How should nonconformances discovered during FAI be handled?

Nonconformances discovered during First Article Inspection (FAI) should be handled using your normal nonconformance / NCR process, with additional controls to protect the FAI baseline and traceability. They are not exceptions just because they were caught early.

1. Treat it as a formal nonconformance

When an FAI characteristic fails or a requirement is not met:

• Issue a formal nonconformance record (NCR) per your QMS.
• Identify the affected part(s), lot, and work order, and tie them to the specific FAI report and ballooned characteristic(s).
• Record objective evidence: measurements, photos, gage IDs, programs, setups, and any relevant traveler or work instruction references.

Do not “fix the form” or change drawing/ballooning just to make the FAI pass. The FAI is evidence of process capability, not a documentation exercise.

2. Segregate and control the hardware

Hardware that fails FAI requirements should not move forward as conforming product:

• Place the part(s) in nonconforming material status (hold, quarantine, or equivalent in your MES/ERP/QMS).
• Clearly identify and segregate parts so they cannot be accidentally shipped or used in higher-level assemblies.
• If the FAI part is part of a larger assembly, assess impact on the assembly and related sub-FAIs or sub-tier FAIs.

This segregation step is especially important in brownfield plants where paper travelers and legacy inventory systems can allow material to move without system updates.

3. Route through MRB, deviations, or concessions as required

Next, apply your standard material review and disposition process:

• Have MRB or the authorized function determine disposition: rework, repair (if allowed), use-as-is, scrap, or return to supplier.
• If a deviation/concession is required, obtain customer or authority approval where your contract, PO, or quality clauses demand it.
• Document all dispositions and approvals in the NCR, and link them to the FAI record.

Be explicit in the record about whether the FAI is being performed on conforming hardware after rework or under an approved concession. Customer and regulatory expectations vary; some do not accept FAIs on deviated hardware as the formal baseline.

4. Address the process, not just the piece

An FAI nonconformance is often a signal of a process or definition problem, not just an individual bad part:

• Perform an appropriate level of root cause analysis (e.g., 5-Whys or full RCCA) for significant or systemic issues.
• Review upstream elements: design data, model-to-drawing consistency, routing, CNC programs, work instructions, tooling, and gage selection.
• Check whether the same condition could exist on previous lots, similar part numbers, or family components.
• Capture corrective and, where appropriate, preventive actions in your CAPA or RCCA system if the risk or recurrence potential justifies it.

For AS9102 contexts, repeated FAI failures can attract scrutiny. Being able to show structured analysis and documented actions matters more than a single clean FAI report.

5. Update FAI documentation only after correction and validation

Once the nonconformance is addressed:

• Re-run the affected characteristics or sections of the FAI as required by your procedure and/or customer requirements.
• Update the FAI report to reflect the as-validated condition, not the initial failed state, keeping a traceable record to the NCR and MRB decision.
• Ensure the ballooning and characteristic mapping are still valid after any drawing, spec, or method changes.
• If the process, drawing, or configuration has changed, determine whether a partial or full FAI redo is required under AS9102 and customer-specific requirements.

In many aerospace contracts, you cannot simply overwrite the original FAI. You need a clear history showing the initial failure, the correction, and the re-FAI or re-inspection results.

6. Maintain traceability across systems

In brownfield environments, FAI, NCR, and configuration data are often scattered across systems (Net-Inspect, QMS, MES, ERP, PLM):

• Ensure the NCR identifier appears on the FAI record, traveler, and any electronic traveler or MES history.
• Cross-reference work orders, serial/lot numbers, and configuration IDs so you can reconstruct the full story for audits.
• If multiple platforms are used (e.g., Net-Inspect for FAI and an internal QMS for NCR), define a simple, enforced convention for cross-linking IDs.

Where integrations are weak, you may need manual controls (checklists, QMS procedures, periodic reconciliation) to ensure that no FAI with a known unresolved nonconformance is used as the released baseline.

7. Communicate impacts to customers and internal stakeholders

Depending on severity and contract terms, FAI nonconformances may need to be communicated:

• Notify the customer or design authority when required by quality clauses, key characteristic definitions, or major feature impacts.
• Inform planning, production, and supply chain teams if the issue affects schedule, capacity, or supplier qualification timing.
• Adjust internal release decisions so downstream builds, kits, or shipments are not scheduled based on an FAI that has not actually passed.

This is especially important when FAI is gating a program ramp or supplier approval. Hiding or delaying FAI issues usually creates larger schedule and quality problems later.

8. Use FAI nonconformances to strengthen the process

FAI is often the first time a new or changed configuration is fully exercised. Nonconformances caught here are an opportunity to harden the process:

• Feed systemic findings into design-for-manufacturability reviews, standard work, and training materials.
• Update control plans, inspection plans, and sampling strategies where FAI reveals higher-than-expected risk.
• Capture lessons learned in a way that is findable for future, similar parts and configurations.

This is more practical than trying to design a perfect process upfront, especially with complex, high-mix, low-volume aerospace work.

9. Why “work around it” or “re-do from scratch” strategies fail

Two common but risky patterns are:

• Ignoring or downplaying the FAI nonconformance: Skipping the NCR/MRB path to keep a schedule often backfires in audits and in-service issues, and undermines your FAI as a credible baseline.
• Full system or process replacement mid-FAI: Ripping out QMS/MES/FAI tools to “clean things up” during FAI usually increases risk in regulated environments due to validation burden, requalification, integration complexity, and limited downtime.

A more robust approach is to manage the FAI nonconformance rigorously in your current stack, then plan incremental system and process improvements with proper change control and validation.

10. Practical dependencies and variations

The exact handling of FAI nonconformances will depend on:

• Your QMS procedures and how strictly they mirror AS9102 and AS9100 guidance.
• Customer-specific FAI instructions, portal workflows (e.g. Net-Inspect), and concession rules.
• Your system landscape and integration quality between FAI, NCR/MRB, MES, ERP, and PLM.
• Process maturity and workforce training in both FAI and nonconformance management.

Where these are weak or fragmented, the priority should be to enforce basic controls: always create an NCR, always segregate product, always document MRB decisions, and always link the final accepted FAI back to the closed nonconformance.