In most regulated aerospace and defense environments, 2D drawings will not disappear from First Article Inspection (FAI) workflows in the near to medium term. What you are more likely to see is a long transition to hybrid workflows where 3D models and PMI carry more of the definition, but 2D drawings remain part of the controlled technical data package.
Why 2D drawings persist in FAI today
Several structural factors keep 2D embedded in AS9102 / FAI practice:
- Specification and customer expectations: Many customer quality clauses and purchasing documents still assume a 2D drawing as the primary authority, even when 3D models are provided.
- Legacy fleets and spares: Large proportions of parts in aerospace and defense are based on legacy 2D drawings that will never be re-engineered to full MBD due to cost, risk, and qualification burden.
- Supplier capability variability: Sub-tier suppliers range from fully model-based to drawing-only. FAI packages must work across this spectrum and satisfy the most conservative requirements.
- Regulatory and audit habits: Auditors and customer source inspectors are accustomed to tracing FAI characteristics back to ballooned 2D drawings. Moving away from that without a clear, validated alternative is a risk.
- Tooling and integration debt: Many FAI, CMM, and inspection systems are integrated to drawing-based ballooning workflows. Replacing or revalidating those across a brownfield environment is slow and expensive.
How model-based FAI changes the picture
Model-based definition (MBD) and 3D PMI are expanding, but they usually add options before they remove drawings:
- 3D as the authority model: For some newer programs, the 3D model with PMI is the legal authority, and 2D drawings are derived views or not issued at all. Even then, many FAI tools still generate 2D-like views for ballooning and review.
- Digital ballooning on 3D: Modern AS9102 software can balloon directly on 3D PMI and tie measurements to model features. However, many organizations still export these into 2D reports for supplier and auditor consumption.
- Downstream equipment integration: CMMs, vision systems, and other metrology tools are increasingly consuming native 3D, but validation and correlation to legacy 2D-based methods remain required.
In practice, most plants that adopt model-based FAI end up with a hybrid state for a long time:
- New, high-volume, or strategic parts: model-based FAI, possibly 3D-centric with derived 2D artifacts.
- Legacy parts and small suppliers: conventional drawing-based FAI with ballooned PDFs.
Typical future-state: long-term hybrid, not pure 3D
In regulated aerospace, it is risky to plan on 2D disappearing entirely from FAI within the lifecycle of many current programs. More realistic is a deliberate shift in the center of gravity:
- Short to medium term (0 to 5+ years): Majority of FAIs remain drawing-based or hybrid. 3D is used where programs, customers, and suppliers support it, but 2D is still included in the package.
- Long term (beyond 10 years, new programs only): Some programs may be almost fully model-based, but even then, 2D views or snapshots are often generated automatically for human review, source inspection, and audit evidence.
The main constraints are not technology but qualification burden, audit expectations, and the cost of revalidating workflows across brownfield systems (PLM, MES, QMS, CMM software, and FAI tools).
Implications for your FAI strategy
Instead of planning for 2D to disappear, it is more practical to plan how to manage both 2D and 3D consistently:
- Define authority clearly: For each part, specify in controlled documents whether the model, the drawing, or a combination is the authority for FAI. Make this unambiguous in contracts, POs, and inspection plans.
- Maintain tight version control: Ensure PLM, FAI software, and inspection systems share a consistent source of truth for both 2D and 3D. Mismatched revisions between drawing, model, and ballooned characteristics are a common failure mode.
- Standardize characteristic IDs: Whether you balloon on 2D or 3D, characteristic identifiers should be stable and traceable across re-inspections, partial FAIs, and supplier handoffs.
- Validate digital workflows: Any move to 3D-based FAI should be treated as a change requiring validation and documented correlation to prior methods, especially where measurement strategies change.
- Segment by program and supplier: Apply model-based FAI where customers and key suppliers are ready, and maintain conventional drawing-based FAI where maturity or tooling is not there yet.
Common failure modes when trying to eliminate 2D
Organizations that attempt to “turn off” drawings in FAI often encounter issues such as:
- Auditability gaps: Inspectors and auditors struggle to reconcile FAI records with 3D data if they lack tools or training, leading to findings or protracted reviews.
- Supplier confusion: Smaller or legacy suppliers may not be equipped to consume MBD, leading to misinterpretation of requirements or nonconformances.
- Hidden dual authority: A drawing is kept unofficially for convenience while the model is declared authoritative, causing subtle mismatches between the two.
- Integration breaks: Existing FAI software, CMM programming workflows, or QMS records may assume a drawing-based ballooning paradigm and require significant rework or revalidation.
Bottom line
2D drawings are unlikely to fully disappear from FAI workflows across aerospace and defense in the foreseeable future. Model-based approaches will reduce the centrality of 2D for certain programs, but most organizations should plan for a validated, well-governed hybrid environment in which both 2D and 3D artifacts coexist and are tightly controlled.
