Tag: aerospace quality

AS9100 Certification Bodies: Ranked & Reviewed (2026)

Not every AS9100 certification body brings the same aerospace expertise to an audit. This guide breaks down what AS9100 accreditation actually requires, which certification bodies are active in the space, and the questions to ask before signing with a registrar.

Comparing accredited AS9100 registrars — what to look for, what to avoid, and which body fits your operation

Affiliate Disclosure: Some links in this article are affiliate links. If you purchase through them, The Standards Navigator may earn a commission at no additional cost to you.

Choosing the Wrong Registrar Costs More Than the Audit

Not all AS9100 certification bodies operate the same way. Some assign a dedicated aerospace lead auditor who understands configuration management and counterfeit parts controls on sight. Others rotate generalist auditors who spend half of Stage 1 relearning your industry — and bill you for the education.

A certificate issued by an appropriately accredited certification body is intended to demonstrate conformity to the same AS9100 requirements, regardless of which body issues it. What can differ significantly is the accreditation scope, auditor expertise, scheduling, audit experience, customer acceptance, and overall certification experience. For a supplier chasing a Tier 1 customer deadline, that difference is real money and real risk.

If you’re comparing registrars for the first time, this guide breaks down what accreditation actually means, which bodies are active in the AS9100 space, and how to evaluate quotes so you’re not choosing on price alone. If you’re already certified and evaluating a switch, the sections on auditor consistency and surveillance cadence will matter most to you.

From the floor: I’ve sat through registrar selection more than once at a heavy industrial manufacturing operation — comparing quotes side by side, all technically accredited, all wildly different in price and turnaround. The number that mattered wasn’t the quote total. It was how the registrar answered questions about auditor aerospace experience, how they’d handle surveillance-audit continuity year over year, and what their process looked like if a Stage 2 audit turned up a major finding. One bidder had clearly never audited anything with configuration management or counterfeit-parts controls in scope, and it showed the moment we started asking specifics. That’s the conversation that should happen before you sign, not the one that happens after your first nonconformance over something your auditor didn’t understand.

Before you request quotes, run a clause-by-clause gap check. Most organizations don’t get burned by picking the wrong registrar — they get burned by walking into Stage 1 not knowing where their gaps are. → AS9100 Rev D Gap Assessment Checklist — 74 items, clause-by-clause, built for aerospace suppliers preparing for certification.

In This Guide

  • What AS9100 accreditation actually requires
  • How to verify a registrar is legitimately accredited
  • What separates a good aerospace auditor from a generalist
  • How these certification bodies were evaluated, and which fit different supplier profiles
  • Questions to ask before signing a registrar contract
  • Cost and timeline expectations by registrar type
  • What to do after you select a certification body

👉 Start Here (Top Resources)

👉 Get the official AS9100 Rev D standard before you approach any registrar → AS9100 / SAE Standards — ANSI Webstore

👉 Get your team trained on AS9100 requirements ahead of Stage 1 → BSI Group AS9100 Training

👉 Run a clause-by-clause gap check before requesting quotes → AS9100 Rev D Gap Assessment Checklist

What Does AS9100 Accreditation Actually Mean?

AS9100 certification isn’t something any registrar can simply decide to offer. Certification bodies (also called registrars or CBs) must hold appropriate accreditation and scope to issue an accredited AS9100 certificate — meaning an independent accreditation body has verified the CB is competent to audit against the standard.

For AS9100 specifically, that accreditation runs through a recognized national accreditation body — in the U.S., ANAB accredits more AS9100 certification bodies than any other accreditation body, though it isn’t the only IAF-recognized option (IAS is also recognized). Accreditation is evaluated against ISO/IEC 17021-1 plus the aerospace-specific IAQG 9104-series requirements developed by the International Aerospace Quality Group (IAQG). Holding ISO 9001 accreditation does not automatically mean a certification body also holds AS9100 accreditation — the two are evaluated and scoped separately, and a registrar without current AS9100 accreditation scope cannot issue an accredited AS9100 certificate that meets the applicable certification-scheme requirements, regardless of how experienced their auditors sound on a sales call.

This matters because a certificate from a body without properly scoped accreditation isn’t just a paperwork issue — it may not satisfy your customer’s supplier-qualification requirements, potentially costing you both certification time and audit expense.

For background on what the standard itself requires before you get to registrar selection, see What Is AS9100? and AS9100 vs ISO 9001.

How to Verify a Registrar Is Legitimately Accredited

Don’t take a sales rep’s word for current AS9100 scope. Verify it directly:

1. Check the OASIS database. The IAQG OASIS Certified Supplier Directory is the official record of AS9100-certified organizations and the certification bodies that issued their certificates. If a registrar’s certifications aren’t showing up in OASIS, that’s a serious red flag.

2. Confirm current accreditation scope directly with the accreditation body. ANAB accredits more AS9100 certification bodies in the U.S. than any other accreditation body and publishes which certification bodies hold active accreditation and what scopes each one covers — some registrars are accredited for aerospace manufacturing but not for MRO (AS9110) or distribution (AS9120). If a registrar cites a different IAF-recognized accreditation body, confirm that body’s scope listing directly rather than assuming it’s equivalent to ANAB’s.

3. Ask what your accredited scope actually covers. Rather than asking whether a registrar covers a specific code, ask: “What is your current accredited AS9100 scope, and does it cover the activities, products, and industry sector included in my proposed certification scope?” Have the registrar confirm the applicable industry and technical scope classifications directly — don’t assume a single code number settles the question.

4. Ask for the accreditation certificate, not a logo on a website. A registrar’s marketing page listing “AS9100 Accredited” isn’t proof — request the actual accreditation certificate showing current scope and expiration.

⚠️ Most common finding: Suppliers under customer pressure sometimes select a registrar based on price and turnaround time alone, without confirming current AS9100 scope in detail — then discover during Stage 2 that a scope gap means the certificate won’t satisfy their customer’s supplier requirements.

What Separates a Good Aerospace Auditor From a Generalist

AS9100 certification bodies review with an auditor examining a first article inspection report beside a precision aerospace component
Choosing the right AS9100 certification bodies means looking beyond the certificate to auditor experience and aerospace expertise.

AS9100 auditors need aerospace-specific fluency that a generalist ISO 9001 auditor may not have. This is the criteria worth keeping in mind as you read the comparisons below — it’s the difference that actually separates certification bodies in practice once you’ve confirmed that the appropriate accreditation and scope are in place. When evaluating a registrar, ask specifically about auditor experience in:

  • Configuration management — Clause 8.1.2’s requirements go well beyond typical ISO 9001 document control
  • Counterfeit parts prevention — Clause 8.1.4 requires audit-ready evidence most non-aerospace auditors have never evaluated
  • First article inspection (FAI) — auditors unfamiliar with the AS9102 forms published by SAE International will struggle to evaluate your FAI records meaningfully
  • Special processes and traceability — Clause 8.5.2 traceability requirements are more stringent than general manufacturing

If you are preparing for your first AS9100 certification → confirm the specific auditor assigned to your account has aerospace industry audit hours, not just AS9100 training credentials. Ask the registrar directly; reputable ones will tell you.

