In aerospace environments, no single role is always responsible for approving dispositions on nonconformance reports (NCRs). Approval is typically shared across quality, engineering, and in some cases customer or regulatory design authorities. The exact approval chain is defined by internal procedures, configuration control rules, and contract or regulatory requirements.
Typical disposition types and approvers
The roles involved usually depend on the disposition decision itself:
- Use-as-is (UAI): Often requires at least Quality plus Design/Stress/Materials Engineering approval when form/fit/function or safety could be affected. For minor nonconformances covered by pre-approved criteria, a qualified Quality representative may approve alone, if procedures explicitly allow this.
- Rework to drawing/specification: Commonly approved by Manufacturing Engineering or Process Engineering plus Quality, provided the part can be brought fully back into specification using qualified processes and tooling.
- Repair (concession/deviation from design): Typically requires Design Authority (e.g., design engineering, stress, chief engineer delegation) and Quality approval, and often a formal deviation/waiver. For safety-critical hardware, customer or OEM approval is frequently required.
- Scrap: Often approved by Quality (and sometimes Operations/Production) because it removes the nonconforming item from the configuration. Some organizations require Engineering to confirm that scrap is the only acceptable option for critical parts.
Core roles commonly involved
Across many aerospace organizations, the following functions are typically in the approval chain:
- Quality (SQE, MRB quality, site quality rep): Ensures the NCR is complete, traceable, and consistent with QMS and regulatory requirements. Quality often owns the NCR workflow and final release.
- Manufacturing/Process Engineering: Defines practical rework or repair instructions, checks process capability, and validates that the shop can execute the disposition as written.
- Design/Stress/Materials Engineering (Design Authority): Assesses impact on form, fit, function, performance, life, and safety. Required whenever the disposition deviates from approved design data or could affect airworthiness.
- Customer / OEM Design Authority: For many build-to-print or high-safety-level programs, customer MRB or delegated representatives must approve use-as-is and repair dispositions, especially on flight-critical parts.
- Configuration Management: Not always a signature, but often responsible for ensuring that concessions/deviations tie correctly to part numbers, serials, effectivity, and that as-built records reflect the approved disposition.
What actually determines who must approve
Who signs which disposition is not universal. It is driven by:
- Design ownership and delegation: Whether you are the design authority, a build-to-print supplier, or working under delegated MRB authority changes who is allowed to approve use-as-is and repairs.
- Criticality and safety classification: Higher risk parts (flight-critical, pressure-containing, fracture-critical, safety-of-flight) usually have stricter approval requirements and often require design authority and customer approvals.
- Contract and customer-specific procedures: Many OEMs specify in their supplier quality requirements exactly which dispositions they must review and approve vs what can be approved locally under delegation.
- Internal QMS and MRB procedures: Your NCR/MRB procedures, work instructions, and training/qualification matrices define which roles and individuals are authorized signatories for each disposition type.
- Regulatory environment: For civil aviation, the design organization (e.g., DOA/ODA or equivalent) and its approved procedures govern authority for deviations from type design and airworthiness-relevant dispositions.
Brownfield and systems considerations
In existing aerospace plants, NCR disposition approval often spans multiple systems: legacy MES, ERP, PLM, and QMS tools. In practice:
- Approvers may review technical details in PLM or drawing systems, while formally signing in QMS or ERP modules.
- Some signatures remain on paper MRB tags or traveler packets, then are transcribed into digital systems, which introduces risk if controls and reconciliations are weak.
- Attempting to fully replace existing NCR/MRB tooling in one step often fails because approvals are deeply tied to validated workflows, training, and customer-approved procedures. Migration usually requires phased coexistence, parallel runs, and re-validation of electronic signatures and audit trails.
Governance and traceability expectations
Regardless of the specific roles or system landscape, aerospace programs expect that:
- Each disposition clearly shows who approved what (role and named individual) and on what basis.
- Approval authority and limits are documented and controlled (e.g., delegation letters, authorization matrices, training records).
- Records link the disposition, affected part(s), lot/serials, and any linked concessions, deviations, or repairs for long-term traceability.
- Changes to disposition workflows or approval routing go through formal change control and validation, especially where electronic signatures, customer visibility, or regulatory evidence are affected.
In summary, disposition approval on aerospace NCRs is normally shared across Quality, Engineering (including the design authority), and sometimes the customer or OEM. The exact responsible approvers are defined by your QMS, customer and regulatory requirements, formal delegations, and the specific disposition decision.
