When is a full AS9102 first article inspection mandatory for an aerospace part?

A full AS9102 first article inspection is typically required when you are producing a part for the first time under a given design definition or when a change is significant enough that a partial update is not sufficient.

In practice, that usually means a full FAI is expected for:

• a new part number or first production run
• a new revision that changes characteristics broadly enough that the prior FAI is no longer a valid baseline
• a manufacturing process change, source change, site change, tooling change, or inspection method change that affects a large portion of the part or invalidates previous results
• a lapse in production long enough that your customer or internal quality system requires re-establishment of the baseline

It is not correct to say that every drawing revision automatically requires a full AS9102 package. Many changes only trigger a partial FAI. The distinction depends on what changed and whether the existing approved FAI still provides valid objective evidence for unaffected characteristics.

What usually determines full versus partial

The deciding factors are usually:

• customer contract language and quality clauses
• prime or OEM flowdown requirements
• the scope of the engineering change
• whether previous FAI results remain technically valid
• your documented procedure for AS9102 trigger assessment

If the change affects only specific characteristics, a partial FAI is often used for the changed characteristics plus any impacted upstream or downstream features. If the change resets the baseline more broadly, a full FAI is the safer and often required path.

Common cases that are often misunderstood

A full FAI may be required even if the drawing did not change, for example after a move to a different manufacturing location, major tooling replacement, or a process route change that affects conformance risk. Conversely, a drawing revision may not require a full FAI if the revision is administrative only and no product realization characteristics were affected. That said, you should not assume this without documented review and customer alignment where required.

Also, the word mandatory depends on whose requirement applies. AS9102 provides the framework, but many aerospace programs tighten the triggers through purchase order clauses, supplier quality requirements, or customer portals. Those flowdowns control in practice.

Operational reality in brownfield environments

Whether a full FAI is triggered is often harder to determine than teams expect because the evidence sits across ERP, MES, PLM, QMS, inspection software, and supplier records. In mixed legacy environments, revision control, process routing history, tooling lineage, and approved deviations are not always synchronized. That creates real risk of doing too little or too much FAI work.

For that reason, many organizations rely on a governed trigger review tied to change control rather than assuming the software will infer the right answer. Full replacement of legacy quality and execution systems rarely fixes this quickly in regulated aerospace environments. Qualification burden, validation effort, downtime risk, and integration debt often make coexistence and tighter evidence mapping the more realistic path.

If the decision is high consequence, the practical answer is simple: review the drawing change, process change, prior FAI baseline, and customer flowdowns together, then document why the result is full FAI, partial FAI, or no new FAI. That traceability matters more than an informal rule of thumb.