For a deeper look at the traceability and counterfeit-parts requirements auditors will actually test against, see AS9100 Traceability Requirements and AS9100 Counterfeit Parts Standards.

How These Certification Bodies Were Evaluated

Before comparing specific bodies, here’s the criteria behind the categories below:

  • AS9100 accreditation status and scope
  • Aerospace auditor availability and depth of aerospace-specific experience
  • Geographic coverage and multi-site capability
  • Ability to combine AS9100 audits with ISO 9001, ISO 14001, or other management-system audits
  • Fit for different supplier types — manufacturers, MRO organizations, distributors
  • Scheduling flexibility and certification-cycle support

These are editorial recommendations based on accreditation scope, aerospace specialization, geographic coverage, multi-standard capability, and fit for different supplier profiles — not customer satisfaction scores, audit outcome data, or any undisclosed commercial relationship. Always verify current accreditation status yourself through OASIS and ANAB before requesting quotes.

AS9100 Certification Bodies Worth Comparing

The six bodies below are established, accredited names in aerospace quality certification worth including in your quote comparison — not a claim that they’re the only six, or objectively the “best” six, available. Dozens of ANAB-accredited bodies issue AS9100 certificates. Always verify current scope through OASIS before signing with any registrar.

If you already have a strong sense of which profile matches your operation → skip to that category below rather than reading all six in order.

AS9100 certification bodies compared by aerospace focus, multi-site operations, manufacturing, and industrial certification needs
AS9100 certification bodies serve different operational needs, from aerospace-focused suppliers and multi-site operations to combined industrial certification.

Best Overall for Multi-Standard Aerospace Suppliers: BSI Group

Why I’d consider them: BSI certifies against a very wide range of standards — AS9100 alongside ISO 9001, AS9110, AS9120, ISO 14001, and most other major management-system standards. If your operation is pursuing more than one certification, or expects to add standards later, that breadth means fewer registrar relationships to manage over time. Ask specifically whether your account would be assigned one lead auditor across all standards or separate auditors per standard — that affects both cost and consistency.

Best for Aerospace-Focused Certification Experience: Perry Johnson Registrars (PJR)

Why I’d consider them: PJR maintains multiple international accreditations (ANAB, UKAS, JAB) and markets a dedicated aerospace audit staff. For a supplier whose top priority is an auditor who won’t need aerospace concepts explained from scratch, this is worth a direct conversation about auditor assignment. Ask for the assigned auditor’s aerospace sector history before you sign, not after.

Best for Manufacturers Entering Aerospace Supply Chains: NSF-ISR

Why I’d consider them: NSF-ISR has a strong general manufacturing and industrial certification presence. For a fabricator or machine shop pursuing AS9100 for the first time as a new aerospace supplier, a registrar with broad industrial-certification familiarity alongside aerospace scope can be a comfortable entry point. Ask how many first-time AS9100 clients they’ve certified in the past year — that experience matters more than tenure alone for a first certification.

Best for Global or Multi-Site Operations: DEKRA Certification

Why I’d consider them: DEKRA’s global reach and integrated auditing across multiple management-system standards make them worth considering for suppliers with international sites. If multi-site consistency is a priority, ask specifically how auditor assignment and certification scope will be coordinated across locations — that coordination is where multi-site certifications most often run into trouble.

Best for Defense and Marine-Adjacent Aerospace: ABS Quality Evaluations

Why I’d consider them: ABS has a long-standing presence in industrial and aerospace certification, with particular relevance for suppliers whose work overlaps defense or marine-adjacent aerospace segments. Ask directly whether their auditor pool has experience with your specific product category — defense-adjacent scope can carry additional documentation expectations worth confirming up front.

Best for Combined Aerospace and Industrial-Process Certification: DNV

Why I’d consider them: DNV brings deep process-industry audit experience alongside aerospace capability — a reasonable fit for suppliers whose certification needs span both aerospace and broader industrial processes. Ask whether a combined audit across your process and aerospace scopes is possible in a single visit, since that’s where DNV’s dual background can actually save audit days.

At a glance:

Best ForCertification Body
Multi-standard aerospace suppliersBSI Group
Aerospace-focused certification experiencePerry Johnson Registrars (PJR)
Manufacturers entering aerospace supply chainsNSF-ISR
Global or multi-site operationsDEKRA Certification
Defense and marine-adjacent aerospaceABS Quality Evaluations
Combined aerospace and industrial-process certificationDNV

For training — as distinct from certification itself — BSI also offers AS9100-specific coursework covering requirements, internal auditing, and lead auditor preparation.

→ Auditors move faster through Stage 1 when your internal team already knows the standard cold: BSI Group AS9100 Training

For a broader comparison of certification bodies across ISO standards generally — not aerospace-specific — see Best ISO Certification Bodies.

Questions to Ask Before You Sign

Bring these ten questions into every registrar call:

✅ What is your current accredited scope for AS9100, and does it cover the activities, products, and industry sector included in my proposed certification scope? (For U.S. certification bodies, confirm the applicable scope through ANAB.)
✅ Who will be the lead auditor assigned to my account, and what aerospace sectors have they audited?
✅ Will the same auditor normally return for surveillance audits, or should I expect rotation?
✅ How many aerospace-specific audits has my assigned lead auditor conducted in the past 12 months?
✅ What is your typical Stage 1 to Stage 2 turnaround time, and what is the planned audit duration?
✅ What happens if my assigned auditor becomes unavailable close to the scheduled audit date?
✅ What is included in the quoted price — are travel expenses included or billed separately?
✅ What is your nonconformance grading criteria, and what happens if Stage 2 produces a major finding?
✅ How are audit-day schedule changes typically handled?
✅ Can my certificate scope accommodate future expansion — additional sites, products, or standards?

AS9100 certification bodies comparison as an operations manager reviews registrar questions before signing
Compare AS9100 certification bodies carefully before signing, including accreditation, aerospace experience, audit approach, cost, and NCR handling.

If you are under customer pressure to certify quickly → prioritize registrars with confirmed availability in your timeframe over the lowest quote. A registrar that can’t schedule Stage 1 for four months doesn’t help you meet a customer deadline, regardless of price.

Cost and Timeline: What to Expect

These are planning ranges, not fixed market prices. Actual AS9100 certification fees depend on employee count, number of sites, audit complexity, applicable scope, operational complexity, shift structure, travel, audit days required, and whether other management systems are audited together.

FactorTypical Planning RangeNotes
Stage 1 + Stage 2 audit fees$8,000–$18,000Varies by facility size, employee count, and site complexity
Annual surveillance audits$3,000–$7,000 per yearRequired to maintain certification between three-year recertification cycles
Recertification audit$6,000–$12,000Every three years, comparable in scope to initial certification

Ask any registrar directly whether combining AS9100 with an existing ISO 9001 or ISO 14001 audit could reduce total audit days — this varies by registrar and by how your existing certifications are scheduled, so get it confirmed in your specific quote rather than assuming a standard discount applies.

