Workflow — FAI Report Generation

AS9102 First Article Inspection in hours, not days.

CMM measurements, drawings, GD&T callouts, balloon drawings — every dimension matched to a measurement, out-of-tolerance conditions identified, AS9102 Form 1 / 2 / 3 populated. Direct into Net-Inspect, InspectionXpert, or Discus Software. Replaces 8–40 hours of QA-engineer time per FAI at a fraction of the per-report cost.

Take the AI Assessment Get a Per-Report ROI Model

8–40 hrs

Engineering time per AS9102 FAI report

$45–$95

Per hour, QA engineer (loaded)

60–85%

Engineering time off the QA desk after AI cutover

What This Replaces

The QA Engineer Filling AS9102 Forms by Hand

The work the QA engineer does on every FAI — and the cost of leaving it there.

The labor

AS9102 First Article Inspection report generation today moves through QA engineers at $45–$95 per hour fully loaded, plus offshore engineering-services support at HCL Engineering, L&T Technology Services, Cyient, Quest Global, and other firms running engineering BPOs. A single FAI takes 8–40 hours of engineering time depending on part complexity (number of dimensions, GD&T density, balloon-drawing rework, customer-specific reporting requirements). Aerospace primes and tier-1 suppliers process hundreds-to-thousands of FAIs per year.

The cycle time

Standard FAI cycle takes days-to-weeks per report at the QA desk, with longer cycles when CMM data requires reformatting against a customer-specific FAI template, when drawing changes drive balloon-drawing rework, or when out-of-tolerance conditions trigger NCR initiation. Every day a FAI sits incomplete is a day the part can't ship to the customer, the line can't go to production, and the program-management team carries schedule pressure.

The Workflow

Input · Analysis · Output

What goes into FAI report generation, what we do to it, and what shows up in the inspection platform.

Input

Drawings + measurements + program data

Engineering drawings with GD&T callouts
CMM measurement output (DMIS, native CMM formats)
Hand-tool measurement records (calipers, micrometers, gauges)
Balloon drawings (existing or to be generated)
Customer-specific AS9102 reporting requirements
Program / part / lot identification
Material certifications and process records

Analysis

Match, populate, flag

Drawing-to-measurement matching (every dimension to a value)
GD&T datum and feature-control-frame interpretation
Out-of-tolerance condition identification
AS9102 Form 1 (Part Number Accountability)
AS9102 Form 2 (Product Accountability — Materials, Processes)
AS9102 Form 3 (Characteristic Accountability)
Confidence score per dimension; exceptions to QA engineer queue

Output

AS9102 report into the inspection platform

Net-Inspect (REST APIs)
InspectionXpert (documented integration)
Discus Software (documented integration)
AS9102 Form 1 / 2 / 3 populated and customer-template-formatted
Out-of-tolerance summary with NCR initiation queue
Customer FAI submission package
Per-dimension audit trail

Side by Side

FAI Report Generation Today vs. With Last Rev

The numbers that matter: cycle time, per-report cost, accuracy, and customer-submission posture.

Dimension	QA Engineer + Offshore Support	Last Rev FAI Report Generation
Cycle time, drawings + CMM to AS9102 report	8–40 hours of engineering time	1–4 hours per report
Per-report unit cost	QA engineer time at $45–$95/hr	Per-report, benchmarked at 25–45% of QA-engineer cost
Drawing-to-measurement matching consistency	Variable — engineer judgment, errors compound on dense GD&T	Deterministic per drawing-and-CMM-output pairing
Customer-template adaptation	Manual reformatting per customer (Boeing, Airbus, Lockheed, RTX)	Per-customer template encoded with formatting rules cited
Audit log per dimension	Engineer notes, no per-dimension lineage	Source drawing + balloon ID + measurement source + confidence per dimension
Inspection-platform integration	Manual data entry into Net-Inspect / InspectionXpert	Direct via documented Net-Inspect / InspectionXpert / Discus integrations
Renegotiation leverage at next offshore engineering renewal	None — you're locked in	60–85% of routine FAI volume off the contract

How It Works

From Drawing + CMM to Customer-Ready AS9102 Report

Five steps. Every one logged. Every one reversible if your confidence threshold isn't met.

Submission Lands

Engineering drawings, CMM measurement output (DMIS or native CMM format), hand-tool measurement records, balloon drawings, and customer-specific AS9102 requirements. Material certs and process records pulled into the same review.

Extraction & Classification

Drawing-to-measurement matching (every dimension on the drawing matched to a CMM or hand-tool value). GD&T datum and feature-control-frame interpretation. Out-of-tolerance condition identification. AS9102 Form 1 / 2 / 3 population.

Validation Against Customer FAI Bar

Findings validated against the customer's FAI template (Boeing, Airbus, Lockheed Martin, RTX, BAE, GE Aviation, etc.) and AS9102 Rev C requirements. Anything below your confidence threshold per dimension is routed to a human exception queue — your call which queue, ours or yours.

Push to Inspection Platform

AS9102 Form 1 / 2 / 3 populated and customer-template-formatted into Net-Inspect, InspectionXpert, or Discus Software via the documented integration. Out-of-tolerance summary with NCR initiation queue. Customer FAI submission package assembled.

Audit Log Persisted

Every drawing-to-measurement match, GD&T interpretation, and out-of-tolerance finding logged with the source drawing, balloon ID, measurement source, model version, and confidence score. Customer-audit and FAA-audit-ready, AS9102 Rev C compliant, and yours.

