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
Table of Contents
👉 Start Here (Top Resources)
- AS9145 — ANSI Webstore — Purchase the current edition of the standard directly from the official distributor.
- BSI AS9100 Training Courses — Because AS9145 flow-down is typically checked through AS9100 audits, BSI’s AS9100 training covers the QMS context APQP/PPAP sits inside.
- AS9100 Rev D Gap Assessment Checklist — Confirm your QMS foundation is solid before layering APQP/PPAP requirements on top of it.
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
APQP and PPAP are often used interchangeably, which causes confusion. They’re related but distinct.
| Element | APQP | PPAP |
|---|---|---|
| What it is | The planning process across the product development lifecycle | The documentation package submitted for customer approval |
| When it happens | Continuously, from design through production launch | At defined milestones — typically before full-rate production |
| Purpose | Detect risk early, coordinate design and process feedback | Prove the process can repeatably produce a conforming part |
| Output | Design reviews, risk assessments, control plans | The 11-element submission package plus the PPAP approval form |
| Owner | Cross-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
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.
| # | Element | What It Confirms |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Design record | The part matches the current released drawing/model |
| 2 | Design risk analysis (DFMEA) | Design failure modes were identified and mitigated |
| 3 | Process flow diagram | Every manufacturing and inspection step is mapped |
| 4 | Process risk analysis (PFMEA) | Process failure modes were identified and mitigated |
| 5 | Control plan | Key characteristics are monitored at the right points in the process |
| 6 | Measurement system analysis (MSA) | Gauges and inspection methods are capable of measuring what they claim to measure |
| 7 | Initial process capability studies | The process can hold tolerance on key characteristics |
| 8 | Packaging, preservation, and labeling approvals | The part survives handling and shipment without degradation |
| 9 | First article inspection report (FAIR) | The part conforms to drawing requirements — see AS9100’s First Article Inspection Requirements for the full clause breakdown |
| 10 | Customer-specific PPAP requirements | Any additional documentation the customer’s flow-down demands |
| 11 | PPAP approval form | The 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.
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
- AS9100 Rev D Gap Assessment Checklist — 74-item, clause-by-clause checklist for aerospace suppliers assessing their QMS before certification or a flow-down audit.
- 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.
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
Industrial Compliance. Clearly Explained.
