A full FAI is typically required when there is no valid approved First Article Inspection baseline for the part in its current design, manufacturing source, and production method. In aerospace and similar regulated manufacturing, that usually means a new part or assembly from the first production run, or a change so broad that the previous FAI can no longer be relied on. Many later changes require a partial FAI rather than a full FAI, but the decision depends on AS9102 requirements, customer flowdowns, internal procedures, and documented change impact.
A full FAI is commonly required for a new part number, new assembly, or first production run where the organization has not yet established objective evidence that the production process can produce all drawing and specification requirements.
A full FAI may also be required when production is transferred to a different manufacturing location, supplier, or materially different production process and the organization cannot justify limiting the FAI to only affected characteristics. This is especially common when the change affects routing, special processes, tooling, inspection method, or manufacturing controls across the part.
Some customers also require a full FAI after a defined production lapse, often two years, although the exact rule is customer- or contract-specific. AS9102 supports re-accomplishment of FAI when production has been interrupted for a period that could affect production capability, but the required scope should be driven by the applicable procedure and customer requirements.
A full FAI is not automatically required for every drawing revision, process change, or nonconformance recovery. If the change affects only specific characteristics, materials, processes, tools, or operations, a partial FAI is commonly used to document only the affected characteristics and any directly related requirements.
Examples that often lead to partial FAI rather than full FAI include:
The key word is “bounded.” If the organization cannot clearly show which characteristics are affected and which are not, a broader FAI scope may be required. Weak impact analysis is a common reason partial FAIs become difficult to defend during customer review or audit.
The FAI scope should be based on documented configuration and process impact, not convenience. Practical triggers usually come from engineering change notices, PLM revisions, ERP routing changes, MES traveler changes, QMS nonconformance or CAPA records, supplier transfers, tooling changes, and inspection plan revisions.
In brownfield environments, those signals are often split across PLM, ERP, MES, QMS, document control, and supplier portals. If these systems are not well integrated, the FAI decision often depends on manual review and local quality judgment. That can be acceptable if it is controlled, but it should be explicit, traceable, and consistent with approved procedures.
A full FAI does not certify ongoing process capability, guarantee future conformity, or replace production controls. It is objective evidence that a representative item from a defined production run was evaluated against applicable design characteristics and requirements. Continued conformity still depends on controlled routings, trained operators, calibrated equipment, inspection discipline, supplier control, and change management.
It also does not remove the need to follow customer-specific FAI rules. Some customers impose stricter full FAI requirements than the organization would otherwise apply. Others allow partial FAI if the affected characteristics are clearly identified and supported by change records. The safe answer is to apply the stricter of the applicable standard, contract, customer flowdown, and internal procedure.
Use a full FAI when the part has no valid FAI baseline for its current configuration and production method, or when the change impact is broad enough that the old baseline is no longer defensible. Use a partial FAI when there is a valid baseline and the affected characteristics can be clearly identified, documented, and linked to the change.
The decision should be recorded with enough traceability that a customer, auditor, or internal reviewer can understand why the FAI was full, partial, or not required. The record should point back to the drawing revision, change notice, routing, process change, supplier change, or other trigger that drove the decision.
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.
