The core principle of a First Article Inspection (FAI) is to verify that the manufacturing process, as represented by the first production run, consistently produces parts that conform to all design and specification requirements. This involves a comprehensive review of all manufacturing processes, tooling, and inspection methods used to produce the first article. The AS9102 standard, specifically, outlines the requirements for FAI, emphasizing the need for objective evidence that all customer and regulatory requirements have been met. This evidence is typically documented in an FAI report, which includes product accountability, process accountability, and material accountability. The objective is to ensure that the manufacturing process is capable of repeatable, predictable production of conforming parts. Therefore, the most critical aspect of FAI is the verification of the manufacturing process’s ability to consistently produce conforming parts, as demonstrated by the first article. This encompasses not just the dimensional accuracy of the first part, but also the validation of the entire production system that created it.

The core principle being tested here is the understanding of the scope and intent of AS9102, specifically concerning the documentation requirements for a First Article Inspection (FAI). The standard emphasizes that an FAI is a documented verification process that confirms that a production process has produced a part or assembly that is in conformance with the design and associated specifications. This verification requires a comprehensive record of the inspection results. Therefore, the absence of a complete First Article Inspection Report (FAIR) that documents all specified characteristics, including those that are not applicable or have been waived, fundamentally undermines the purpose of the FAI. A FAIR is not merely a collection of measurements; it’s a testament to the process’s capability and the part’s conformity. Even if a waiver is in place for a specific characteristic, the FAIR must still acknowledge its existence and the disposition of that characteristic. This ensures traceability and provides a complete picture of the part’s qualification. Without this completeness, the FAI cannot fulfill its role as a baseline for future production.

The scenario describes a situation where a supplier has made a change to a previously approved First Article (FA) that was documented under AS9102. The key aspect here is understanding the implications of a “significant change” as defined by AS9102, which necessitates a new FA. A change in the manufacturing process that affects critical characteristics, materials, or performance parameters is considered significant. The supplier’s action of not initiating a new FA for a change in heat treatment process, which is a critical manufacturing step impacting material properties, directly violates the requirements for maintaining FA integrity. Therefore, the most appropriate action for the customer is to require the supplier to perform a complete new First Article Inspection (FAI) for the affected part. This ensures that the new manufacturing process is validated and that the part continues to meet all specified requirements. Other options are less suitable: requesting a partial re-inspection might not capture all potential impacts of the process change, and simply updating the existing FA documentation without a new inspection would bypass the verification of the changed process. Acknowledging the change without requiring a new FA would be a direct contravention of the standard’s intent for change control and verification.

The core of a successful First Article Inspection (FAI) lies in the thorough verification of all specified requirements against the actual manufactured product. This includes dimensional checks, material certifications, process validations, and adherence to design documentation. For a complex aerospace component, such as a turbine blade manufactured using additive manufacturing, the FAI process must meticulously document evidence that every parameter, from raw material composition to post-processing heat treatment and final surface finish, conforms to the engineering drawings and specifications. This involves not just verifying the presence of documentation (like material certificates) but also confirming that the data within those documents supports compliance. For instance, if a drawing specifies a particular tensile strength for a material, the FAI must confirm that the provided material certificate substantiates this strength. Furthermore, any deviations or non-conformances identified during the FAI must be formally documented, dispositioned according to established procedures, and potentially lead to a re-evaluation of the manufacturing process. The objective is to provide objective evidence that the production process is capable of consistently producing conforming parts. Therefore, the most comprehensive approach to FAI involves a complete verification of all design and specification requirements, ensuring that the manufacturing process is understood and controlled.

The core of a First Article Inspection (FAI) is to verify that a production process is capable of consistently producing parts that conform to design requirements. This involves a thorough review of all design and specification requirements, including drawings, engineering specifications, material certifications, process certifications, and any other relevant documentation. The FAI report, often in the form of a Product Acceptance Record (PAR) or similar documentation, serves as objective evidence of this conformity. When a design change occurs that could affect form, fit, or function, a new FAI is typically required. This is to ensure that the modified process still yields conforming parts. The extent of the FAI needed for a design change is often dictated by the nature and impact of the change itself. A minor change, such as a slight dimensional adjustment on a non-critical feature, might necessitate a partial FAI focusing only on the affected characteristics. However, a significant change, like altering a critical dimension, changing material, or modifying a manufacturing process that impacts performance, would likely require a full FAI to revalidate the entire production process. The objective is to provide assurance that the revised process meets all original specifications and that the part’s functionality and safety are maintained or improved. Therefore, the decision on the scope of a new FAI is a risk-based one, driven by the potential impact of the design modification on the product’s overall integrity and compliance.

