First Article Inspection (FAI) is often treated as a documentation exercise performed at the end of a manufacturing launch. For complex interconnect hardware and integrated electronic systems, that approach creates avoidable risk. A backplane, chassis, or box build can contain hundreds of dimensional, material, process, assembly, and configuration characteristics that must be traceable to the approved design definition.
AS9102 Rev C, published by SAE International in June 2023, replaced AS9102 Rev B, published in 2014. The revision does not replace the organization’s quality management system or define product acceptance by itself. It establishes a method for verifying that the first production article conforms to the design requirements when AS9102 is invoked by contract, purchase order, customer quality clause, or flowdown requirement.
The distinction from AS9100 is important. AS9100 defines requirements for an aerospace quality management system. AS9102 defines the first article inspection method. An organization may be AS9100 certified while the specific FAI requirements for a program remain controlled by customer and contract requirements.
What Changed in AS9102 Rev C
Several Rev C changes affect planning and execution for hardware manufacturers.
Documented FAI planning is now an explicit requirement
Organizations must maintain a documented process for planning FAI activities. The planning process must also evaluate changes to determine whether a partial FAI or full FAI re-accomplishment is required.
This moves the decision from an informal engineering judgment to a controlled quality and configuration-management activity. The process should define who evaluates changes, what evidence is reviewed, how the decision is recorded, and how the applicable baseline FAI is identified.
Form 1 now records documented nonconformances
Rev B used a completion-status field indicating whether the FAI was complete or not complete. Rev C replaces that field with a yes/no question asking whether the FAIR contains a documented nonconformance.
A “Yes” does not automatically mean the FAIR is unusable or that the product is rejected. It means the report contains a documented nonconformance that must be traceable to the applicable characteristic, nonconformance record, and disposition process.
Signature requirements are consolidated
Rev C simplifies report authorization. The report uses one set of verification and review/approval identifications for the FAIR. Individual signature fields were removed from Forms 2 and 3. This places report-level verification and approval on Form 1 while retaining the requirement for complete, traceable evidence on the supporting forms.
New and clarified definitions support complex assemblies
Rev C adds or clarifies definitions for:
- Assembly
- Ballooned design characteristic
- Ballooned document
- Detail part
- Modified COTS or standard catalogue item
These definitions are particularly relevant to box builds, where the FAI part may contain detail-machined parts, standard hardware, connectors, subassemblies, software, and special processes under one controlled assembly configuration.
Special-process evidence may use a detailed Certificate of Conformance
FAI requirements for special processes may be satisfied through a detailed Certificate of Conformance (CofC), provided the certificate supplies adequate process, specification, supplier, and traceability information.
A generic statement that a process was completed is not equivalent to complete objective evidence. Form 2 should identify the applicable process specification, supplier, approval status where required, and certificate or report number. The supporting certificate must remain retrievable and linked to the affected material, lot, part, or process.
Embedded and deliverable software are part of FAI planning
Rev C explicitly includes verification of embedded or deliverable software configurations. Software identification and revision should therefore be treated as configuration-controlled product information, not only as a test note.
For a box build, the FAI plan may need to account for firmware, boot images, programmable logic, operating software, or test software when those items are part of the deliverable configuration or are required to perform a design verification activity.
Why Interconnect Hardware Creates FAI Difficulty
The challenge with backplanes and related hardware is not simply the number of characteristics. It is the interaction between electrical, mechanical, process, and assembly requirements.
Multilayer backplanes
A multilayer backplane may require ballooned characteristics for:
- Connector position and orientation
- Press-fit connector locations
- Plated-through hole diameter and position
- Mounting-hole patterns
- Slot pitch and card-guide alignment
- Datum relationships across the board
- Edge clearances and mechanical interfaces
- Copper, plating, or surface-finish requirements
- Markings, polarity indicators, and keying features
A drawing callout that appears simple may apply to many repeated positions. The FAI plan must make clear whether each position is individually accountable, whether a controlled measurement report can be referenced, and how the report connects each result to the corresponding balloon number.
Press-fit connectors add another layer of process control. The resulting condition depends on the connector, plated-through hole, insertion tooling, support tooling, insertion force parameters, and board support method. Traceability should identify the tooling and process configuration used to produce the inspected article. A change to the press-fit tooling or process may affect more characteristics than the one visibly associated with the connector.
Connector keying and orientation also require explicit verification. A connector can meet a positional dimension while still being rotated, incorrectly keyed, or installed in the wrong orientation. These are design characteristics that may require attribute inspection, qualified tooling, photographs, or other objective evidence.
Panels and machined interfaces
Front and rear panels introduce their own characteristic set:
- Cutout size and location
- Connector and switch alignment
- Mounting-hole patterns
- Panel thickness and edge conditions
- Surface finish and coating
- Silkscreen or engraved marking content
- Legibility and orientation
- Mating clearance to the chassis or card cage
Silkscreen legibility should not be treated as an informal cosmetic check when the marking is part of the approved design definition. The inspection record should identify the required content, location, orientation, and acceptance method.