Compliance & Defensibility

Built to Meet the Quality Bar Aerospace QA Already Runs On

AS9102 Rev C conformance

AS9102 Form 1 (Part Number Accountability), Form 2 (Product Accountability for Raw Material, Specifications, and Special Processes), and Form 3 (Characteristic Accountability) populated per the most recent SAE / IAQG revision. Form template updates flow into the validation engine within days of effective dates.

AS9100 / NADCAP audit posture

Quality-management-system requirements supported through structured per-dimension audit trails. NADCAP audits (chemical processing, heat treating, NDT, special processes) resolve on a richer file than the engineer's spreadsheet produces today.

Customer FAI template fidelity

Boeing, Airbus, Lockheed Martin, RTX, BAE Systems, GE Aviation, and other primes / tier-1 customers use distinct FAI submission templates. Per-customer formatting rules are encoded with the template version cited so customer-audit reviews resolve cleanly.

ITAR / EAR and program data residency

Aerospace drawings and inspection data routinely contain ITAR-controlled or EAR-controlled technical data. Deployable on-prem, in your VPC, or in our SOC 2 environment with ITAR / EAR-compliant deployment options. Encryption in transit and at rest; retention policies tied to your customer / regulatory recordkeeping rules.

Common Questions

What Aerospace OEMs and Suppliers Ask About FAI Reports

Those are the FAI platforms where reports live and get submitted to customers. The competitor on this page is the QA-engineer time and the offshore engineering-services support that does the actual drawing-to-measurement matching, GD&T interpretation, and Form 1/2/3 population — typically QA engineers at $45–$95 per hour plus offshore support at HCL Engineering, L&T Technology Services, Cyient, Quest Global. We undercut that engineering labor cost, integrate directly into your existing Net-Inspect / InspectionXpert / Discus deployment, and deliver populated AS9102 reports into the system of record.

Most aerospace primes and suppliers keep the offshore arrangement in place during pilot and early production — we route exceptions, complex GD&T interpretation calls, and any FAI that genuinely requires senior-engineer judgment to the team you already have. Volume to the offshore engineering services drops 60–85% on routine FAI generation once cutover completes. You renegotiate at the next renewal from a much better position, or shift the relationship to higher-complexity work like NPI, design-for-manufacture studies, or audit-defense engagements.

Our pilot success threshold is drawing-to-measurement matching and GD&T-interpretation accuracy at parity with or above your incumbent QA engineer, measured on the same shadow-data sample of historical FAIs. Anything below your defined confidence threshold per dimension is routed to a human exception queue — your call which queue, ours or yours.

Customer-specific FAI templates are encoded as configurable formatting rules per customer. Boeing FAI procedures, Airbus AP2633, Lockheed standards, RTX customer requirements, BAE, GE Aviation, and other prime / tier-1 templates are configured during onboarding. The audit log records which template version applied to each report.

Dense GD&T (multi-datum, profile, position with material modifiers, simultaneous requirements) is interpreted through structured rules per ASME Y14.5 / ISO 1101. Complex feature-control frames are matched to CMM measurement output with per-tolerance-class confidence scoring. We don't make the engineering call on borderline interpretations — we surface the basis cited so the QA engineer makes the determination on a richer file.

Yes — through the documented integration surface each platform supports. Net-Inspect via REST APIs; InspectionXpert via documented integration; Discus Software via documented integration. CMM output ingestion via DMIS standard or native CMM formats (Mitutoyo, Hexagon, Zeiss). Your IT and quality teams review and approve service accounts. We do not require platform-side custom development.

FAI-generation pilots typically run 6–8 weeks: 1–2 weeks of integration and customer-template mapping with the QA team, 4 weeks of shadow-mode running on real FAIs with no inspection-platform writes, 1–2 weeks of supervised cutover on a constrained scope (one customer, one product line). Production rollout is staged after the pilot meets your accuracy and quality-management sign-off.

We benchmark against your current per-FAI engineering cost — typically 8–40 hours of QA-engineer time at $45–$95 per hour, translated into per-report economics. Our target is 25–45% of that per-report cost at higher accuracy and faster cycle time. Pricing structures around volume tiers and outcome SLAs, not hourly billable rates.

Two Ways to Start

Take the AI assessment for a structured read on FAI report generation feasibility. Or talk to us if you already know FAI cycle time is the constraint on customer deliveries.

Self-serve · 8 minutes

Take the AI Assessment

A short structured assessment that maps your monthly FAI volume, inspection platform, and current QA-engineer arrangement to AI feasibility and ROI.

Talk to a specialist

Get a Per-Report ROI Model

Send us your monthly FAI volume, your inspection platform, and your current QA-engineer and offshore-engineering arrangement. We'll come back with a per-report unit-cost comparison and a 6–8 week pilot plan in 5 business days.

Other Workflows

More Manufacturing Workflows We Replace

The same approach, applied to the other document-heavy labor lines on your quality and operations budget.

Visual Quality Inspection

Defect classification at line speed. SPC charts that update before the shift ends.

Receiving Inspection & Mill Cert

Mill certs, certs of conformance → ERP receiving record with heat-number traceability.

NCR / 8D / CAPA Processing

8D reports drafted from NCR — root cause, containment, corrective action — into MasterControl, ETQ, IQS.

Calibration Certificate Processing

Calibration certs → GAGEtrak, IndySoft, ProCal — with NIST chain validation and out-of-tol recall alerts.