What fields from AS9102 should be captured natively in MES?

MES should natively capture the AS9102 data that is created, verified, or needed at the point of execution. That usually means production context, traceability, characteristic-level inspection results, measurement evidence, operator and inspector accountability, and links to nonconformances. It does not mean the MES must become the sole system of record for every AS9102 Form 1, Form 2, and Form 3 field.

In most regulated aerospace environments, AS9102 data is distributed across PLM, ERP, MES, QMS, calibration, document control, and sometimes customer or supplier portals. The practical goal is controlled data ownership and traceable links, not uncontrolled duplication.

Fields MES should commonly capture natively

MES is usually the right place to capture fields tied to shop floor execution, inspection, and as-built evidence, including:

• Part number, part name, revision, and drawing or model revision used for the job, usually sourced from PLM or document control rather than manually retyped.
• Work order, manufacturing order, job, or traveler identifier from ERP or MES.
• Serial number, lot number, batch number, or unit identifier where traceability is required.
• Operation, routing step, workstation, work center, machine, tool, fixture, and execution sequence.
• Operator, inspector, approver, timestamps, and electronic signature or approval records where required by procedure.
• Material lot, heat, batch, certificate, and supplier traceability when the material is consumed or verified during execution.
• Special process references, outside processing status, certificate links, and acceptance evidence when these are part of the manufacturing record.
• Characteristic identifier, balloon number, drawing zone, specification reference, requirement, tolerance, inspection method, measured result, units, pass or fail status, and sample basis.
• Measurement device, gage, calibration status reference, inspection program reference, or CMM result link where applicable.
• Functional test result references when testing is performed or recorded as part of the production flow.
• Nonconformance, deviation, concession, rework, repair, or disposition references when a characteristic or operation does not pass as planned.
• FAI completion status, partial FAI reason, delta FAI trigger, and linkage to the approved AS9102 package where the MES participates in FAI workflow.

Fields that often should not be mastered in MES

MES should not usually be the primary source for design definition, product structure, customer contract requirements, or quality procedure content unless the site has explicitly validated it for that purpose. These are commonly mastered elsewhere:

• Design authority data, drawing release, CAD model release, and engineering change status are usually controlled in PLM or document control.
• Sales order, customer purchase order, contractual flow-down, and shipment context are usually controlled in ERP or customer portals.
• Supplier approvals, supplier quality records, corrective actions, and formal NCR workflows may be controlled in QMS, depending on the site.
• Calibration master records are usually controlled in a calibration or asset management system, with MES consuming calibration status.
• The final AS9102 report package may be generated in QMS, FAI software, Net-Inspect, or another approved system, with MES contributing evidence.

The boundary is data ownership, not the AS9102 form layout

A common mistake is to map the AS9102 forms directly into MES screens. That can create duplicate master data, stale revisions, and conflicting records. A better approach is to decide which system owns each field, then make MES capture the execution evidence it is responsible for.

For example, MES may display the drawing revision from PLM, consume the work order from ERP, record the measured result on the shop floor, and send the characteristic result to a QMS or FAI system. That is different from making MES manually maintain the drawing revision, product structure, inspection plan, and final AS9102 package independently.

What must be in place for this to work

Native MES capture only works if the underlying master data is controlled. The plant needs reliable part and revision control, approved routings, characteristic definitions, inspection plans, user roles, electronic record controls, and integration rules. If those are weak, the MES may digitize ambiguity rather than reduce it.

Brownfield environments need particular care. Legacy MES, ERP, PLM, QMS, inspection equipment, spreadsheets, and customer portals may all hold part of the FAI record. Full replacement is often unrealistic because of qualification burden, validation cost, downtime risk, integration complexity, traceability obligations, change control, and long equipment lifecycles. In those cases, controlled coexistence is usually safer than forcing all AS9102 data into one platform.

Practical rule

Capture AS9102 fields natively in MES when the field is generated at execution, needed to prevent an execution error, required for as-built traceability, or needed to prove inspection status. Link to other systems when the field is mastered elsewhere. Avoid manual re-entry of released engineering, quality, or contractual data unless there is a controlled and validated reason for doing so.

The exact field list is site-specific. It depends on the approved AS9102 process, customer requirements, product risk, inspection strategy, system validation, and how PLM, ERP, MES, QMS, calibration, and FAI reporting tools are integrated.