The core principle of AS9102, which underpins AS9100:2016 FAI requirements, is the verification of a product’s manufacturing process against its design and specifications. This involves a comprehensive review of all design characteristics, material specifications, process parameters, and inspection results. When a non-conformance is identified during the FAI process, the critical step is not to simply correct the non-conformance and re-inspect, but to understand the root cause and its potential impact on previously produced units. This necessitates a thorough investigation, which may include a review of production records, process controls, and potentially a Material Review Board (MRB) disposition. The objective is to ensure that any deviation does not compromise the product’s safety, reliability, or performance, and that appropriate corrective actions are implemented to prevent recurrence. Therefore, the most appropriate action involves a detailed root cause analysis and a determination of the impact on previously accepted parts, aligning with the principles of robust quality management systems and aerospace safety standards.

The core principle of First Article Inspection (FAI) under AS9102 is to ensure that a manufacturing process is capable of producing parts that consistently meet all design and specification requirements. This involves a thorough verification of the production process, materials, tooling, and personnel involved in the creation of the first production run. The FAI report, often referred to as a FAIR, serves as documented evidence of this verification. Key elements within the FAIR include product identification, material certifications, process certifications, inspection results for every characteristic defined on the drawing, and evidence of any non-conformances and their disposition. The purpose is not merely to inspect the first part, but to validate the entire production system. Therefore, when a significant change occurs in the manufacturing process, such as a change in tooling that directly impacts critical dimensions, or a change in the supplier of a key raw material, a re-validation of the production capability is necessary. This re-validation is essentially a new FAI, or a delta FAI if the changes are minor and well-documented. The goal is to confirm that the modified process still yields parts conforming to all specifications. Without this, the integrity of the entire production lot could be compromised, leading to potential safety issues and non-compliance with aerospace standards.

The core of a First Article Inspection (FAI) is to verify that a production process, as implemented, can consistently produce parts that conform to design and specification requirements. This involves a comprehensive review of all manufacturing processes, tooling, materials, and inspections used for the first production run. The AS9102 standard, which guides FAI, emphasizes the importance of documenting this verification. When a design change occurs that could impact form, fit, or function, a new FAI is typically required. This is to ensure that the modified process still yields conforming parts. The question probes the understanding of when a *partial* FAI might be acceptable, which is a nuanced aspect. A partial FAI is generally not permitted by AS9102 for significant changes. However, minor, documented changes to non-critical process parameters or tooling that do not affect the part’s form, fit, or function, and are fully controlled and documented within the organization’s quality management system, might be handled through a less extensive re-verification. The key is that the change must be demonstrably insignificant to the part’s critical characteristics and the process’s ability to produce conforming output. The explanation focuses on the principle that any change potentially impacting conformity necessitates a re-validation, and only truly inconsequential, documented, and controlled changes might allow for a reduced scope of re-verification, not a full waiver of FAI principles. The correct approach involves a thorough risk assessment of the change’s impact on the part and the manufacturing process.

The core of a First Article Inspection (FAI) is to verify that the manufacturing process for a new or significantly changed part is capable of consistently producing parts that meet all design and specification requirements. This involves a comprehensive review of production records, material certifications, process controls, and dimensional verification. The AS9102 standard, which forms the basis for FAI, outlines the required forms and the information they should contain. Specifically, Form 1 (Part Identification) is crucial for establishing the foundational details of the part being inspected, including its unique identifier, revision level, and the customer’s drawing number. Form 2 (Product Accountability) details the materials, processes, and special tooling used in the manufacturing of the part, linking them to specific operations. Form 3 (Characteristic Accountability) is the most detailed, documenting every specified characteristic (dimensional, material, performance, etc.) from the design documentation, its allowable tolerance, the actual measured value, and the method of verification. The objective is to provide objective evidence that all requirements have been understood and met. A deviation from this systematic approach, such as relying solely on a supplier’s internal inspection report without independent verification of critical characteristics, would undermine the integrity of the FAI process and its purpose of ensuring conformity before full production. Therefore, the most accurate representation of a completed FAI, as per AS9102 principles, involves the thorough documentation of all specified characteristics and their verification against the design requirements, supported by evidence of material and process compliance.