On timeline: the 3–6 month range you’ll often hear for “registrar selection to certificate issuance” assumes your QMS is already substantially implemented and you’re simply at the registrar-selection and audit-scheduling stage. It is not a full AS9100 implementation timeline. If you’re starting without an existing QMS, expect considerably longer — see AS9100 Implementation Timeline for phase-by-phase ranges depending on your starting point.

For a full breakdown of certification costs beyond registrar fees — internal audit prep, documentation, and consulting — see How Much Does AS9100 Certification Cost?.

Common Mistakes When Selecting a Registrar

Choosing on price alone. The cheapest quote often reflects less aerospace-specific auditor experience, not efficiency. A registrar that costs more but assigns a dedicated aerospace lead auditor typically pays for itself in fewer findings and less audit-day confusion.

Not confirming scope in detail before signing. As covered above — AS9100 accreditation doesn’t automatically cover AS9110 (MRO) or AS9120 (distribution). If your business spans more than one, confirm scope for each. See AS9110 vs AS9120 if you’re uncertain which applies to your operation.

Assuming certification body and consultant can be the same entity. Certification bodies must maintain impartiality, and accredited certification activities are subject to strict rules governing consulting and conflicts of interest. A certification body should not be building the QMS it is then responsible for certifying. If a “certification body” is offering to build your documentation and then certify you, ask directly how that’s structured to avoid a conflict.

Ignoring auditor turnover history. Ask how long auditors typically stay assigned to accounts. Frequent auditor rotation means re-explaining your operation’s context every surveillance cycle.

What to Do After You Select a Certification Body

Step 1 — Confirm scope and schedule your Stage 1 readiness review. Most registrars offer an optional pre-assessment to catch major gaps before the audit clock starts.

Step 2 — Run your internal gap assessment first. Don’t walk into a pre-assessment blind. → AS9100 Rev D Gap Assessment Checklist

Step 3 — Address FAI, traceability, and counterfeit parts documentation early. These are the areas generalist QMS documentation most often misses. See First Article Inspection Requirements and FOD Control Standards.

Step 4 — Close the knowledge gap before Stage 1, not during it. An auditor testing your team on requirements they’ve never formally learned is one of the most avoidable sources of Stage 1 findings. → BSI Group AS9100 Training

FAQ

Can any ISO 9001 certification body also certify AS9100?

Not automatically. A registrar must hold separate, specific accreditation for AS9100 through ANAB (or an equivalent IAF-recognized accreditation body), evaluated against ISO/IEC 17021-1 plus the IAQG 9104-series requirements. ISO 9001 accreditation does not automatically extend to AS9100 — the two are scoped and evaluated separately.

How do I verify a certification body is actually accredited for AS9100?

Check the IAQG OASIS Certified Supplier Directory, which lists certified organizations and the registrars that issued their certificates, and confirm current scope directly with ANAB. Don’t rely solely on a registrar’s own marketing claims.

Is the cheapest registrar always the wrong choice?

Not automatically — but a significant price gap usually reflects a difference in auditor aerospace experience, scheduling flexibility, or accreditation scope. Compare quotes on auditor qualifications and turnaround time, not just the number.

Do I need a different registrar for AS9100, AS9110, and AS9120?

Not necessarily the same body, but you do need separate accreditation scope confirmed for each standard you’re certifying against, since they cover different operations — manufacturing, MRO, and distribution respectively. See AS9110 vs AS9120 for the distinction.

Can I switch certification bodies mid-cycle if I’m unhappy with my current one?

Yes, though timing matters — most organizations switch at their three-year recertification point rather than mid-cycle, since transferring an active certificate involves a transfer audit process. Talk to your prospective new registrar about transfer procedures before your current cycle ends.

Does a certification body also provide consulting or documentation help?

Generally, no — accredited certification bodies are subject to impartiality rules that treat consulting on your QMS documentation as a conflict of interest with certifying that same QMS. For documentation support, work with a separate consultant or a documentation kit, then bring an independent registrar in for certification.

How long does AS9100 certification take once I’ve selected a registrar?

If your QMS is already substantially implemented, expect roughly 3–6 months from signing with a registrar to certificate issuance, depending on internal readiness and registrar scheduling availability. This is the certification phase only — it doesn’t include building a QMS from scratch. See AS9100 Implementation Timeline for full phase-by-phase ranges depending on your starting point.

What happens if my registrar’s AS9100 accreditation scope doesn’t cover my activities or products?

Your certificate may not satisfy customer supplier-qualification requirements even if the audit itself goes well. Confirm that the certification body’s accredited scope covers the activities and products included in your proposed certification scope before signing, not after certification.

📥 Free Resources

AS9100 Rev D Gap Assessment Checklist — 74-item clause-by-clause checklist for aerospace suppliers assessing their QMS before certification

ISO 13485 Gap Assessment Checklist — free checklist for medical device manufacturers assessing their QMS against ISO 13485 requirements

ISO 9001 Roadmap — step-by-step implementation guide for manufacturers building or improving a quality management system

Manufacturing Compliance Checklist — practical compliance reference covering key ISO, OSHA, and quality requirements for production environments

Supplier Quality Checklist — evaluation tool for assessing supplier quality controls and flow-down compliance before audits or new contracts

Not Sure What to Do Next?

🔹 You’re still researching registrar options → What Is AS9100? → AS9100 vs ISO 9001 → Aerospace Supplier Compliance Standards

🔹 You’re ready to request registrar quotes → Run your gap assessment first → AS9100 Rev D Gap Assessment Checklist

🔹 You need your team trained before Stage 1 → BSI Group AS9100 Training

🔹 You still need to buy the official AS9100 Rev D standard → AS9100 / SAE Standards — ANSI Webstore

🔹 You want to understand certification costs and timeline first → How Much Does AS9100 Certification Cost? → AS9100 Implementation Timeline

The Registrar You Choose Is Part of Your Quality System

Certification is not a one-time transaction — it’s a multi-year relationship with surveillance audits every year and recertification every three. Choosing an accredited body with genuine aerospace auditor experience, transparent scope, and consistent auditor assignment saves far more over that relationship than a lower first-year quote.

At The Standards Navigator, complex standards are translated into practical, real-world guidance you can act on.

Aerospace suppliers don’t fail audits because the requirements are a mystery — they fail because they picked a registrar that didn’t understand their industry, or walked into Stage 1 without a real gap assessment behind them.

Organizations that treat registrar selection as a checkbox end up re-explaining their operation to a new auditor every surveillance cycle. Organizations that vet accreditation scope and auditor experience up front build a certification relationship that gets faster and smoother every year.

At The Standards Navigator, aerospace compliance gets the same clause-level treatment as everything else on this site — no fluff, no generic advice.

👉 Get updates on AS9100 certification, audits, and aerospace supply chain compliance
👉 Be first to access new gap assessment tools and aerospace-specific guides

Subscribe

* indicates required

Industrial Compliance. Clearly Explained.

AS9145 Explained: Aerospace APQP and PPAP Requirements for 2026

AS9145 governs Advanced Product Quality Planning (APQP) and Production Part Approval Process (PPAP) for aerospace suppliers. This guide breaks down the PPAP elements, explains how primes like Boeing and Lockheed Martin flow the requirement down through purchase orders and supplier quality clauses, and covers the triggers that require a new submission.

