What should aerospace suppliers look for in FAI software?

Aerospace suppliers should look for FAI software that makes AS9102 execution more controlled, traceable, and reviewable without assuming the software alone will make a First Article Inspection acceptable. The important test is whether the tool can manage drawing revisions, ballooned characteristics, objective evidence, approvals, customer-specific requirements, and audit trails in the supplier’s actual operating environment.

FAI software should reduce manual transcription and uncontrolled spreadsheets, but it still depends on correct drawings, stable part and process data, trained users, configured workflows, and disciplined change control. A weak process digitized in software usually remains a weak process.

Core capabilities to evaluate

At minimum, aerospace suppliers should evaluate whether the system can support:

• AS9102 form generation and control, including Forms 1, 2, and 3, with the ability to manage required fields, attachments, and approvals.
• Ballooning and characteristic extraction from drawings or models, with review steps for missed, duplicated, or incorrectly interpreted requirements.
• Characteristic accountability, including dimensions, notes, material requirements, special processes, key characteristics, and specification references.
• Revision and configuration control so FAIRs are tied to the correct drawing, model, specification, routing, and purchase order requirements.
• Objective evidence management, including inspection results, material certifications, special process certifications, test reports, and deviations where applicable.
• Approval workflows and audit trails that show who changed, reviewed, approved, or rejected records, and when.
• Customer and supplier workflow support, including customer-mandated formats or portals such as Net-Inspect when required by contract or program practice.

Integration matters, but full replacement is usually unrealistic

In brownfield aerospace environments, FAI software rarely operates alone. It often needs data from ERP, MES, PLM, QMS, document control, calibration, and supplier quality systems. Suppliers should look closely at integration quality, not just connector lists in a sales presentation.

Common integration points include part numbers, revisions, routings, inspection plans, purchase orders, nonconformance records, material lots, serial numbers, and approved supplier data. If these data sources are inconsistent, the FAI system may expose the problem rather than solve it.

Replacing ERP, MES, PLM, or QMS just to improve FAI is usually unrealistic in regulated aerospace operations. The qualification burden, validation cost, downtime risk, integration complexity, traceability obligations, and long equipment lifecycles often make coexistence the practical path. The FAI tool should fit that reality.

Controls that matter in regulated work

Suppliers should verify how the software handles permissions, electronic signatures where used, record retention, audit trails, attachment control, and change history. These controls should match the supplier’s quality system and customer obligations. They should not be assumed to satisfy every customer, auditor, or regulatory expectation without review and validation.

If technical data is export-controlled, the supplier also needs to evaluate hosting location, access controls, user residency, data segregation, and contractual handling requirements. Cloud deployment can be acceptable in some contexts and unacceptable in others, depending on ITAR, DFARS, customer flowdowns, and internal security policy.

Common failure modes

FAI software projects often fail or underdeliver when teams focus on document output instead of process control. Typical failure modes include poor drawing revision discipline, unvalidated characteristic extraction, disconnected inspection results, uncontrolled attachments, duplicate FAIR records, weak supplier participation, and unclear ownership between quality, engineering, operations, and IT.

Another common problem is treating customer portal submission as the whole FAI process. Portal compliance may be necessary, but suppliers still need internal control over source data, evidence, reviews, and record retention.

Practical selection criteria

A good evaluation should include real part data, real drawings, actual customer requirements, and the supplier’s current systems landscape. Demonstrations using clean sample data are not enough. Suppliers should test how the software handles drawing changes, partial re-FAIs, multi-level assemblies, supplier-provided evidence, nonconformances, and rejected FAIRs.

The best choice is usually the tool that supports controlled execution in the existing environment, not the tool with the broadest feature list. For aerospace suppliers, maintainability, traceability, integration discipline, and user adoption are often more important than automation claims.