What internal approvals are needed before submitting an AS9102 FAIR to a customer?

Before submitting an AS9102 FAIR to a customer, the organization typically needs an authorized quality approval at minimum. Other internal approvals depend on the product, contract, customer flowdowns, nonconformance status, and how the FAIR evidence was generated. A FAIR should not be treated as ready for customer review just because the forms are populated; the supporting evidence, configuration status, characteristic accountability, and any exceptions need to be reviewed and controlled.

Common internal approvals

The exact approval path is site-specific, but in aerospace and similarly regulated environments the review commonly includes these functions:

• FAI preparer or inspector: Confirms that AS9102 Forms 1, 2, and 3 are complete, characteristic results are recorded, ballooning matches the drawing, and supporting records are attached or traceable.
• Quality assurance or FAI review: Verifies AS9102 completeness, objective evidence, inspection method, calibration traceability, material and special process documentation, and final submission readiness. This is usually the minimum required internal approval.
• Manufacturing or process engineering: Reviews the FAIR when routing, tooling, NC programs, work instructions, frozen planning, or process changes affect first article validity.
• Design engineering, MRB, or technical authority: Reviews drawing interpretation issues, design authority questions, waivers, deviations, or nonconformance dispositions where engineering judgment is required.
• Configuration or document control: Confirms that drawing revisions, specification revisions, planning revisions, purchase order requirements, and customer flowdowns align.
• Supplier quality or procurement quality: Reviews supplier-provided FAIRs, material certifications, outside processing records, and special process certifications when purchased content is part of the submission.
• Program quality or customer account owner: Reviews contract-specific requirements, customer portal rules, source inspection requirements, or customer-mandated submission steps.

Customer and contract requirements can override the normal workflow

AS9102 defines the structure and intent of the FAIR, but customers often add their own requirements. Some require submission through a portal such as Net-Inspect. Some require source inspection, specific naming conventions, additional attachments, digital signatures, or customer approval before shipment. Those requirements should be checked against the purchase order, quality clauses, statement of work, and customer supplier manual before submission.

Internal approval does not guarantee customer acceptance. It only shows that the organization reviewed the FAIR against its own procedure and applicable customer requirements before releasing it externally.

Nonconformances and open issues

If the FAIR includes a nonconformance, deviation, waiver, incomplete characteristic, missing certificate, or unresolved drawing conflict, the status must be clear before submission. A FAIR may document issues, but internal signatures should not be used to imply that discrepant product is accepted or that the customer will approve the package. Dispositions, corrective actions, and customer permissions need to follow the applicable QMS and contract requirements.

System and record control matters

In brownfield environments, FAIR evidence is often pulled from PLM, MES, ERP, QMS, calibration systems, supplier portals, and document control repositories. That creates failure modes: wrong revision evidence, unlinked inspection results, stale supplier certificates, missing special process records, or inconsistent part and serial number references.

The approval record should be traceable to the exact FAIR version submitted. If electronic signatures or workflow approvals are used, the system should be validated or otherwise controlled according to the site’s quality system requirements. If approvals happen by email or spreadsheet, the organization still needs a controlled way to preserve who approved what, when, and against which revision.

Practical approval standard

A defensible internal standard is: quality owns final submission readiness, engineering approves technical exceptions or process-impacting issues, configuration control verifies revision alignment, and supplier quality reviews externally sourced evidence. Additional approvals should be driven by risk and customer requirements, not by habit alone.

Too few approvals increase the risk of rejected FAIRs, quality escapes, or traceability gaps. Too many approvals can create bottlenecks and informal bypasses. The approval path should be defined in the local FAI procedure, tied to change control, and enforced consistently enough that the customer submission can be reconstructed during an audit or investigation.