What Advanced Product Quality Planning and Production Part Approval Really Require From Suppliers

Affiliate Disclosure: Some links in this article are affiliate links. If you purchase through them, The Standards Navigator may earn a commission at no additional cost to you.

When “It Passed First Article” Isn’t the Same as PPAP Approval

A new part clears first article inspection. The customer signs off. Then, three weeks later, a supplier quality engineer emails asking for the DFMEA, the control plan, and the measurement system analysis — none of which were part of the FAI package.

That gap catches a lot of suppliers off guard. First article inspection is one deliverable. AS9145 is commonly structured around eleven.

If you’re new to advanced product quality planning (APQP) in aerospace, this article explains what the standard actually requires. If you’ve already built a PPAP process and want to check it against the full element list, jump to the requirements breakdown below. Either way, this is the standard most aerospace suppliers don’t fully understand until a customer flow-down requirement forces the issue.

From the Floor: I’ve sat across the table from a supplier quality engineer who rejected a PPAP submission because the process capability study only covered one of three key characteristics on the drawing. The part had already passed first article. It didn’t matter — PPAP looks at the whole production process, not just the finished part. That’s the distinction that trips up shops moving from AS9100 compliance into full APQP/PPAP flow-down.

Most operations managers don’t find out their APQP process has gaps until a customer rejects a submission mid-program. Run your QMS against the AS9100 Rev D Gap Assessment Checklist before that happens → Download the free 74-item checklist

In This Guide

  • What AS9145 is and why IAQG created it
  • APQP vs. PPAP — how the two processes fit together
  • The 11 PPAP elements aerospace suppliers typically assemble
  • How AS9145 connects to AS9100, AS9102, and NADCAP
  • Whether AS9145 certification exists (it doesn’t — here’s what that means for you)
  • How customers actually flow down AS9145 requirements — and how to tell if it applies to you
  • Common triggers that require a new or updated PPAP submission
  • Common mistakes suppliers make when implementing AS9145
  • FAQs on scope, cost, and flow-down requirements

👉 Start Here (Top Resources)

Download Standards

What Is AS9145?

AS9145 is the aerospace industry’s standard for Advanced Product Quality Planning (APQP) and Production Part Approval Process (PPAP). The International Aerospace Quality Group (IAQG) released it in November 2016, adapting the automotive industry’s long-established APQP/PPAP framework (built by AIAG) to aerospace and defense manufacturing.

The standard exists because aerospace primes and OEMs — Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Rockwell Collins, and others — needed a structured, auditable way to confirm that a new part, or a part built from a new or changed process, would consistently meet requirements before full-rate production started. AS9100 certification tells a customer your quality management system is sound. AS9145 tells them a specific part and process combination is production-ready.

As of this writing, the current published edition remains the November 2016 release. IAQG has discussed a revision to clarify mandatory versus optional deliverables and streamline change management, but no new edition has been formally published — treat any “AS9145 Revision A” references you encounter online as forward-looking, not current. Verify the current revision status through SAE International or IAQG before purchasing or implementing requirements.

APQP vs. PPAP: Two Processes, One Standard

Infographic comparing AS9145 APQP and PPAP processes, illustrating how Advanced Product Quality Planning activities generate the documentation required for Production Part Approval Process submissions.
This infographic shows how AS9145 connects APQP planning activities to the PPAP documentation package required for aerospace customer approval.

APQP and PPAP are often used interchangeably, which causes confusion. They’re related but distinct.

ElementAPQPPPAP
What it isThe planning process across the product development lifecycleThe documentation package submitted for customer approval
When it happensContinuously, from design through production launchAt defined milestones — typically before full-rate production
PurposeDetect risk early, coordinate design and process feedbackProve the process can repeatably produce a conforming part
OutputDesign reviews, risk assessments, control plansThe 11-element submission package plus the PPAP approval form
OwnerCross-functional team (design, quality, manufacturing)Quality function, submitted to the customer for disposition

Think of APQP as the process and PPAP as the proof. It’s difficult to submit a credible PPAP package without having run APQP first — the PPAP elements are largely artifacts APQP is meant to generate along the way.

The 11 PPAP Elements Aerospace Suppliers Typically Assemble

Infographic illustrating the 11 AS9145 PPAP elements required for aerospace production approval, including design records, DFMEA, PFMEA, MSA, FAIR, and PPAP documentation.
This infographic breaks down the 11 AS9145 PPAP elements that aerospace suppliers assemble to demonstrate production readiness and obtain customer approval.

Automotive PPAP under AIAG runs 18 elements. Aerospace requirements are commonly grouped into 11 aerospace PPAP deliverables under AS9145 — a deliberate scope difference, since IAQG built the standard to fit aerospace’s lower production volumes and higher part complexity rather than copy automotive wholesale. Some customers and auditors group or document these elements slightly differently in practice, so always confirm the exact submission format against your specific customer’s requirements before you finalize a package.

#ElementWhat It Confirms
1Design recordThe part matches the current released drawing/model
2Design risk analysis (DFMEA)Design failure modes were identified and mitigated
3Process flow diagramEvery manufacturing and inspection step is mapped
4Process risk analysis (PFMEA)Process failure modes were identified and mitigated
5Control planKey characteristics are monitored at the right points in the process
6Measurement system analysis (MSA)Gauges and inspection methods are capable of measuring what they claim to measure
7Initial process capability studiesThe process can hold tolerance on key characteristics
8Packaging, preservation, and labeling approvalsThe part survives handling and shipment without degradation
9First article inspection report (FAIR)The part conforms to drawing requirements — see AS9100’s First Article Inspection Requirements for the full clause breakdown
10Customer-specific PPAP requirementsAny additional documentation the customer’s flow-down demands
11PPAP approval formThe customer’s formal disposition — approved, conditional, or rejected

Example: A supplier manufacturing machined aluminum brackets for a military aircraft receives a purchase order that flows down AS9145. The resulting PPAP package would typically include the released engineering drawing, a PFMEA covering the machining operations, a control plan identifying the inspection method and frequency for the critical hole diameters, a gage R&R study validating the CMM program used to measure those diameters, an initial process capability study, the FAIR, and any customer-specific forms called out on the purchase order.

Most aerospace customers expect capability evidence on designated key characteristics, not just a passing measurement. Capability is typically demonstrated using Cp/Cpk studies, ongoing SPC data, or a customer-approved alternative method — which one applies depends on production volume and the risk classification of the characteristic.

If you are already producing FAIRs under AS9100 clause requirements → you likely already have much of element 9 in place. For many suppliers, the remaining gap tends to fall in elements 2 through 7 — the risk analysis and capability studies some shops treat as optional until a customer’s purchase order makes them mandatory.

One of the most common findings: Suppliers often submit a PPAP package with a completed FAIR and design record, but no PFMEA or control plan tied to the same key characteristics. Customers frequently reject these submissions because the package doesn’t clearly show how the process will keep producing conforming parts — only that one sample did.

