AS9102 vs PPAP: which First Article Inspection standard does your customer need?

If your shop runs jobs for both aerospace and automotive customers, you've seen this confusion. The aerospace buyer asks for an AS9102 FAIR. The Tier 1 automotive customer asks for PPAP Level 3. Your QA engineer asks if they're the same thing. They're not — and getting it wrong means a rejected submission, a delayed shipment, and a phone call you don't want.

Here's the practical breakdown.

When AS9102 applies

If any of these are true for your job, AS9102 is what your customer expects:

• Your customer is an aerospace OEM (Boeing, Airbus, Embraer, HAL, Lockheed, etc.) or any of their tier-1/2/3 suppliers
• Your customer is a defense contractor (army, navy, missile, drone, satellite)
• The purchase order references AS9100, AS9120, or NADCAP
• The drawing is for a part that flies, supports flight, or sits on a defense platform

AS9102 Rev C is the current revision (published 2014, replacing Rev B). It's the global standard maintained by the International Aerospace Quality Group (IAQG) and adopted in essentially every aerospace supply chain worldwide.

The three AS9102 forms

Form 3 is the one that ties to the ballooned drawing. Every numbered balloon on the drawing corresponds to a row on Form 3.

When PPAP applies

PPAP is the automotive equivalent. Required if:

• Your customer is an automotive OEM (GM, Ford, Stellantis, Toyota, Honda, Tata, Mahindra, etc.) or Tier 1 supplier (Bosch, Continental, Denso, Magna, etc.)
• Your customer follows IATF 16949 (the automotive quality standard)
• The purchase order references "PPAP" or "APQP" (Advanced Product Quality Planning)
• The job involves a new part, a process change, a tooling change, or a supplier change for an existing part

PPAP is maintained by AIAG (Automotive Industry Action Group). The current edition is the 4th edition (last major update). PPAP is more comprehensive than AS9102 because it includes process control and statistical capability — not just per-part inspection.

The 18 PPAP elements

1. Design Records (drawings, specs)
2. Engineering Change Documents
3. Customer Engineering Approval
4. Design FMEA
5. Process Flow Diagrams
6. Process FMEA
7. Control Plan
8. Measurement Systems Analysis (MSA / Gauge R&R)
9. Dimensional Results
10. Material / Performance Test Results
11. Initial Process Studies (Cpk / Ppk)
12. Qualified Laboratory Documentation
13. Appearance Approval Report (visual / cosmetic parts)
14. Sample Production Parts
15. Master Sample
16. Checking Aids
17. Customer-Specific Requirements
18. Part Submission Warrant (PSW)

The 5 PPAP submission levels

The big differences side by side

Which one is "harder"?

PPAP is more work because it covers process AND product. AS9102 is more focused — it's primarily about proving that this specific part meets the print. PPAP demands that you also prove your process can repeatedly produce conforming parts (Cpk ≥ 1.33 typically), that you've thought through failure modes (PFMEA), and that you have a documented control plan.

That said, aerospace AS9102 submissions are often scrutinized more aggressively — a missed dimension or wrong tolerance on Form 3 can ground a program. Both standards punish carelessness; they just punish different kinds.

Can you reuse work between them?

Yes, partially. The ballooned drawing — the foundation of both — is identical. The dimensional inspection data flows into AS9102 Form 3 OR PPAP Element 9 without re-work. Material certifications, process flow diagrams, and equipment calibration records are reusable across standards. The PPAP-specific elements (PFMEA, control plan, MSA, Cpk studies) don't transfer to AS9102 because AS9102 doesn't ask for them.

For shops that supply both industries, the practical workflow is:

1. Balloon the drawing once
2. Capture dimensional measurements once
3. Generate AS9102 Form 3 OR PPAP Element 9 from the same data
4. Add the standard-specific elements as needed

Common mistakes to avoid

1. Submitting AS9102 to an automotive customer. Form 3 looks similar to Dimensional Results but lacks the warrant structure PPAP expects. The buyer will reject it.
2. Submitting PPAP to an aerospace customer. Aerospace auditors don't want PFMEA and control plans in a FAIR package — they want the 3 AS9102 forms cleanly organized.
3. Missing the FAIR for "Delta" changes. AS9102 requires a partial FAI when any of: design change, manufacturing source change, manufacturing process change, lapse in production > 2 years. Many shops miss the "lapse in production" trigger.
4. Skipping balloons "that don't matter". Every design characteristic must be ballooned and reported. "It's just a fillet radius" is not a defense when the customer audits.
5. Using the wrong revision. AS9102 Rev C is current. Rev B is obsolete. Make sure the forms you submit are the current revision — auditors check this.

FAQ

If a customer says "FAI required", which one do they mean?

Look at the industry. Aerospace + defense → AS9102. Automotive → PPAP. If it's neither (medical devices, oil & gas, general manufacturing), ask. Don't assume.

Can a single ballooned drawing satisfy both standards?

Yes. The drawing itself is the same — every numbered balloon corresponds to one design characteristic. Only the report format differs.

How many balloons should a drawing have?

Every dimension, every tolerance, every GD&T frame, every material spec — they all get a balloon. A typical complex machined part has 60-150 balloons. Castings can have 200+ once GD&T frames are counted individually.

Does ISO 9001 require FAI reports?

ISO 9001 doesn't mandate FAI by name, but it requires documented evidence of conformance for new or changed products. Most ISO 9001 shops adopt some form of FAI documentation modeled on AS9102 or PPAP, even when no customer demands a specific format.

What's a "full" vs "partial" FAI?

A full FAI covers every characteristic on the drawing. A partial FAI covers only the characteristics affected by a change. AS9102 Rev C requires partial FAIs for any qualifying change — you mark Form 1 to indicate which.