What evidence is required for an AS9102 first article inspection?

An AS9102 first article inspection requires objective evidence that the production part was made and verified against the released design record and applicable purchase order requirements. In practice, that usually means a completed AS9102 Form 1, Form 2, and Form 3 package, backed by traceable source documents such as the drawing or model revision, ballooned characteristics, measurement results, material and special process certifications, functional test records, and any approved nonconformance dispositions. The exact evidence set depends on the customer, contract, drawing notes, specification flow-downs, and the organization’s documented FAI procedure.

Core evidence normally expected

The FAI package should show characteristic accountability and product accountability. Common evidence includes:

• Released design record: the drawing, model, specification, parts list, and revision level used for the build and inspection.
• Purchase order and contract requirements: customer requirements, flow-down clauses, and any required submission format or portal requirements.
• Ballooned drawing or characteristic plan: clear identification of each design characteristic, including drawing notes, dimensions, tolerances, material requirements, process requirements, and special characteristics where applicable.
• AS9102 Form 1: part number accountability, including part number, part name, serial or lot information where required, FAI type, drawing revision, and assembly or detail part relationships.
• AS9102 Form 2: product accountability for raw material, special processes, functional testing, and related certifications.
• AS9102 Form 3: characteristic accountability, including each characteristic number, requirement, measured result or accepted attribute result where appropriate, and inspection status.
• Measurement evidence: inspection reports, CMM reports, hand-gage records, laboratory results, or other records that support the values entered on Form 3.
• Material and process certifications: mill certs, heat or lot traceability, chemical or physical test evidence, and approved special process certificates when the drawing or contract requires them.
• Functional test records: test results when functional testing is part of the design record or purchase order requirement.
• Nonconformance records: NCR, MRB, deviation, waiver, or customer disposition records if any characteristic does not conform.

The supporting records matter

The AS9102 forms are not, by themselves, the entire evidence base. They are a structured summary of the FAI. The underlying records must be controlled, traceable, and consistent with the revision and production conditions used for the first article.

For dimensional results, actual measured values are normally expected for variable characteristics. Attribute results may be acceptable for some characteristics, such as pass/fail notes or verified marking requirements, but this depends on the characteristic type, customer expectations, and the approved inspection method. If multiple parts are included in the FAI sample, the results need to make clear which result belongs to which part.

Nonconformance evidence is not optional

If the first article has a nonconforming characteristic, the FAI package should identify it rather than hide it. The record should include the nonconformance reference, disposition, and any required customer approval. A nonconforming part is not clean evidence of full conformity, and affected characteristics may require a partial or full FAI update after corrective action, depending on the change and customer requirements.

What is site-specific

AS9102 provides the common structure, but it does not remove customer-specific or program-specific requirements. Some customers require submission through a portal, additional forms, digital product definition evidence, key characteristic reporting, source inspection records, supplier certificates, or specific approval workflows. Contract language and quality clauses should be checked before assuming the standard forms are sufficient.

In brownfield operations, the evidence may come from PLM, ERP, MES, QMS, calibration systems, supplier portals, and paper travelers. Weak integration is a common failure mode. It can create drawing revision mismatches, missing certifications, duplicate attachments, uncontrolled spreadsheet ballooning, or inspection results that cannot be tied back to the correct serial, lot, operation, or gage. Replacing every system to solve this is usually unrealistic in aerospace-grade environments because of validation cost, qualification burden, downtime risk, integration complexity, and long equipment lifecycles. Controlled interfaces and disciplined record governance are usually more practical than wholesale replacement.

Practical test for sufficiency

A reasonable FAI evidence package should let an independent reviewer answer four questions without relying on tribal knowledge:

• Was the correct released design record used?
• Were all applicable characteristics identified and accounted for?
• Do the recorded results show conformity, or are exceptions clearly dispositioned?
• Can the evidence be traced to the actual part, lot, process, material, equipment, and inspection records used?

That does not guarantee customer approval or audit acceptance. It does provide the factual basis normally expected for an AS9102 first article inspection in a regulated aerospace manufacturing environment.