How AS9145 Connects to AS9100, AS9102, and NADCAP

AS9145 doesn’t operate on its own. It’s woven into the broader aerospace quality framework:

  • AS9100 — your certified QMS is the foundation APQP/PPAP sits on top of. See AS9100 vs ISO 9001 if you’re still building that foundation.
  • AS9102 — governs first article inspection reporting specifically, which becomes PPAP element 9.
  • NADCAP — a separate special-process accreditation system. AS9145 and NADCAP address different risk areas and neither substitutes for the other; see NADCAP vs AS9100 for how the two fit together.

When a customer flows down AS9145 requirements, it typically shows up as a purchase order note or a supplier quality manual reference — not as a separate certification audit. Your registrar’s AS9100 surveillance audit is often where an auditor checks whether your APQP/PPAP process, if you’ve committed to one contractually, is actually being followed.

Infographic showing how AS9145 connects with AS9100, AS9102, NADCAP, and customer flow-down requirements within the aerospace quality management system.
This infographic illustrates how AS9145 integrates with AS9100, AS9102, NADCAP, and customer flow-down requirements to support aerospace quality planning and production approval.

Is AS9145 Certifiable?

No — and this is the objection worth addressing directly. AS9145 is a guidance and requirements standard, not a certifiable one. There’s no accredited registrar issuing “AS9145 certificates” the way there is for AS9100. That leads some operations managers to deprioritize it, assuming it’s optional.

It isn’t, in practice. Contractually, AS9145 becomes a binding requirement once a customer flows it down in a purchase order or supplier quality manual — something primes and Tier 1s do with increasing frequency. At that point, your compliance gets evaluated two ways: through the PPAP submission itself, and through how well your documented process matches what an AS9100 auditor observes on the floor. Skipping APQP/PPAP discipline doesn’t remove the requirement — it just means you’ll be building the documentation reactively, under deadline pressure, instead of as part of normal program planning.

If you are under customer pressure to submit a first PPAP package quickly → don’t skip straight to the paperwork. Build the process flow diagram and control plan first; the rest of the elements depend on those being accurate.

How Customers Flow Down AS9145 Requirements

This is the question most suppliers actually have: does AS9145 apply to me? The answer is almost always sitting in the contract, not the standard itself. The common flow-down mechanisms:

  • PO notes. Many primes attach AS9145 requirements as a numbered note directly on the purchase order rather than as a standalone contract clause — easy to miss if you’re only reading the drawing and spec callouts.
  • Supplier quality clauses. Most primes and Tier 1s maintain a dedicated supplier quality requirements document with a specific APQP/PPAP clause referencing AS9145 by name. If your customer’s supplier quality manual or PO cites AS9145, AS9102, or “APQP/PPAP” directly, it applies to that part.
  • Boeing. Boeing’s Supplemental Quality Requirements for Suppliers document and its PO Notes system govern when APQP applies. As of this writing, the framework ties the requirement to the specific part number identified in the procurement agreement rather than a blanket program-wide mandate, and Boeing reserves the right to review and approve APQP/PPAP submissions directly — but these documents are revised periodically, so confirm against the current revision your contract references.
  • Lockheed Martin. Lockheed Martin Aeronautics maintains a supplier quality clause covering APQP/PPAP that’s modeled on AS9145 and, as of this writing, applies to the purchase order and to lower-tier detail parts, plus a related first article inspection clause tying FAI performance into the broader APQP/PPAP system. Like Boeing’s documents, these clauses are revised periodically — verify against the revision cited in your contract.
  • Tier 1 suppliers. A Tier 1 that receives AS9145 flow-down from a prime is typically obligated under its own contract to pass that requirement to its sub-tier suppliers. A shop with no direct relationship to Boeing or Lockheed can still end up on the hook for a full PPAP submission through a Tier 1 customer’s flow-down.

If you are unsure whether AS9145 applies to a specific part → check the purchase order notes and your customer’s supplier quality manual before you start production. The requirement is almost always explicit once you know where to look — it shouldn’t arrive as a surprise mid-program.

Common Triggers for an AS9145 PPAP

PPAP isn’t a one-time event reserved for brand-new parts. Customers typically expect a new or updated PPAP submission when one of these occurs:

  • New product introduction
  • New customer
  • New manufacturing location
  • Major process change
  • Tooling replacement
  • Significant engineering change
  • Customer-requested revalidation

Any one of these can trigger a full or partial PPAP resubmission, even on a part that’s been in stable production for years.

If you are moving production to a new facility or replacing tooling on an established part → confirm with your customer whether a PPAP resubmission is required before you make the change, not after. Retroactive PPAP submissions are far harder to defend than ones planned into the change itself.

Common Mistakes in AS9145 Implementation

  • Treating FAIR as the whole submission. First article inspection is one of eleven elements, not a substitute for the rest.
  • Running PFMEA and control plan development as separate, disconnected exercises. They should reference the same key characteristics — when they don’t, customers catch the mismatch immediately.
  • Skipping MSA on new inspection equipment. A capable process measured with an incapable gauge produces PPAP data that’s difficult to trust.
  • Waiting for the customer to specify element 10 requirements before starting the rest. Customer-specific requirements layer on top of the standard 11 elements — they don’t replace the need to start APQP early.
  • No cross-functional ownership. APQP tends to break down when it’s treated as a quality department task instead of a design-manufacturing-quality collaboration from the start.

Quick AS9145 Readiness Checklist

✅ Design record matches the current released drawing revision
✅ DFMEA and PFMEA completed and cross-referenced to the same key characteristics
✅ Process flow diagram covers every manufacturing and inspection step
✅ Control plan identifies monitoring method and frequency for each key characteristic
✅ MSA completed on gauges used to measure key characteristics
✅ Initial process capability study demonstrates the process can hold tolerance
✅ Packaging and preservation method validated for the part’s handling requirements
✅ FAIR completed per AS9102 and matches the design record
✅ Customer-specific PPAP requirements identified before submission, not after
✅ PPAP approval form included and routed for customer disposition

What Does It Cost to Implement AS9145?

There’s no certification fee, since AS9145 isn’t a certifiable standard — the cost is internal: engineering time for DFMEA/PFMEA, capability studies, and control plan development, plus the price of the standard itself. If your team is also purchasing related AS9100-series documents, buying the standards as a bundle typically costs less than purchasing each one individually, and code CC2026 takes an additional 5% off through December 31, 2026.

FAQ

Is AS9145 the same as AS9100?

No. AS9100 is a certifiable quality management system standard. AS9145 is a non-certifiable process standard covering APQP and PPAP for specific parts and production processes — it operates within an AS9100-certified QMS, not in place of one.

Does every aerospace supplier need to comply with AS9145?

Only when a customer flows down the requirement — through a purchase order, supplier quality manual, or contract clause. It’s not a blanket regulatory requirement, but flow-down has become common enough among primes and Tier 1s that most active aerospace suppliers are likely to encounter it at some point.

How many PPAP elements does AS9145 require?

