Does every aerospace part require a first article inspection?

No. An aerospace part does not automatically require a first article inspection simply because it is used in an aircraft, engine, spacecraft, defense platform, or ground support system. FAI is usually required when it is contractually flowed down, required by the customer or program, required by the organization’s quality system, or needed to satisfy production process verification expectations such as those commonly addressed through AS9102.

FAI is also not the same as inspecting the first piece from every lot or shift. A first article inspection is intended to verify that a defined production process can produce a part or assembly that conforms to the approved design, including drawing characteristics, specifications, materials, special processes, and required records. Ongoing inspection, sampling, in-process checks, and final acceptance controls are separate activities.

When FAI is commonly required

FAI is commonly expected for a new production part or assembly, especially on aerospace programs using AS9102 or similar customer requirements. It may also be required when a supplier is producing the item for the first time, when a new manufacturing process is introduced, or when a customer purchase order explicitly calls for FAI submission.

Assemblies can also require FAI, not just detail parts. In many programs, both lower-level components and higher-level assemblies have FAI obligations, although the exact structure depends on the bill of materials, drawing hierarchy, customer flowdowns, and how the production process is controlled.

When FAI may not be required

FAI may not be required for every purchased item, every standard part, or every repeat production run. Commercial off-the-shelf items, catalog hardware, raw material, consumables, and standard fasteners are often controlled through certificates, specifications, receiving inspection, supplier approval, or other acceptance methods rather than a full AS9102 FAI. That can change if the customer contract, drawing, purchase order, or quality clause requires FAI anyway.

Prototype, development, repair, or non-production work may also be treated differently. Some organizations still perform FAI-like checks for risk control, but those checks should not be assumed to satisfy AS9102 unless they are planned, documented, and approved as such.

What can trigger a new or partial FAI

A previously accepted FAI does not remain valid under all conditions. A full or partial FAI may be required when a change could affect fit, form, function, manufacturability, or conformance evidence. Common triggers include:

• drawing, model, specification, or revision changes;
• manufacturing process, routing, tooling, fixture, equipment, or program changes;
• supplier, manufacturing location, or source changes;
• special process changes, such as heat treat, coating, welding, or nondestructive testing source changes;
• long production lapses, if defined by customer, internal procedure, or applicable standard revision;
• correction of prior nonconformances that affect characteristics covered by the FAI.

The scope matters. A partial FAI should cover the affected characteristics and related records, not simply repeat paperwork without a technical basis. Over-scoping wastes capacity; under-scoping creates traceability and acceptance risk.

Where the decision usually comes from

The answer is usually found in a combination of the customer contract, purchase order clauses, drawing notes, quality requirements, AS9102 applicability, internal procedures, and supplier flowdowns. It should not be left to tribal knowledge at receiving inspection or final inspection.

In brownfield environments, the FAI requirement may be split across ERP item masters, PLM revisions, MES routings, QMS quality plans, supplier portals, and document control systems. If those systems disagree, the plant can miss required FAIs or perform unnecessary ones. Replacing all systems is usually unrealistic because of validation cost, qualification burden, integration complexity, downtime risk, and long asset lifecycles. Most sites need controlled master data, clear ownership, and validated interfaces or manual checks where automation is not reliable.

The practical rule is this: do not assume every aerospace part needs FAI, and do not assume repeat parts are exempt. Determine applicability from the governing requirements, then control the evidence through change control, traceability, and approved quality records.