An AS9102 FAIR is usually rejected because the package does not provide complete, traceable evidence that the first article conforms to the correct drawing, model, specification, purchase order, and customer flowdown requirements. The problem may be a simple documentation error, but it can also indicate a real product, process, revision, or traceability issue that requires containment, reinspection, MRB disposition, customer approval, or a new FAI.
A rejected FAIR does not always mean the part is unusable. It means the submitted evidence was not accepted by the customer, OEM, prime, or internal quality authority reviewing it. The exact rejection criteria depend on the contract, customer instructions, AS9102 revision, product criticality, and any portal-specific rules such as Net-Inspect workflows.
Common reasons for rejection
- Wrong drawing, model, or specification revision. The FAIR must match the applicable engineering definition. A mismatch between PLM, ERP, MES, the purchase order, and the submitted FAIR is a common brownfield failure mode.
- Incomplete characteristic accountability. Every required drawing note, dimension, tolerance, specification callout, material requirement, process requirement, and key characteristic must be accounted for. Missing balloons or skipped notes are frequent rejection causes.
- Incorrect or incomplete AS9102 forms. Forms 1, 2, and 3 must be completed according to AS9102 and customer instructions. Missing part numbers, serial numbers, lot numbers, drawing levels, process references, or approval fields can stop acceptance.
- Measurement results are missing, unclear, or not objective. Results such as “OK,” “pass,” or “visual” may be rejected when an actual measured value or defined acceptance evidence is required. Units, tolerances, and inspection methods also need to be clear.
- Material, special process, or functional evidence is missing. Material certifications, heat lot traceability, special process certifications, test reports, and outside processing records often need to align with Form 2 and the purchase order flowdowns.
- Unresolved nonconformance. If a characteristic does not conform, the FAIR normally needs clear linkage to the nonconformance record, MRB disposition, concession, deviation, or customer authorization where applicable. A FAIR should not quietly normalize a discrepant condition.
- Supplier or sub-tier evidence does not support the claim. Sub-tier certificates, outside processing records, and supplier inspection data must be traceable to the part, lot, process, and specification revision being submitted.
- Calibration or inspection method concerns. Use of uncalibrated equipment, unclear gage identification, inadequate inspection method, or missing CMM/program evidence can lead to rejection, especially for critical or tightly toleranced features.
- Partial FAI is not justified properly. A delta or partial FAI must clearly identify the reason for the FAI and the affected characteristics. Customers may reject partial submissions that do not explain the change basis or affected scope.
- Customer-specific fields or portal rules are not met. AS9102 is not the only requirement. OEMs and primes often add naming conventions, attachments, approval routing, digital signature expectations, or Net-Inspect data rules.
Where rejections usually originate
Many FAIR rejections are not caused by the inspector alone. They often originate upstream in configuration control, contract review, planning, supplier quality, or system integration.
In a brownfield environment, the same part may be represented differently across PLM, ERP, MES, QMS, supplier portals, and local spreadsheets. If those systems disagree on revision, routing, specification, supplier lot, or inspection requirement, the FAIR may fail even when the shop believes the part was built correctly.
Replacing every legacy system just to fix FAIR quality is usually unrealistic in aerospace-grade environments. The qualification burden, validation cost, downtime risk, integration complexity, and long asset lifecycles make full replacement difficult. More commonly, organizations improve FAIR outcomes by tightening master data governance, revision control, inspection planning, evidence collection, and controlled integration between existing systems.
What to check before resubmission
- Confirm the applicable drawing, model, specification, purchase order, and customer flowdowns.
- Verify that all characteristics are ballooned and mapped to Form 3.
- Check that actual results, units, tolerances, and inspection methods are complete.
- Reconcile material, special process, test, and sub-tier records to Form 2.
- Confirm serial, lot, batch, heat, and traveler traceability.
- Resolve or reference any nonconformance through the approved QMS process.
- Check whether the submission is a full FAI or a justified partial FAI.
- Validate customer portal requirements before resubmitting.
The practical control is not just “fill out the forms better.” FAIR acceptance depends on configuration discipline, objective evidence, controlled changes, inspection planning, and clean handoffs between engineering, planning, production, quality, suppliers, and customer-facing systems.