Aerospace requirements are commonly grouped into eleven PPAP deliverables, compared to the 18 elements used in automotive PPAP under AIAG. Aerospace’s version was scoped down to fit lower production volumes and higher part complexity, though some customers document or group elements slightly differently.

What’s the difference between APQP and PPAP?

APQP is the ongoing planning process across product development. PPAP is the documentation package — built from APQP activities — submitted to the customer for approval before production.

Can a first article inspection report substitute for a full PPAP submission?

No. FAIR is one of the eleven commonly documented PPAP elements (element 9), not a replacement for the rest. A part can pass first article inspection and still have an incomplete PPAP package if the risk analyses, control plan, or capability studies are missing.

Is there a registrar audit specifically for AS9145?

No. There’s no accredited certification body issuing AS9145 certificates. Compliance is verified through the customer’s review of your PPAP submission and, indirectly, through your AS9100 surveillance audits if APQP/PPAP has become a contractual requirement your registrar is checking against.

Where do I buy the AS9145 standard?

Through the ANSI Webstore, the authorized distributor for SAE aerospace standards. Avoid free PDF copies circulating outside official channels — they’re frequently outdated or incomplete, and using one puts your PPAP submission at risk of referencing superseded requirements.

How does AS9145 relate to NADCAP?

They’re independent systems addressing different risk areas. AS9145 governs new product and process introduction through APQP/PPAP. NADCAP accredits special processes like heat treating, welding, and NDT. A supplier can need both, either, or neither depending on what they produce and what their customers require — see our full comparison for the details.

How do I know if AS9145 applies to my company?

Check your purchase order notes and your customer’s supplier quality manual. AS9145 flow-down is almost always explicit — cited by name in a PO note or a dedicated APQP/PPAP clause — rather than implied. If you supply a Tier 1 that itself received AS9145 flow-down from a prime, the requirement passes down to you contractually even without a direct relationship to the prime.

What triggers a new PPAP submission on a part already in production?

New product introduction, a new customer, a new manufacturing location, a major process change, tooling replacement, a significant engineering change, or a customer-requested revalidation. Any of these can require a full or partial PPAP resubmission even on parts that have been in stable production for years.

📥 Free Resources

Not Sure What to Do Next?

🔹 Still researching? Read What Is AS9100? to understand the QMS foundation AS9145 sits on top of.

🔹 Ready to build your APQP/PPAP process? Download the AS9100 Rev D Gap Assessment Checklist and confirm your QMS can support the documentation elements before you start.

🔹 Need to buy the standard? AS9145 — ANSI Webstore for the individual standard, or use the ANSI Bundle Link with code CC2026 if you’re purchasing multiple AS9100-series documents together.

🔹 Need training on the QMS context AS9145 operates in? BSI’s AS9100 training courses cover the audit environment your APQP/PPAP process will be evaluated against.

AS9145 rewards suppliers who treat it as a planning discipline instead of a paperwork exercise. Build the risk analyses and control plans as part of your normal development process, and the PPAP submission comes together far more easily. We’ll update this guide if IAQG publishes a revised edition.

Stay Ahead of Aerospace Flow-Down Requirements

Many PPAP rejections trace back less to a misunderstanding of the standard and more to APQP being treated as a last-minute paperwork sprint instead of a planning process run alongside design and manufacturing engineering.

Shops that build DFMEA, PFMEA, and control plans into their normal product development workflow tend to submit cleaner PPAP packages on the first pass. Shops that wait until the customer asks often end up reverse-engineering documentation under deadline pressure — and that’s when submissions are more likely to get rejected.

The Standards Navigator covers AS9145, AS9100, and the rest of the aerospace quality framework suppliers need to stay contract-ready.

👉 Get updates on aerospace quality planning and flow-down requirements
👉 Be first to access new AS9100 and AS9145 resources as we publish them

Subscribe

* indicates required

Industrial Compliance. Clearly Explained.

First Article Inspection Requirements: What AS9100 Suppliers Must Document in 2026

AS9100 requires First Article Inspection under Clause 8.5.1.3, documented per AS9102 Rev C. This guide breaks down the five triggers that require a new FAI, the three required forms, and the most common reasons FAIRs get rejected by customers and auditors.

A clause-by-clause guide to AS9102 Rev C and the FAI process aerospace suppliers can’t afford to get wrong

Affiliate Disclosure: Some links in this article are affiliate links. If you purchase through them, The Standards Navigator may earn a commission at no additional cost to you.

The Part That Passed Inspection — And Still Got Rejected

Understanding First Article Inspection requirements under AS9102 Rev C is what separates a smooth AS9100 audit from a stalled one — and a part can measure perfectly on the CMM and still get bounced back to the supplier. Not because the dimensions were wrong. Because the paperwork proving those dimensions was incomplete, unsigned, or missing a required characteristic.

That’s the trap most new AS9100 suppliers fall into with First Article Inspection, or FAI for short. They treat it as a formality — something to knock out after the part is built. In reality, AS9102 Rev C is a documentation standard with specific, auditable requirements, and a customer or auditor can reject an otherwise flawless part on FAIR completeness alone.

If you’re preparing for your first AS9100 certification, building your first FAIR package, or trying to figure out why your last one bounced, this guide breaks down exactly what AS9102 Rev C requires — and where suppliers lose the most time.

From the Floor: I’ve sat across the table from an auditor reviewing first-piece documentation on a new fabrication run, watching a supplier get flagged not because the part was out of tolerance, but because the characteristic accountability record didn’t trace back to the drawing revision in use. That’s the kind of finding that stalls a contract review meeting for weeks. The part was fine. The paper trail wasn’t — and in an audit, the paper trail is the part.

👉 Before you submit your next FAIR, run it against a clause-by-clause gap check first. Grab the free AS9100 Rev D Gap Assessment Checklist — a 74-item, section-by-section review built for aerospace suppliers who need to know exactly where their QMS stands before a registrar does.

In This Guide

  • What First Article Inspection requirements actually cover, and why AS9100 requires them
  • The five triggers that require a new or partial FAI
  • AS9102 Rev C’s three forms, explained field by field
  • Full FAI vs. partial (delta) FAI — and how to tell which one you need
  • The most common reasons FAIRs get rejected
  • How FAI connects to AS9100 Clause 8.5.1.3
  • A quick audit checklist you can run before your next submission
  • Where to buy AS9102 Rev C and how to prepare your team

👉 Start Here: Top Resources

  • AS9100 Rev D Gap Assessment Checklist — free 74-item checklist to confirm your QMS (including production process verification) is audit-ready before your registrar shows up.
  • 9001Simplified — pre-built documentation templates that give your FAI and nonconformance records a structured home instead of scattered spreadsheets.
  • AS9102 Rev C — ANSI Webstore — the current edition of the standard governing FAI reporting.
  • BSI Group AS9100 Training — structured AS9100 training if your quality team needs a working understanding of Clause 8.5.1.3 before your next internal audit.
Download Standards

What Is a First Article Inspection?

Quick answer: First Article Inspection (FAI) is a documented verification that a representative part from a new or changed production process meets all engineering, material, and specification requirements. Aerospace suppliers typically document FAI using AS9102 Rev C forms.

