Who should be responsible for planning and executing FAI?

In regulated aerospace and defense environments, no single person or function should own all aspects of First Article Inspection (FAI). Planning and execution usually span several roles, with clear accountability defined in the Quality Management System (QMS), procedures, and customer flowdowns.

Typical responsibility split for FAI

1. Quality function (process owner and approval authority)

• Owns the FAI procedure, forms, and alignment to AS9102 or other customer standards.
• Defines when FAIs are required (new part, design change, process change, lapse in production, supplier change, etc.).
• Ensures measurement methods, gages, and sampling are appropriate and calibrated.
• Reviews and approves the FAI package (forms, ballooned drawing links, objective evidence).
• Interfaces with customers or regulatory representatives on FAI questions and findings.

2. Engineering (planning and technical definition)

• Translates design requirements into inspectable characteristics and inspection plans.
• Supports drawing ballooning, feature definition, and characteristic classification where required.
• Defines or approves special process controls, process parameters, and key characteristic controls.
• Ensures manufacturing routings, work instructions, and tooling/gage plans align with the FAI.
• Resolves technical discrepancies during FAI (tolerance interpretation, alternative methods, concessions).

3. Operations / Production (execution of the build)

• Manufactures the FAI part using normal, released production processes and routings.
• Executes in-process inspections and records actuals where required by the FAI plan.
• Coordinates with Quality to make parts, fixtures, and records available for measurement.
• Implements corrective actions to the process when FAI reveals nonconformances or instability.

4. Inspection / Metrology (measurement execution)

• Performs dimensional and functional measurements against the FAI plan and drawing.
• Documents objective evidence (CMM reports, test results, SPC data, gage readings).
• Flags any nonconformances, out-of-tolerance conditions, or ambiguous requirements.
• Supports repeatability checks if the FAI is questioned by the customer or internal audit.

5. Supply chain / Supplier quality (for purchased parts)

• Communicates FAI requirements and formats to suppliers and verifies they understand them.
• Ensures supplier FAIs are submitted on time, complete, and aligned to contractual standards.
• Performs incoming inspection and FAI package review for critical and delegated parts.
• Coordinates with internal Quality for approval and any required feedback to the supplier.

Who is ultimately accountable?

Although multiple functions contribute, ultimate accountability should be explicit:

• Process ownership for FAI usually sits with the Quality organization (e.g., Quality Manager or designated FAI coordinator).
• Technical correctness (requirements, ballooning logic, inspection methods) is typically owned by Engineering.
• Process capability and repeatability is owned by Operations, since FAI is intended to prove the production process, not a one-off lab build.
• For supplier FAIs, Supplier Quality or Supply Chain is often accountable for ensuring the supplier’s FAI meets internal and customer expectations before acceptance.

In a mature QMS, these accountabilities are defined in:

• FAI or AS9102 procedure(s) and process maps.
• RACI matrices that cover planning, execution, review, and customer submission.
• Job descriptions or role profiles for Quality, Engineering, and Operations leads.

Planning vs. execution responsibilities

FAI planning is usually led by Quality and Engineering together:

• Quality: triggers FAI based on criteria, selects FAI type (full, partial, delta), and defines documentation expectations.
• Engineering: defines the inspection plan, special process controls, and any additional checks beyond AS9102 minimums.
• Both: agree on what constitutes an acceptable FAI outcome and how nonconformances will be processed.

FAI execution is usually distributed:

• Operations: produces the part under normal production conditions and captures required in-process data.
• Inspection/Metrology: executes measurements and records results on the FAI forms or digital system.
• Quality: assembles, reviews, and approves the complete package, including nonconformance records and concessions where present.

Dependencies on systems and plant context

Who does what in practice depends heavily on your system landscape and process maturity:

• Brownfield reality: Many plants have paper travelers, a mix of legacy MES and point inspection tools, and limited integration with PLM or ERP. In these cases, FAI coordination often lands with a single experienced Quality engineer or planner who manually stitches data together.
• Digital FAI tools: Where AS9102 or Net-Inspect style software is in place and integrated with PLM/MES, ballooning, characteristic import, and result capture may be shared between Engineering, Inspection, and Quality. The tool does not change who is accountable, only how work is divided and evidenced.
• Supplier FAIs: If suppliers submit FAIs through portals (e.g., customer-mandated systems), supplier quality typically owns review and internal routing, even if plant Quality signs the final internal approval.

Because plants operate different mixes of MES, PLM, QMS, and inspection software, you should not assume that FAI can be centralized in one system or role without considering:

• Traceability and record retention requirements.
• Who can legally and contractually sign off on FAIs.
• Where authoritative design, process, and measurement data actually resides.

Common failure modes when responsibilities are unclear

When FAI responsibilities are not well defined, typical problems include:

• Parts built without required FAI because no one owns the trigger logic.
• FAIs executed with non-production setups, so results do not represent normal process capability.
• Conflicting versions of drawings or models used for ballooning and inspection.
• Suppliers completing FAIs to different standards than internal expectations.
• Audit findings due to missing signatures, incomplete traceability, or inconsistent application of AS9102.

These failures are rarely system-only issues. They usually reflect unclear process ownership and weak coordination between Quality, Engineering, and Operations.

Practical way to assign responsibility

To make FAI responsibilities explicit without overcomplicating:

1. Define a single FAI process owner (usually Quality) responsible for the procedure, training, and continuous improvement.
2. Document a RACI for at least: FAI trigger/decision, ballooning and inspection planning, part build, measurement, FAI review/approval, and customer submission.
3. Align roles to existing systems: specify who enters or approves data in PLM, MES, QMS, or FAI software, given your current brownfield stack.
4. Review with key customers and suppliers where their requirements impose extra steps (customer witness, mandatory formats, portal submissions).
5. Periodically audit FAI execution to confirm that actual practice matches the defined roles and that handoffs between functions are reliable.

This approach respects existing systems and constraints, avoids assuming a full platform replacement, and focuses on clearly owned responsibilities for planning and executing FAI within your current environment.