Aerospace manufacturers should treat nonconformances found during First Article Inspection as controlled quality events, not as paperwork problems to be cleaned up after the fact. The part, characteristic, or process issue should be documented in the FAIR and routed through the organization’s nonconforming material process, with disposition, approvals, corrective action, and any required FAI rerun determined by the QMS, AS9102 applicability, customer requirements, and contract flowdowns.
The practical rule is simple: do not hide the condition, do not edit the record to make the FAI appear acceptable, and do not ship or release product unless the disposition and customer requirements allow it.
The FAIR should show the measured result and identify the nonconforming characteristic or requirement. If the FAI is incomplete or not accepted because of the nonconformance, that status should be clear in the record.
Reworking the part before recording the failure can create traceability problems. If rework is performed, the organization still needs evidence of the original condition, the authorized disposition, the rework instructions used, subsequent inspection results, and any effect on the FAI status.
The affected part or lot should be identified and controlled according to the site’s nonconforming material procedure. In many aerospace environments, this means segregation, hold status in MES or ERP, an NCR in the QMS, and review by authorized quality, engineering, or MRB functions.
The exact workflow is site-specific. Some organizations manage the hold in MES, create the NCR in QMS, update part status in ERP, and pull drawing or specification context from PLM. In brownfield environments, these systems are often only partially integrated, so manual checks and reconciliation may still be necessary. That is not ideal, but it is common.
A disposition such as rework, repair, scrap, return to supplier, or use-as-is must follow delegated authority and customer requirements. Use-as-is and repair dispositions often require engineering and customer approval, depending on the contract, the design authority, and the nature of the nonconformance.
A site should not assume that an internal MRB disposition automatically satisfies customer or regulatory expectations. The authority to accept a nonconforming condition is defined by the quality system, customer flowdowns, design responsibility, and applicable procedures.
After the nonconformance is corrected or dispositioned, the organization should determine whether a partial FAI or full FAI is required. Common triggers include changes to design, tooling, manufacturing source, process, inspection method, material, location, or a lapse in production, but the actual requirement depends on AS9102 usage, customer requirements, and internal procedures.
If only one characteristic was affected and the process remains otherwise unchanged, a partial FAI may be appropriate. If the issue indicates a broader process, planning, tooling, or design interpretation problem, a wider FAI scope may be needed. This decision should be documented rather than handled informally.
Some FAI nonconformances are isolated measurement or setup errors. Others expose planning errors, incorrect revision use, supplier issues, tooling problems, operator instruction gaps, or inspection method weaknesses. The response should be proportional to the risk and recurrence potential.
For significant or recurring issues, the NCR should connect to corrective action or RCCA processes. That may involve updating work instructions, routers, inspection plans, tooling controls, training records, supplier controls, or PLM/MES/ERP master data. If those updates are not controlled, the same error can reappear after the FAI is closed.
The defensible record should show what was found, when it was found, who reviewed it, what disposition was authorized, what corrective action was taken, what was reinspected, and how the FAI status was closed. Electronic systems can help, but only if access control, revision control, attachments, signatures, and audit trails are configured and validated for the intended use.
Replacing legacy FAI, MES, ERP, PLM, or QMS platforms solely to fix this workflow is usually unrealistic in aerospace-grade environments. Qualification burden, validation cost, downtime risk, integration complexity, traceability obligations, and long equipment lifecycles make full replacement difficult. A more practical approach is often to tighten the workflow, close integration gaps, and define clear manual controls where system integration is weak.
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.