These First Article Inspection requirements apply the moment your AS9100 certificate covers a new part number — they’re not an optional add-on you can defer until an audit forces the issue.

It’s not a sampling plan. It’s not a spot check. AS9100 Rev D, Clause 8.5.1.3 (“Production Process Verification”), requires a representative item from the first production run — or from a process that has changed enough to invalidate a prior FAI — to be fully inspected, verified, and documented.

The distinction matters because FAI isn’t optional guidance layered on top of AS9100. It’s a clause requirement. If your AS9100 certificate is active, your ANAB-accredited registrar expects to see FAI records, and expects them to follow the format your customers specify — which, for the overwhelming majority of aerospace primes, means AS9102 Rev C.

If you are new to aerospace supply chains and still mapping how AS9100 differs from the ISO 9001 system you already run, our AS9100 vs. ISO 9001 breakdown covers the additional aerospace-specific clauses, FAI included.

AS9102 Rev C: The Standard Behind the Requirement

AS9102, maintained by SAE International’s Aerospace Standards Committee, defines the format and content of the First Article Inspection Report (FAIR). The current edition — Rev C, released in June 2023 — replaced Rev B and remains the version most primes and Tier 1 customers require today.

Rev C tightened accountability. Every bill-of-materials part tied to the assembly — detail parts, sub-assemblies, and commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) items alike — now has to be explicitly listed. Special process suppliers (heat treat, NDT, plating) are explicitly in scope: they can satisfy the requirement by producing their own FAIR or by documenting characteristics and results on a detailed certificate of conformance. The signature structure also changed — a single Form 1 signature now locks all three forms, instead of requiring separate sign-off on each.

Most customers will still accept Rev B templates on legacy programs through 2026, but new contracts increasingly specify Rev C by default. There’s no upside to staying on the old forms.

AS9102 Rev C — ANSI Webstore is the authoritative source for the current text — worth the purchase before you build or revise your FAI templates internally, since secondhand summaries (including this one) don’t replace the primary document during an audit.

When FAI Is Required — The Five Triggers

Infographic explaining First Article Inspection requirements by illustrating the five events that trigger a new or partial AS9102 Rev C First Article Inspection under AS9100.
Five specific events trigger a new or partial First Article Inspection under AS9102 Rev C, making it essential for aerospace suppliers to recognize when FAI documentation must be updated.

FAI isn’t a one-time event tied to a single part number. AS9102 defines five specific triggers, and any one of them requires a new FAI — or at minimum, a partial one:

  1. First production run of a new part. Always required, no exceptions.
  2. A design change. Any engineering change order or drawing revision that affects fit, form, or function.
  3. A change in manufacturing source. New supplier, new plant, or a significant process change at an existing supplier.
  4. A change in process or material. New heat treat cycle, new alloy lot source, new raw material vendor.
  5. A lapse in production exceeding two years. Even if nothing else changed, the gap itself triggers a re-FAI.

If you are already certified to AS9100 and building your first aerospace part number → treat trigger #1 as non-negotiable. Skipping it is one of the fastest ways to generate a serious audit finding during a surveillance audit or customer assessment. If you’re still mapping out your certification schedule, our AS9100 Implementation Timeline guide shows where FAI readiness fits into the overall process.

If you’re mid-contract and just received an ECO → check trigger #2 before you release the revised drawing to the floor. A full FAI isn’t always required here — see the partial FAI section below.

The Three FAI Forms Explained

AS9102 requires three forms, and each one covers a different layer of accountability.

FormPurposeKey Content
Form 1Part Number AccountabilityPart number, part name, serial number, FAIR number, drawing revision, full vs. partial FAI designation, single locking signature
Form 2Product AccountabilityMaterials, special processes, functional test requirements, and the specifications each one is verified against
Form 3Characteristic AccountabilityEvery ballooned characteristic from the drawing, the requirement, the actual measured result, and the verifying method

Form 1 is the cover sheet — it identifies the part and locks the package once signed. Form 2 tracks every material, special process, and functional test called out on the drawing, cross-referenced to its governing specification. Form 3 is where the detail lives: every dimension, tolerance, and note on the drawing gets a balloon number, and that number has to trace directly to a measured, documented result on Form 3.

Most common finding: auditors and customer quality reps most often reject FAIRs not for measurement errors, but for characteristics on the drawing that never made it onto Form 3 at all — a missed note, a General Datum requirement, or a material callout in the title block that nobody ballooned.

Full FAI vs. Partial (Delta) FAI

Comparison infographic showing the differences between a Full First Article Inspection and a Partial (Delta) First Article Inspection under AS9102 Rev C for AS9100 aerospace suppliers.
Understanding when to perform a Full FAI versus a Partial (Delta) FAI helps aerospace manufacturers maintain compliance while avoiding unnecessary inspection and documentation effort.

Not every trigger requires rebuilding the entire FAIR from scratch. AS9102 Rev C distinguishes between:

  • Full FAI — every characteristic on every form is inspected and documented. Required for the first production run of a new part, or when the scope of a change is broad enough to affect the majority of the part’s characteristics.
  • Partial (delta) FAI — only the characteristics or processes affected by the specific change are re-inspected, with a clear reference back to the baseline FAIR that covers everything else.

Example: Changing a hole diameter from .250″ to .312″ typically justifies a partial FAI focused on the affected characteristics. Changing the manufacturing route, material specification, and drawing revision at the same time typically pushes it into full-FAI territory instead.

If you’re unsure which one your ECO requires → don’t guess. Map the change directly to the specific characteristics it touches, and document that mapping as part of your FAI plan. An auditor will ask you to justify a partial FAI determination, and “we assumed it was minor” is not an acceptable answer.

That re-accomplishment logic needs to live in a controlled, rev-managed document that defines in advance what counts as a full trigger versus a delta trigger for your product lines. Waiting until the ECO lands to figure this out is how full FAIs get triggered by mistake — burning inspection hours a documented plan would have avoided.

Common First Article Inspection Mistakes

The failure patterns repeat across shops of every size:

  • Incomplete characteristic capture. Notes, general tolerances, and material callouts buried in the drawing’s title block get missed during ballooning.
  • Missing special process evidence. A part goes out for heat treat or NDT, and the FAIR references the process but doesn’t include the supporting cure chart, pyrometry data, or inspection record.
  • No documented full-vs-partial rationale. A delta FAI gets submitted with no record of why it was scoped that way.
  • Signature and revision mismatches. The drawing revision on Form 1 doesn’t match what was actually used to inspect the part — often because the drawing was revised mid-production and nobody updated the FAIR.
  • Treating FAI as a one-time event. No plan exists for what happens after a two-year production gap, so the re-FAI requirement gets missed entirely.

If your last FAIR bounced and you’re not sure why → work backward from Form 3 first. That’s where the majority of rejected packages have their root cause, not Form 1 or Form 2.

👉 Most shops don’t fail FAI review because they misunderstand the standard — they fail because a characteristic never made it onto the ballooned drawing in the first place. Run the AS9100 Gap Assessment Checklist before your next submission and catch it before your customer does.