The core principle being tested here is the documentation and control of non-conformances during the First Article Inspection (FAI) process, specifically when deviations from the design baseline are identified. AS9100:2016, particularly in clauses related to product conformity and control of nonconforming product, mandates a rigorous approach to managing any divergence. When a discrepancy is found that impacts form, fit, or function, and it is not a minor, documented, and approved deviation, the product cannot be released as conforming to the original design baseline. The FAI report must accurately reflect the actual manufactured product. Therefore, if a critical dimension is found to be outside the specified tolerance, and no approved engineering change order (ECO) or deviation authorization exists to permit this specific variation, the part cannot be certified as meeting the original design requirements. The correct action is to document the non-conformance, initiate a corrective action process, and potentially re-evaluate the FAI based on revised documentation or approved changes. Simply noting the deviation without proper authorization or correction means the FAI cannot be completed as a “first article” conforming to the baseline design. The FAI serves as the benchmark for future production, and this benchmark must represent the intended design.

The core principle guiding the AS9100:2016 standard, particularly concerning First Article Inspection (FAI), is the assurance of product conformity to specified requirements. This assurance is built upon a foundation of robust quality management systems. When a deviation is identified during the FAI process, the organization’s response must be systematic and aimed at preventing recurrence. The standard mandates that nonconformities be identified and controlled to prevent their unintended use or delivery. Corrective action is a critical component of this, requiring the organization to investigate the root cause of the nonconformity, implement actions to address the root cause, and verify the effectiveness of those actions. Simply documenting the deviation without a thorough root cause analysis and subsequent corrective action would not fully satisfy the intent of the standard for ensuring product quality and process control. The emphasis is on a proactive and systematic approach to managing nonconformities, which includes not only identification and containment but also a deep dive into why the deviation occurred and what measures are needed to prevent it from happening again. This aligns with the broader objectives of AS9100:2016, which are to enhance customer satisfaction and ensure the reliability and safety of aerospace products. Therefore, the most comprehensive and compliant approach involves a full corrective action process.

The core principle being tested here is the understanding of the scope and purpose of a First Article Inspection (FAI) report in relation to AS9102. An FAI is a comprehensive verification process that confirms a production process can consistently produce parts that meet all design and specification requirements. It is not merely a quality check of a single part, but a validation of the manufacturing capability. Therefore, the FAI report serves as documented evidence that the manufacturing process has been verified. This verification encompasses not only dimensional checks but also material certifications, process validations, and traceability of all components and operations. The question probes the understanding that the FAI report’s primary function is to provide this assurance of process capability, which is fundamental to aerospace manufacturing where consistency and reliability are paramount. The other options represent activities that might be *part* of the FAI process or subsequent activities, but they do not capture the overarching purpose of the FAI report itself. For instance, while identifying non-conformances is a critical outcome of the inspection, the report’s purpose is broader than just listing defects; it’s about validating the *ability* to produce conforming parts. Similarly, while customer approval is often a downstream step, it’s not the inherent purpose of the FAI report. The FAI report is the foundational document that enables such approvals by demonstrating conformity and process capability.

The core principle of First Article Inspection (FAI) is to verify that a production process is capable of consistently producing parts that meet all design and specification requirements. When a significant change occurs in the production process, it necessitates a re-validation of this capability. AS9102, the standard that guides FAI, defines what constitutes a “significant change.” These changes are typically those that could potentially impact the form, fit, or function of the part. Examples include changes to tooling, materials, manufacturing processes, inspection methods, or even the location of manufacturing. The purpose of re-performing FAI after such a change is to ensure that the established production process, as verified by the initial FAI, remains valid and continues to yield conforming product. Without this re-verification, there is a risk that the new process parameters might introduce defects or deviations not accounted for in the original design approval. Therefore, the most appropriate action when a significant change occurs is to conduct a full FAI to confirm the continued compliance of the product with all specifications.

