AS9100 does not prescribe a fixed data list that must be exchanged with AS9102 FAIRs. In practice, the shared data should be the controlled evidence needed to show that the first article was built, inspected, dispositioned, and approved against the correct configuration, without creating inconsistent duplicate records in the QMS, MES, ERP, PLM, or supplier quality systems.
The exact data set depends on customer flowdowns, internal procedures, contract requirements, product criticality, and how the organization has implemented AS9100 record control. AS9102 defines the FAIR structure; AS9100 defines broader quality management expectations for documented information, traceability, control of nonconforming outputs, and evidence of conformity.
Common data that should align
The following data commonly needs to be shared, referenced, or reconciled between AS9100 quality records and AS9102 FAIR packages:
- Part and program identification: part number, part name, serial or lot number, assembly level, customer, program, purchase order, and work order where applicable.
- Configuration data: drawing number, drawing revision, model-based definition revision, specification revision, engineering change status, and any approved deviations or waivers.
- FAI scope and reason: full FAI, partial FAI, baseline, lapse in production, design change, process change, tooling change, supplier change, or other triggering event defined by AS9102, customer requirements, or internal procedure.
- Characteristic accountability: ballooned or indexed design characteristics, requirement values, tolerances, notes, key characteristics, and references to the source drawing or model.
- Inspection results: measured values, pass/fail status, inspection method, sampling basis if allowed, inspector identity, inspection date, and links to supporting measurement records.
- Material and process evidence: material certifications, special process certifications, raw material lot traceability, supplier certificates, and applicable specification conformance evidence.
- Nonconformance and disposition data: NCR references, MRB disposition, customer approval when required, use-as-is decisions, rework or repair records, and any limits on acceptance.
- Approval and release evidence: FAIR approval status, sign-offs, dates, responsible functions, customer or delegated approval where required, and records showing the FAIR was reviewed under controlled procedures.
- Record control metadata: revision history, audit trail, electronic signature evidence if used, document status, retention classification, and links to superseded or related records.
What should not be assumed
A FAIR is not a substitute for the entire AS9100 quality record set. It is evidence for first article inspection against a defined configuration. AS9100 records may also include training records, calibration records, production travelers, process audit records, CAPA records, supplier performance records, equipment maintenance records, and other evidence that may not belong inside the FAIR itself.
Likewise, every AS9100 quality record does not need to be copied into the FAIR package. Overloading the FAIR creates maintenance risk, especially when certificates, specifications, or dispositions are revised later. In many environments, the safer pattern is to maintain controlled links or references to source records rather than uncontrolled attachments or manually rekeyed data.
Brownfield system reality
In a brownfield plant, this data often sits across PLM for engineering configuration, ERP for order and item master data, MES for execution and inspection records, QMS for nonconformance and approvals, and supplier portals for certificates or external FAIRs. The risk is not only missing data. It is conflicting data: a FAIR built to one drawing revision, an ERP order on another, and a QMS disposition that is not visible to the FAIR reviewer.
Full replacement of these systems is usually unrealistic in aerospace-grade environments because of validation cost, qualification burden, downtime risk, integration complexity, traceability obligations, and long equipment and program lifecycles. The practical control is usually a governed data map, clear system-of-record decisions, controlled interfaces, and verification that the FAIR package and AS9100 records tell the same story.
Typical failure modes
- FAIR characteristics are ballooned against the wrong drawing or model revision.
- Material or special process certificates are attached but not tied to the correct lot, serial number, or operation.
- Inspection results are rekeyed from MES or spreadsheets without audit trail or review controls.
- NCR or MRB decisions exist in the QMS but are not visible in the FAIR package.
- Supplier FAIRs are accepted without reconciling customer flowdowns, part revisions, or process certifications.
- Electronic approvals exist, but the organization has not validated the workflow or defined record retention responsibilities.
The practical answer is to share enough controlled data to prove configuration, conformity, traceability, disposition, and approval. The organization should avoid unmanaged duplication and should define which system is authoritative for each record type under its AS9100 QMS procedures.