FAI Reports That Pass on First Submission — The Checklist We Maintain

First Article Inspection (FAI) sits at the intersection of two parallel quality frameworks. AS9102 is the aerospace standard — Rev C is current as of 2024 — and uses three forms: Form 1 (part accountability), Form 2 (product accountability for materials, special processes, and functional testing), Form 3 (characteristic accountability — every dimension, every note, every callout). PPAP is the automotive equivalent, structured as 18 elements with FAI baked in as elements 9 (dimensional) and 10 (material/performance).

The two frameworks have different ceremony but overwhelmingly the same substance: prove that the first off-tool part matches every requirement on the drawing, and prove the process that produced it is repeatable. The rework loop we see most often comes from teams treating these as separate workflows. They aren't. The underlying evidence — measurement data, certifications, process records — is identical. Only the form templates differ.

Unified evidence pack

Our standard FAI evidence pack contains, in this order:

• Ballooned drawing (every characteristic numbered).
• Measurement results table with characteristic, nominal, tolerance, actual, instrument, operator, timestamp, pass/fail.
• Material certifications (Certificate of Conformity, mill cert, RoHS/REACH where applicable).
• Special process certifications (plating, conformal coating, IPC training records).
• Functional test results.
• Photographs — at least one each of top, bottom, edge-view, labelling.
• Process flow chart with control points marked.

"The cleanest first-submission FAI we ever shipped — accepted without comment — was 47 pages and took an engineer three days to assemble. The dirtiest one we've recovered took eleven submissions and four months. The difference was discipline at week one, not heroics at week sixteen." — Pioneer Horizon quality lead

Whichever form template the customer requires, the pack above maps cleanly. Where AS9102 requires Form 3, we populate the form from the same measurement results table; where PPAP requires dimensional results (Element 9), we attach the same table with the PPAP cover sheet.

Ballooning is the practice of numbering every characteristic on a drawing — every dimension, every note, every reference to a standard. The output is a ballooned drawing PDF and a corresponding characteristic list. AS9102 Form 3 is literally "one row per balloon." Most first-submission FAI failures we have rescued traced back to a sloppy ballooning step.

What counts as a characteristic

• Every dimension with a tolerance (explicit or default).
• Every GD&T callout (position, flatness, parallelism, etc.) — each treated as a separate characteristic.
• Every note that imposes a requirement ("Conform to IPC-A-610 Class 3," "Solder mask: green LPI, IPC-SM-840 Class T").
• Every drawing reference to an applicable specification or standard.
• Material call-outs, finish call-outs, marking content and location.

The "key characteristics" question

AS9102 and PPAP both allow the customer to designate Key Characteristics (KCs) and Special Characteristics. These get heightened measurement frequency and SPC treatment. The first conversation on any new programme is: which characteristics are KCs? If the customer hasn't designated any, ask. If they say "all of them," push back — that's not a defensible classification. We typically end up with 5–12% of characteristics designated as KCs after that conversation.

Ballooning tools

We use a CAD-integrated ballooner that exports directly to a CSV with characteristic ID, nominal, tolerance, and source. The CSV becomes the row template for Form 3 or the dimensional results table. Manual ballooning in a PDF markup tool works but doubles the data-entry effort and triples the transcription-error risk. The CAD-integrated workflow saves roughly two engineer-days per FAI on a 200-characteristic part.

Revision control

The ballooned drawing is itself a controlled document. When the drawing revs, the balloon numbers must remain stable for unchanged characteristics, and new characteristics get appended (not renumbered). This is the most-missed FAI hygiene step — a re-numbered drawing forces a complete re-correlation of measurement data and is rejected by sharp customers immediately.

The measurement results table is the body of the FAI. Each row must answer: what was measured, by whom, with what instrument, against what spec, with what outcome — and the auditor must be able to verify the instrument was in calibration at the time of measurement.

Five fields per measurement row

1. Characteristic ID — matching the ballooned drawing.
2. Nominal and tolerance — copied verbatim from the drawing.
3. Actual value — measured, never "OK" or "Pass." A numeric value or, for attribute characteristics, the explicit conformance statement ("Per IPC-A-610 Class 3, no defects observed").
4. Instrument ID and calibration cert — serial, cert number, cert expiry.
5. Operator ID and timestamp.

