding, nondestructive testing, composites, and other controlled processes.
- Unresolved nonconformances. A FAIR package is commonly rejected when an NCR, deviation, concession, repair, or use-as-is disposition is missing, unapproved, or not linked to the affected characteristic. The presence of a nonconformance does not automatically invalidate a FAIR, but the disposition and customer approval requirements must be clear.
- Incorrect partial or delta FAI logic. When only part of the FAIR is updated, the reason for the partial FAI must be justified and the affected characteristics must be clear. OEMs may reject a delta FAIR if the change impact analysis is weak or if unaffected characteristics are not properly referenced to the prior approved baseline.
- Supplier and sub-tier evidence is incomplete. Purchased details, outside processing, and delegated inspection records must be controlled. OEMs may reject a FAIR when sub-tier certificates are missing, expired, not approved for the process, or not traceable to the specific lot, serial number, or work order.
- Portal or customer workflow errors. In systems such as Net-Inspect or OEM-specific portals, rejection can result from missing attachments, incorrect field mapping, wrong document type, naming errors, or failure to route the package through the required approval sequence.
Where brownfield systems create problems
Many FAIR issues start before the FAIR is assembled. In brownfield environments, the drawing revision may live in PLM, the purchase order in ERP, the route and inspection plan in MES, and quality records in QMS or file shares. If those systems are not aligned, the FAIR package can contain internally inconsistent evidence even when the part was built with good intent.
Common failure modes include outdated inspection plans, manual rekeying errors, uncontrolled spreadsheet ballooning, missing links between work orders and inspection results, and certificates stored outside the formal quality record. Replacing all legacy systems is usually unrealistic in regulated aerospace environments because of qualification burden, validation cost, downtime risk, integration complexity, traceability obligations, change control, and long asset lifecycles. More often, organizations reduce FAIR rejections by tightening interfaces, ownership, review gates, and master data controls around the existing stack.
What usually prevents repeat rejection
The practical control is a disciplined pre-submission review against the OEM’s requirements, not just against the AS9102 form structure. That review should confirm configuration, characteristic coverage, evidence completeness, nonconformance disposition, special process traceability, and portal submission rules.
Digital tools can help by reducing transcription errors, linking characteristics to evidence, and enforcing required fields. They do not remove the need for competent review, validated workflows, controlled source data, and clear customer requirement flowdown. If the engineering baseline, inspection plan, or supplier evidence is wrong, software will usually preserve the error more efficiently rather than fix it.