Chassis and complete box builds
For chassis and box builds, FAI evidence extends beyond individual machined parts. It may include:
- Machining tolerances and datum relationships
- Cutout positions and interface alignment
- Finish, coating, or conversion-coating requirements
- Hardware type and installation
- Torque requirements
- Grounding and bonding features
- Witness marks or torque-mark requirements
- Card-guide and backplane alignment
- Fan, power-entry, and connector locations
- Assembly configuration and serial traceability
The assembly-level FAI should identify the detail parts, subassemblies, standard catalogue items, modified COTS items, and software included in the configuration. Form 1’s assembly index is therefore important for controlling the boundary of the report.
Worked Example: 6U OpenVPX Backplane
Consider a 6U OpenVPX backplane with multiple high-density press-fit connector locations. The approved design defines connector position, keying, orientation, plated-through hole geometry, slot pitch, mounting features, and electrical test requirements.
During the first article inspection, one connector position is found outside its specified positional tolerance. The condition is documented on Form 3 and linked to a nonconformance record. Form 1 is marked Yes for a documented nonconformance.
The next step is not to assume that a full FAI is required. The program team should evaluate the cause and the scope of the affected characteristics.
A partial FAI re-accomplishment may be appropriate when:
- The design revision has not changed.
- The nonconformance is isolated to one connector position.
- The root cause is understood and corrected.
- The correction does not invalidate the datum scheme or press-fit process.
- Other connector positions were produced using the same controlled process and remain represented by valid evidence.
- The customer or contract does not require a full re-accomplishment.
The partial report should identify the original FAIR identifier and baseline configuration, state the reason for the partial FAI, and repeat the affected characteristic verification after correction. Depending on the root cause, related characteristics (such as keying, connector orientation, hole pattern, or local mechanical fit) may also need to be reverified.
A full FAI re-accomplishment becomes more appropriate when the investigation identifies a broader condition. Examples include a revised board datum scheme, changed connector family, altered press-fit tooling that affects every position, a manufacturing-location change without an approved equivalency basis, or evidence that the original inspection did not represent the production process.
The important point is that the isolated appearance of the defect does not determine the scope by itself. The documented change evaluation determines whether the original characteristics remain valid and represented.
What Engineers and Program Teams Should Consider
FAI performance improves when requirements are settled before production begins.
-
Define FAI requirements in the purchase order or contract. Identify the required AS9102 revision, customer forms or software, approval points, submission timing, and any customer-specific requirements.
-
Define full and partial re-accomplishment triggers. Include design revision, process change, manufacturing-location change, prolonged production lapse, tooling change, supplier change, and any condition that invalidates or no longer represents prior characteristics.
-
Keep revision control and ballooned drawings current. The ballooned document must correspond to the exact design revision and configuration inspected. Drawing changes, engineering changes, deviations, and manufacturing changes require controlled evaluation.
-
Prepare the CofC path for special processes. Plating, conversion coating, anodize, paint, silkscreening, and other controlled processes should have defined specifications, approved sources where required, certificate formats, and traceability expectations before the FAI begins.
-
Control press-fit tooling and process parameters. Record tooling identification, fixture configuration, insertion parameters, and applicable maintenance or calibration status when these affect connector installation.
-
Plan inspection capacity. A complex backplane or box build may require CMM capacity, optical inspection, electrical test, torque verification, attribute gauges, certificate review, and cross-functional engineering and quality review. Inspection planning should account for the time required to reconcile results to hundreds of ballooned characteristics.
Vector supports these programs through in-house box build and system assembly to customer specifications, including the test-ready advantage of shipping systems prepared for test with minimal or no re-spins. This also supports legacy refreshes and fast-turn integrations while maintaining production quality, configuration control, and traceability. Vector is ISO 9001 and AS9100 certified, ITAR registered, and manufactures in the USA. Its product scope includes backplanes{:target="_blank"}, chassis and system enclosures{:target="_blank"}, and extender boards and test adapters{:target="_blank"}.
AS9102 Rev C is most effective when treated as a controlled verification method integrated with engineering, manufacturing, inspection, supplier quality, and configuration management. For interconnect hardware and complete electronic assemblies, the governing principle is straightforward: every reported result must remain traceable to the approved design, the inspected configuration, the manufacturing process, and the evidence used to accept or disposition the characteristic.
Technical References
- IAQG, AS9102 Rev B to Rev C Summary of Changes{:target="_blank"}
- IAQG, AS9102 Rev C Forms and Supporting Form Instructions{:target="_blank"}
- SAE International, AS9102B Aerospace First Article Inspection Requirement{:target="_blank"}