AS9102 / FAI July 14, 2026 7 min read By Rajadurai R — Founder, 14 years plant-head experience

AS9102 & First Article Inspection Hub

AS9102 & First Article Inspection Hub

First Article Inspection is one of the most scrutinised quality deliverables in aerospace manufacturing. Customers, prime contractors, and certification bodies all use the FAI package to verify that a supplier's process — not just a single lucky part — is capable of consistently producing hardware that conforms to the design record. Get it wrong and you face rejected submissions, production holds, and costly re-inspection cycles. Get it right and you establish objective evidence that your process is under control before series production begins.

This hub page is the starting point for everything related to AS9102 and FAI on CadNexa. It explains what the standard requires, why each element matters, and where to go for deeper coverage of each sub-topic.

What AS9102 actually requires

AS9102, published by SAE International and widely adopted through the IAQG (International Aerospace Quality Group), defines the minimum requirements for performing and documenting a First Article Inspection. The standard is structured around three forms:

For a thorough walk-through of all three, see AS9102 Forms 1, 2 & 3 Explained: FAI Guide. If you need to go deeper on the individual fields within Form 1 — the most commonly audited document — AS9102 Form 1 Fields Explained covers every column and what is expected in it.

Revision history: Rev B versus Rev C

The revision you are working to matters. Many legacy contracts still reference Rev B, while newer programmes mandate Rev C. The differences are not cosmetic — Rev C introduced updated language around digital product definition, changed some form field requirements, and clarified what constitutes a design change sufficient to trigger a new FAI. Submitting a Rev B-formatted package against a Rev C contract is a straightforward audit finding that can delay approval.

AS9102 Rev B vs Rev C: Every Change Explained documents each change between the two revisions so you can quickly assess whether your existing templates need updating.

When a partial FAI is acceptable

A full FAI is not always required. When a change is limited in scope — a different raw material heat, a tooling repair, a shift in production location — the standard permits a delta FAI that addresses only the characteristics affected by the change. Understanding precisely when a delta FAI is acceptable, and what documentation it must contain, is critical: an improperly scoped delta FAI is as problematic as a missing full FAI.

Delta FAI Explained: When a Partial FAI Is Required sets out the conditions under which a partial approach is valid and what records must accompany it.

AS9102 versus PPAP

Suppliers who serve both aerospace and automotive customers regularly encounter both AS9102 and the Automotive Industry Action Group's PPAP (Production Part Approval Process). The two standards share the same underlying intent — demonstrate that the production process can repeatedly produce a conforming part — but they differ in structure, terminology, and submission format. Applying PPAP thinking to an AS9102 submission, or vice versa, is a common source of non-conformances.

AS9102 vs PPAP: Which FAI Standard You Need compares the two standards side by side so you can identify which applies to your programme and what each customer expects.

Common mistakes in FAI packages

After reviewing FAI submissions across multiple programmes and auditing supplier packages, the same errors appear repeatedly:

  1. Incomplete balloon drawings. Every characteristic on Form 3 must trace back to a balloon number on a drawing or model view. Missing balloons mean the traceability chain is broken.
  2. Incorrect characteristic classification. Confusing key characteristics, critical characteristics, and standard dimensions leads to incorrect inspection sampling and missing objective evidence.
  3. Missing or expired special process approvals. Form 2 requires current Nadcap or equivalent approvals. An expired certificate invalidates the entire submission.
  4. Measurement method not recorded. Form 3 must identify the instrument or method used for each characteristic. "CMM" is not sufficient — instrument identification and calibration status are required.
  5. Wrong revision of the standard. As noted above, submitting under the wrong revision is an automatic finding.
  6. Incomplete notes and general tolerances. Drawing notes, general tolerances, and surface finish callouts are design characteristics. They must appear on Form 1 even if they seem non-specific.

A structured checklist approach eliminates most of these. First Article Inspection Checklist: Free FAI Guide provides a working checklist you can use before submitting any package.

Templates and digital tools

FAI documentation has historically been done in spreadsheets and PDFs, which creates version control problems and makes ballooning — the process of numbering every characteristic on a drawing — time-consuming and error-prone. Purpose-built digital tools address both issues by linking balloon numbers directly to measurement records and generating AS9102-conformant form outputs.

If you need ready-to-use templates, Free FAI Report Template: AS9102 Forms 1–3 provides downloadable forms structured around the current standard. For a practical walkthrough of completing a full FAI package efficiently, FAI Reports & Balloon Drawings in 10 Minutes demonstrates a compressed workflow using digital tooling.

CadNexa's own platform — a browser-based balloon and FAI tool — was built specifically to handle drawing annotation, characteristic capture, and form generation without requiring installed software. CadNexa Complete Guide: Balloon Tool, 3D Viewer & FAI covers the full feature set. If you are currently using High QA or evaluating alternatives, High QA Alternative: Free Online Balloon & FAI Tool — CadNexa outlines what CadNexa offers by comparison.

How the topic cluster fits together

AS9102 touches every stage of the production readiness process: interpreting the design record, confirming material and process compliance, measuring parts, recording results, and submitting evidence to the customer. Each sub-article in this cluster addresses one layer of that process in depth. The sequence that most engineers follow in practice is:

  1. Confirm which standard and revision the customer requires.
  2. Balloon the drawing or 3D model to create an auditable characteristic list.
  3. Populate Forms 1, 2, and 3 with measurement data and supporting certifications.
  4. Review against a checklist before submission.
  5. Assess whether future process changes require a full or delta FAI.

The articles linked throughout this hub page follow that same logic. Use this page as your index and navigate to whichever stage of the FAI process you are working through.

Frequently asked questions

What is the difference between AS9102 Rev B and Rev C?

Rev C introduced clearer guidance on digital product definition, updated form field requirements, and refined the definition of a design change that triggers a delta FAI. The changes are incremental rather than a complete overhaul, but non-compliance with the current revision is a common audit finding. See AS9102 Rev B vs Rev C: Every Change Explained for a full comparison.

Does every production part need a full FAI?

No. A full FAI is required on the first production part from a new or changed process. When only limited changes occur — a different operator, a minor tooling repair, a supplier change — a delta FAI covering only the affected characteristics may be sufficient, provided your customer and quality plan allow it. The conditions are set out in detail in Delta FAI Explained: When a Partial FAI Is Required.

How long does a FAI typically take to complete?

Duration depends on part complexity and the number of characteristics. A simple machined part with 30–40 dimensions can be documented in a few hours once all measurements are in hand. Complex assemblies with hundreds of characteristics across all three AS9102 forms routinely take several days of engineering time. Digital ballooning and form tools reduce that burden considerably.

Is AS9102 the same as PPAP?

No. Both are first article processes, but AS9102 is the aerospace standard governed by SAE, while PPAP is the automotive standard governed by AIAG. The intent overlaps — prove the process can produce a conforming part — but the forms, terminology, and submission requirements differ significantly. AS9102 vs PPAP: Which FAI Standard You Need sets out the key differences.

Can I use digital tools to create AS9102-compliant FAI reports?

Yes, provided the output meets the content and traceability requirements of the standard. Ballooning drawings, linking balloon numbers to measurement records, and generating the three AS9102 forms can all be done with purpose-built software, which reduces transcription errors compared with manual methods. CadNexa Complete Guide: Balloon Tool, 3D Viewer & FAI explains how the platform supports this workflow.

All articles in this hub

© 2026 CadNexa. Home · All tutorials · Open App

Made in India 🇮🇳 · For the world 🌏