How FAI Connects to AS9100 Clause 8.5.1.3

FAI isn’t a standalone requirement — it’s the mechanism AS9100 uses to satisfy Clause 8.5.1.3, Production Process Verification. The clause requires organizations to verify a process is capable of consistently producing conforming product before that process runs for volume production. AS9102 is how you prove that verification happened, in a format customers can audit against.

This is also where the objection comes up most: does a small shop with only a handful of aerospace part numbers really need full AS9102 compliance, or is this a Tier 1 problem? The clause doesn’t scale by company size. If your QMS is certified to AS9100 and you’re producing a part for the first time, Clause 8.5.1.3 applies whether you’re a 15-person job shop or a 500-employee Tier 1 supplier. What scales is the complexity of the part — not whether the requirement exists.

For the accreditation and certification-body side of this, IAQG maintains the governing framework for AS9100 quality management, and the IAQG OASIS Database is where certified suppliers’ AS9100 status gets verified by customers and registrars.

Quick FAI Audit Checklist

Run this before you submit your next FAIR:

  • ✅ Every note, tolerance, and callout on the drawing — including the title block — has been ballooned
  • ✅ Form 1’s drawing revision matches the revision actually used for inspection
  • ✅ Special process evidence (cure charts, pyrometry, NDT records) is attached, not just referenced
  • ✅ Full vs. partial FAI determination is documented with a rationale, not assumed
  • ✅ Sub-tier or COTS characteristics are accounted for per the BOM, not just the top-level assembly
  • ✅ Single Form 1 signature is present and dated correctly under Rev C rules
  • ✅ Two-year production lapse tracking exists somewhere in your quality system — not just in someone’s memory
Infographic showing a seven-step FAIR submission checklist under AS9102 Rev C, including documentation, signatures, BOM accountability, and two-year production gap tracking for AS9100 compliance.
Use this seven-step FAIR submission checklist to verify your First Article Inspection package is complete before submitting it to a customer or auditor.

⚠️ If you can’t check every box above with confidence, that’s a gap assessment conversation, not a “we’ll catch it next time” conversation.

FAQ

Is First Article Inspection required under AS9100, or is AS9102 just a recommendation?

FAI itself is a clause requirement under AS9100 Rev D, Clause 8.5.1.3. AS9102 is the SAE standard that defines the documentation format for that requirement — it’s not certified separately, but nearly every aerospace customer specifies it as the expected format for FAIR submission.

What’s the difference between AS9102 Rev B and Rev C?

Rev C, released in 2023, tightened bill-of-materials accountability (requiring every BOM item — detail parts, sub-assemblies, and COTS — to be listed), brought special process suppliers explicitly into scope, and simplified the signature structure so a single Form 1 signature locks all three forms instead of requiring separate signatures on each.

Do I need a full FAI every time a drawing changes?

Not necessarily. If the change affects only specific characteristics, a partial (delta) FAI that documents just those characteristics — with a clear reference back to the original FAIR — is acceptable, provided the full-vs-partial determination is documented and justifiable.

How long does a First Article Inspection take?

Completed manually, a single FAIR can take a full day per part, depending on characteristic count. Ballooning software that links balloon numbers directly to Form 3 has cut that time down substantially for shops with high part-number volume, though the underlying inspection and documentation work doesn’t disappear — it just moves faster.

Does a lapse in production really require a brand-new FAI even if nothing changed?

Yes. A production gap exceeding two years triggers a re-FAI under AS9102, regardless of whether the drawing, process, or supplier changed. The rationale is that tooling, gauges, and personnel can all drift over a two-year gap even without a documented change.

Who is responsible for FAI on parts that go out for special processing?

The special process supplier (heat treat, plating, NDT) is explicitly in scope under Rev C. They can satisfy the requirement either by producing their own FAIR for their portion of the work, or by documenting the relevant characteristics and results on a detailed certificate of conformance that the prime contractor’s FAIR references.

Can a small job shop with only one or two aerospace part numbers skip formal FAI documentation?

No. Clause 8.5.1.3 applies to any organization certified to AS9100 producing a new or changed part — company size and part-number volume don’t change the requirement, only the scale of the inspection effort.

Where do I buy the current AS9102 Rev C standard?

AS9102 Rev C — ANSI Webstore carries the current edition. If you’re also purchasing or renewing the base AS9100 standard, the ANSI bundle option is worth checking — buying related aerospace standards together typically costs less than purchasing each one separately.

📥 Free Resources

  • ISO 9001 Roadmap — step-by-step implementation guide for manufacturers building or improving a quality management system.
  • Manufacturing Compliance Checklist — practical compliance reference covering key ISO, OSHA, and quality requirements for production environments.
  • Supplier Quality Checklist — evaluation tool for assessing supplier quality controls and flow-down compliance before audits or new contracts.
  • ISO 13485 Gap Assessment Checklist — free checklist for medical device manufacturers assessing their QMS against ISO 13485 requirements.
  • AS9100 Rev D Gap Assessment Checklist — 74-item clause-by-clause checklist for aerospace suppliers assessing their QMS before certification, including production process verification and FAI readiness.

Not Sure What to Do Next?

🔹 Still researching how FAI fits into your AS9100 QMS? Start with our What Is AS9100? pillar guide, or see how the standard compares to the ISO 9001 system you may already run in our AS9100 vs. ISO 9001 breakdown.

🔹 Ready to build or clean up your FAI documentation process? 9001Simplified’s documentation templates give your quality team a structured starting point instead of building FAI and nonconformance records from a blank spreadsheet.

🔹 Need to purchase the standards themselves? [AS9102 Rev C — ANSI Webstore] covers the FAI reporting format; the SAE/AS9100 standard series covers the base QMS requirement. Use code CC2026 for 5% off through December 31, 2026.

🔹 Need your team trained on Clause 8.5.1.3 and production process verification? BSI Group’s AS9100 training courses cover the clause requirements behind FAI in detail.

FAI documentation is one of the clearest places where AS9100 suppliers either build a habit of audit-readiness — or build a habit of scrambling. Get the forms right the first time, and every FAIR after that gets faster. That’s the standard The Standards Navigator holds every aerospace article to: Industrial Compliance. Clearly Explained.

Don’t Let a Missing Balloon Number Be the Reason Your FAIR Gets Rejected

Most FAI rejections don’t happen because a supplier doesn’t understand tolerances. They happen because a characteristic never made it onto a balloon number, or a signature landed on the wrong revision.

Shops that build a documented FAI plan — one that spells out full-vs-partial triggers before an ECO ever lands — spend inspection hours on the floor. Shops without one spend those same hours re-explaining themselves to a customer quality rep.

The Standards Navigator tracks AS9100, AS9102, and the aerospace-specific requirements that don’t show up in a generic ISO 9001 checklist — built from the floor up, not from a training manual.

👉 Get updates on AS9100 and aerospace quality requirements
👉 Be first to access new aerospace gap assessment and documentation resources

Subscribe below to stay ahead.

Subscribe

* indicates required

The Standards Navigator — Industrial Compliance. Clearly Explained.