Yes, MES can help coordinate customer sign-offs for FAIs, but it usually does not replace the customer’s formal approval process. In aerospace and similarly regulated manufacturing, the MES can organize execution evidence, trigger review tasks, apply shipment or production holds, and show whether an FAI package is ready for customer review. The actual customer sign-off may still occur in a customer portal, Net-Inspect, a QMS workflow, source inspection process, or another contract-defined channel.
A well-configured MES can help by tying the FAI to the work order, routing, part number, serial or lot records, revision, inspection results, operator activity, and nonconformance history. That makes it easier to see whether the first article was built to the intended configuration and whether required evidence has been collected before submission.
Common MES-supported controls include:
These capabilities are useful, but they depend on how cleanly the MES is connected to the plant’s quality and engineering systems.
The customer’s approval authority normally remains outside the MES. Many customers require submission through their own portals, Net-Inspect, supplier quality systems, email-controlled packages, or source inspection workflows. The MES can track the status and evidence, but it should not be assumed to be the system of record for customer approval unless the contract, quality procedure, validation package, and integration design support that role.
MES also does not make an FAI compliant by itself. AS9102 forms, ballooned characteristics, drawing revision control, material and special process evidence, dimensional results, and accountability for discrepancies still need to be managed correctly. Depending on the site, those records may live in FAI software, QMS, PLM, document control, ERP, or a customer portal rather than in the MES.
In brownfield environments, MES usually has to coexist with ERP, PLM, QMS, inspection systems, document repositories, and customer portals. Full replacement of those systems is often unrealistic because of qualification burden, validation cost, downtime risk, integration complexity, traceability obligations, change control, and long equipment and program lifecycles.
A practical design is often to let each system keep its proper role. PLM or document control manages released engineering definition. ERP manages demand, orders, and shipment controls. MES manages execution and shop-floor evidence. QMS manages quality events and dispositions. A dedicated FAI tool or customer portal may manage AS9102 package submission and customer response. The integration should make status and evidence visible without creating uncontrolled duplicate records.
MES-based FAI coordination fails when revision data is inconsistent, characteristic data is not linked to the correct drawing, inspection results are copied manually without verification, or customer approval status is updated informally. It also fails when production holds are bypassed because the workflow is inconvenient or not aligned with actual shipping and quality procedures.
Another common problem is treating notifications as control. An email or dashboard alert may help coordination, but it is not the same as a validated approval workflow, a controlled record, or an enforceable shipment gate.
The safest answer is that MES can be an effective coordination layer for FAI sign-offs when it is integrated, validated, and governed. It should not be treated as a substitute for customer-mandated approval channels or for disciplined AS9102 record control.
Whether you're managing 1 site or 100, Connect 981 adapts to your environment and scales with your needs—without the complexity of traditional systems.
Whether you're managing 1 site or 100, C-981 adapts to your environment and scales with your needs—without the complexity of traditional systems.