Sample size for FAI

AS9102 requires FAI on the first production part (and after specified changes — new operator, new equipment, design change, 24-month dormancy). PPAP requires multiple parts for dimensional results — typically 5 to 10 depending on the customer-specific requirement. We default to recording 5 parts even on AS9102 unless the customer explicitly limits us to one, because:

• Five parts surface process variation that one part hides.
• If the FAI is rejected for any reason and we need to re-measure, having five parts on file beats hunting for the original first-off.
• The cost is marginal — five measurements take 4× the time of one, not 5×, because setup is amortised.

Attribute vs variable measurement

"Solder joint conforms to IPC-A-610 Class 3" is an attribute characteristic. The measurement record must show: which operator inspected, IPC-A-610 training currency for that operator, sampling rate, and acceptance criterion. A bare "Pass" entry is the single most-common FAI rework cause — auditors want the IPC certification cert number of the inspector who passed it, and the date of last refresher. Build this into your record template once and you'll never lose another submission on it.

For the calibration evidence chain this depends on, see per-board traceability.

Special processes — soldering, plating, conformal coating, anodising, welding — are processes whose output cannot be fully verified by inspection alone. AS9102 Form 2 captures the special-process certifications; PPAP elements 10 and 12 capture them. Submissions die here more often than on dimensional results, because the documentation chain is longer.

For each special process, the FAI must show

• Process specification reference (e.g., IPC J-STD-001 Class 3 for soldering, AMS 2700 for passivation).
• Operator certification — training certificate, currency, scope of training.
• Process control records for the relevant production window — reflow profile capture, plating bath log, oven calibration.
• Sub-tier certifications where the process is outsourced — Nadcap accreditation for aerospace, IATF surveillance certificate, etc.

Common special-process rejection reasons

1. Operator certification expired — IPC J-STD-001 certification has a two-year recurrent requirement. We've seen submissions land with a cert dated 26 months prior.
2. Reflow profile mismatch — profile attached was the "qualification" profile run on a different lot. Customers expect the profile from the actual FAI lot.
3. Sub-tier certs missing or expired — the plating shop's Nadcap cert lapsed three weeks before the FAI lot was processed. The lot is technically non-conforming.
4. Material cert chain breaks — solder paste cert references a batch that shipped six months earlier; the lot used was a different batch with no cert attached.

Material certifications

Every material that contributes to product conformance gets a Certificate of Conformity attached: PCB substrate (with UL recognition number), solder paste, plating chemistry, conformal coating chemistry, adhesives, fasteners with strength callouts. The certificate's lot/batch number must match the lot/batch consumed on the FAI build. This is where MES integration pays off — our system attaches the active lot's certs automatically when the FAI button is pressed; manual workflows lose this match on average once every 8 submissions.

The single highest-ROI step in the FAI workflow is the pre-submission review — an internal sign-off by someone who didn't author the pack. We treat it as a one-hour structured audit with a written checklist. About 30% of our drafts have a finding at this stage; almost none of our submitted FAIs are rejected.

The checklist (abridged)

1. Every balloon on the drawing has a corresponding row in the results table.
2. Every row in the results table cites an instrument with valid calibration covering the measurement date.
3. Every special process named on the drawing has an operator cert, process record, and (where outsourced) sub-tier cert attached.
4. Every material cert lot/batch matches a lot/batch the FAI part was built from.
5. Form 1 / Form 2 / Form 3 (or PPAP Element 18 PSW) is signed by an authorised signatory.
6. Photographs are present and legible — top, bottom, edge, marking detail.
7. Customer-specific FAI requirements (from the contract or RFQ) are addressed line-by-line.
8. Revision of the drawing on the FAI cover matches the revision of the part as-built.
9. Functional test report attached and signed.
10. No "TBD," "N/A" without justification, or empty fields anywhere in the pack.

Common findings at internal review

• A balloon was added to the drawing but missed in the table (typically because the drawing revved mid-build).
• A note callout ("Burr-free per AS9100-X") was treated as informational and not measured.
• The reflow profile attached is from yesterday's setup, not the FAI build window.
• The IPC J-STD-001 certificate of the inspector is from the previous employer.

Submission and follow-up

Submit through the customer's required portal (Net-Inspect, Boeing's portal, the Tier-1's SharePoint — every customer is different) with the cover letter naming the part, revision, contract, and contact. Acknowledge any open items explicitly rather than hoping the reviewer misses them. Reviewers reward transparency with faster turnarounds; concealment lengthens cycles by weeks.

If you're approaching your first AS9102 or PPAP submission and want a second set of eyes on the pack before it goes, our quality team offers a fixed-price review with two-working-day turnaround.