FAI, PPAP, and AS9102: what aerospace and automotive suppliers actually need

Aerospace and automotive both demand that you prove a part is right before you ship it in volume. They just use different languages to say so, and suppliers who serve both industries mix them up constantly. Having programmed CMMs and authored First Article Inspection Reports on the aerospace side, and managed PPAP submissions for automotive OEMs, here is the plain-English version.

FAI (the aerospace language)

First Article Inspection is defined by the SAE standard AS9102. A few things to know:

• It is performed on a representative part from the first production run of a new part, or after a change that invalidates the previous inspection.
• It is a production-process verification: proof that your process, as set up, produces a part that meets every drawing requirement.
• AS9102 is a guidance document, not something you get certified to. You meet it; you are not audited against it the way you are against AS9100.
• It must be repeated whenever a change affects the fit, form, or function of the part.

PPAP (the automotive language)

Production Part Approval Process comes from the automotive industry through the AIAG. The differences that matter:

• It is a more extensive package that demonstrates you can make the part to requirement on an ongoing basis, not just once.
• It is submitted for approval before regular production begins, and again when parts or processes change.
• It lives inside the broader APQP framework and pulls in the core tools: FMEA, control plans, MSA, and capability studies.

How they relate

Think of FAI as verifying the first part is correct, and PPAP as proving the whole production process is approved and repeatable. A first article inspection often precedes or sits inside a full PPAP submission. Both exist for the same reason: catch the problem before you have built ten thousand of it.

What trips suppliers up

The recurring mistakes are predictable, and avoidable:

• Treating a first article as a one-time event and never re-running it after a design or process change.
• Ballooning the drawing inaccurately, so the inspection report does not actually map to every characteristic.
• Missing customer-specific requirements layered on top of the base standard.
• Submitting an inspection package that proves the part is good but not that the process is capable of making it good again tomorrow.

Get these right and you do more than pass a customer's incoming check. You earn the kind of supplier rating that wins the next program.