What FAI evidence do auditors typically ask to see during AS9100 assessments?

AS9100 auditors typically ask for FAI evidence that shows the organization planned, performed, reviewed, and controlled first article inspection in line with customer, engineering, and internal requirements. They are usually not just checking that an FAI form exists. They are looking for objective evidence that the inspected part matched the correct design revision, that characteristics were accounted for, that results were reviewed, and that any gaps were dispositioned under controlled processes.

AS9100 itself does not make every FAI automatically an AS9102 package in all cases. AS9102 is commonly required in aerospace supply chains through customer flowdown, contract terms, internal procedures, or program requirements. During an AS9100 assessment, the auditor will normally follow what your own quality management system says you do, plus applicable customer and regulatory requirements.

Evidence commonly sampled

Auditors commonly ask to see some combination of the following:

• FAI report or package, often AS9102 Forms 1, 2, and 3 when AS9102 applies.
• Ballooned drawing or characteristic accountability showing that drawing notes, dimensions, specifications, and key characteristics were captured and inspected or otherwise accounted for.
• Engineering revision alignment between the drawing, model, bill of materials, routing, work instructions, purchase order, and FAI record.
• Measurement results and inspection evidence, including actual values where required, inspection method, equipment used, and acceptance status.
• Material and special process traceability, such as material certifications, heat or lot traceability, outside processing records, certificates of conformance, and approved processor evidence where applicable.
• Customer flowdowns and purchase order requirements showing why FAI was required and which standard, format, or submission method applied.
• Nonconformance, concession, or deviation records if any characteristic was not fully conforming at the time of FAI.
• Approvals and review evidence, including who reviewed the FAI, when it was accepted, and whether customer approval was required before shipment or production release.
• Partial or re-FAI rationale when there was a design change, process change, supplier change, tooling change, lapse in production, or other trigger defined by AS9102, the customer, or internal procedure.

What auditors usually test beyond the FAI file

A capable auditor will often trace one characteristic or one part number across systems rather than review the FAI package in isolation. They may compare the FAI record against PLM-controlled engineering, ERP item and purchase order data, MES or traveler execution records, inspection records, QMS nonconformance records, and document control history.

This is where many findings occur. The FAI may be technically complete, but the evidence chain may not be consistent. Common problems include mismatched drawing revisions, missing ballooned notes, undocumented characteristic omissions, uncontrolled spreadsheets, incomplete supplier certificates, unclear re-FAI decisions, or approval dates that do not support the production release sequence.

Digital systems do not remove the evidence burden

Digital FAI tools, MES, ERP, PLM, and QMS workflows can make evidence easier to retrieve, but only if master data, revision control, access controls, audit trails, and integrations are reliable. In brownfield aerospace environments, FAI evidence is often split across legacy systems, supplier portals, shared drives, scanned records, and customer-specific platforms. Auditors will still expect the organization to explain where the controlled record is and how conflicting data is prevented or resolved.

Full system replacement is usually not a realistic answer just to improve FAI audit readiness. Qualification burden, validation cost, downtime risk, integration complexity, customer approvals, and long equipment and program lifecycles often make replacement slower and riskier than targeted controls. Many organizations instead improve record governance, revision reconciliation, supplier evidence intake, and traceability between existing systems.

What depends on the site or program

The exact evidence requested depends on the scope of the audit, product risk, customer requirements, internal procedures, and the auditor’s sample. A build-to-print machined part, an assembly, a special process-heavy component, and a supplier-submitted FAI may all require different supporting evidence.

No FAI package guarantees a favorable audit outcome. The stronger position is to maintain complete, retrievable, revision-controlled records and be able to show why the FAI was required, what configuration was inspected, how every applicable characteristic was addressed, who accepted the result, and what changed afterward.