A realistic FAI cycle time target for a complex aerospace assembly is not a single number. For many mature programs, a defensible target is often 5–15 business days from completion of the first article build to an internally reviewed FAIR package, assuming drawings, ballooning, inspection plans, supplier evidence, and system data are ready. For new, unstable, or highly complex assemblies, several weeks is common, and longer delays can occur when design changes, nonconformances, missing supplier records, or customer review queues are involved.
AS9102 does not prescribe a cycle time. The target is an operational control metric, not a compliance guarantee. It should be based on assembly complexity, characteristic count, inspection method, supplier content, customer requirements, and the maturity of the program.
FAI cycle time is often misread because teams measure different things. A useful target separates the stages:
If the target includes customer approval, it should be tracked separately. External review time is real, but it is not fully under plant control.
That range is usually only credible when the organization has already done the upstream work. The drawing and model revision must be stable. The BOM and routing in ERP or MES must match the released configuration. PLM data must be current. Inspection methods, gages, CMM programs, and acceptance criteria must be ready before the build is complete.
Supplier evidence also has to arrive on time. For complex assemblies, missing material certs, special process certs, sub-tier FAIRs, or certificates of conformity can block the package even when the internal build went well.
Digital tools can reduce clerical delay, but they do not remove the need for competent review, valid inspection methods, controlled records, and traceable approvals.
A longer target is more realistic when the assembly has high characteristic count, tight GD&T, multiple special processes, destructive or long-duration testing, customer source inspection, classified or export-controlled data handling, or heavy supplier contribution.
New product introduction also changes the answer. First runs often expose drawing ambiguity, tooling issues, ERP and MES master data gaps, or PLM revision mismatches. In those cases, pushing a short FAI target can simply move errors into the FAIR package and increase rework.
Segment assemblies by complexity instead of setting one plant-wide number. For example, use separate targets for simple machined parts, moderate subassemblies, complex assemblies, and first builds on new programs. Track preparation readiness, internal FAIR review time, supplier evidence aging, and customer review time separately.
For brownfield operations, do not assume a new FAI application will fix the cycle time by itself. Many delays live in handoffs between MES, ERP, PLM, QMS, inspection systems, supplier portals, and customer portals such as Net-Inspect. Full replacement is usually unrealistic for FAI cycle time alone because of validation cost, qualification burden, downtime risk, integration complexity, traceability obligations, and long equipment and program lifecycles. Targeted integration, data cleanup, and controlled workflow changes are often more practical.
The best target is one that is aggressive enough to expose blockers, but not so short that it rewards incomplete packages, informal workarounds, or weak review discipline.
Whether you're managing 1 site or 100, Connect 981 adapts to your environment and scales with your needs—without the complexity of traditional systems.
Whether you're managing 1 site or 100, C-981 adapts to your environment and scales with your needs—without the complexity of traditional systems.
