When does a production lapse require a full FAI?

A production lapse requires FAI re-evaluation when the lapse meets the applicable threshold, commonly two years under AS9102 unless the customer or internal procedure defines a different trigger. It does not automatically require a full FAI in every case. A partial FAI may be acceptable when the original FAI baseline is still valid and only certain characteristics or process elements could have been affected by the lapse.

A full FAI is more likely required when the contract, customer flowdown, or site procedure explicitly says so, or when the organization cannot prove that the design revision, manufacturing source, process, tooling, equipment, inspection method, material, and planning remain unchanged from the prior approved FAI.

Common triggers for a full FAI after a lapse

A production lapse can become a full FAI issue when the lapse is combined with other risk factors. Common examples include:

• The customer requires full FAI after a defined inactivity period.
• The prior FAI does not match the current part number, configuration, drawing revision, or planning revision.
• Manufacturing has moved to a different site, line, supplier, machine, fixture, tool, or NC program.
• Special processes, raw material sources, inspection methods, or acceptance equipment have changed.
• Records are incomplete, inconsistent, or not traceable enough to support a partial FAI decision.
• The process has been dormant long enough that equipment condition, calibration status, operator qualification, or retained knowledge is a credible concern.
• There were quality escapes, recurring nonconformances, or corrective actions that call the original baseline into question.

When a partial FAI may be enough

A partial FAI may be appropriate when the lapse is the only trigger and the organization can show that the original FAI remains applicable. That usually means the same approved design revision, the same production method, the same qualified source, controlled tooling and equipment status, valid inspection planning, and traceable production records.

Partial FAI is not a casual shortcut. It should identify the affected characteristics, reference the original FAI, document the reason for the update, and follow the site’s approval and customer notification requirements. In regulated aerospace work, the burden is on the manufacturer or supplier to show why a full repeat is not needed.

Where systems often create problems

In brownfield environments, the evidence needed for this decision may be spread across ERP work orders, MES travelers, PLM revision records, QMS nonconformance and CAPA records, calibration systems, maintenance systems, and supplier portals. If those systems disagree on the last production date, revision, source, or process plan, the FAI decision becomes harder to defend.

An ERP order history alone is usually not enough. The organization may need MES execution records, inspection results, approved planning, tooling status, and document control history to show whether production really restarted under the same conditions. Where integration is weak, manual reconciliation and quality review are often still required.

Practical rule

Treat a production lapse as a trigger for documented FAI assessment, not as an automatic full FAI in every case. If the lapse threshold is met and the unchanged baseline cannot be proven, a full FAI is usually the safer and more defensible path. If the baseline is well controlled and only specific characteristics are affected, a partial FAI may be acceptable, subject to customer, contract, and internal quality requirements.