The core principle being tested here is the understanding of the scope and purpose of a First Article Inspection (FAI) report in relation to AS9102. An FAI is a comprehensive verification process that confirms a production process is capable of producing conforming parts. It is not merely a quality check of a single part, but a validation of the entire manufacturing process. Therefore, when a design change significantly impacts the manufacturing process or the critical characteristics of a part, a new FAI is necessitated. This includes changes to materials, manufacturing methods, tooling, or even significant changes in process parameters that could affect form, fit, or function. The objective is to ensure that the revised process still yields parts that meet all specified requirements. The question focuses on identifying the trigger for a *new* FAI, distinguishing it from routine inspections or minor adjustments. The correct approach involves recognizing that substantial modifications to the production baseline mandate a re-validation of the process through a new FAI. This aligns with the intent of AS9102 to provide objective evidence that all engineering design and specification requirements are correctly understood, verified, and documented.

The core of a First Article Inspection (FAI) is to verify that the manufacturing process, as implemented, produces parts that conform to the design specifications. This involves a comprehensive review of all manufacturing processes, tooling, materials, and personnel involved in producing the first production run of a part. The objective is to ensure that the production process is capable of consistently producing conforming parts. This includes verifying that all design requirements, including dimensions, material properties, heat treatments, surface finishes, and any special processes, are met. The FAI report, often documented on a Production Part Approval Process (PPAP) form or a similar aerospace-specific equivalent, serves as evidence of this verification. It requires detailed records of measurements, material certifications, process validations, and any deviations or non-conformances. The thoroughness of the FAI directly impacts the reliability and safety of the final aerospace product. Therefore, the most critical aspect is the comprehensive validation of the entire production process against the design baseline.

The core principle of First Article Inspection (FAI) in AS9102 is to verify that the manufacturing process is capable of producing parts that conform to design requirements. This involves a thorough review of all specified characteristics. When a non-conformance is identified during the FAI process, the organization must initiate a documented corrective action process. This process, as outlined in AS9100:2016 (specifically clauses related to control of nonconforming outputs and corrective action), requires a systematic approach to identifying the root cause of the non-conformance, implementing immediate containment actions, and developing and implementing long-term corrective actions to prevent recurrence. The FAI report itself must be updated to reflect the disposition of the non-conforming part and the actions taken. Simply documenting the non-conformance without a robust corrective action plan and subsequent re-verification of the affected characteristics would not satisfy the requirements for a complete and compliant FAI. Therefore, the most appropriate action is to initiate the corrective action process and update the FAI documentation accordingly.

The core principle of AS9102, which underpins AS9100:2016 FAI requirements, is the verification of product conformity to specified requirements. When a design change is implemented that affects form, fit, or function, a new First Article Inspection is mandated. This is because the original FAI was performed on a product manufactured under a different set of design parameters. The change could introduce new manufacturing processes, materials, or tolerances that were not evaluated in the initial FAI. Therefore, a re-validation of the manufacturing process and the resulting product against the revised design is essential to ensure continued compliance and safety, particularly in the aerospace industry where such deviations can have severe consequences. The other options are incorrect because while process changes might necessitate FAI, the trigger is specifically a design change impacting form, fit, or function. A minor tooling adjustment without design impact, or a change in raw material supplier for a non-critical component, would not typically require a full FAI unless those changes indirectly affect the critical characteristics verified in the initial FAI. The emphasis is on the *impact* of the change on the product’s fundamental characteristics.

The core principle of First Article Inspection (FAI) under AS9102 is to verify that the manufacturing process is capable of producing parts that conform to all design and specification requirements. This involves a thorough review of all inspection and test data against the design requirements. When a non-conformance is identified during the FAI process, the critical step is not to simply correct the part or the documentation in isolation. Instead, the organization must initiate a formal non-conformance process. This process typically involves a detailed investigation into the root cause of the deviation, the implementation of corrective actions to prevent recurrence, and a re-evaluation of the affected production process. Furthermore, any changes made to the part, process, or documentation as a result of the non-conformance must be formally controlled and documented, potentially requiring a re-issuance of the FAI report or a supplemental FAI. The objective is to ensure that the underlying issues are addressed, not just the immediate symptom. Therefore, the most appropriate action is to document the non-conformance, investigate its root cause, and implement corrective actions, which may necessitate a revised FAI.

The core of a First Article Inspection (FAI) is to verify that the manufacturing process, as represented by the first production run, meets all design and specification requirements. This involves a comprehensive review of all relevant documentation and physical product characteristics. The AS9102 standard, which provides the framework for FAI, emphasizes the importance of a complete and accurate FAI report. When a design change occurs that impacts form, fit, or function, a new FAI is typically required. This is because the change could introduce new manufacturing processes, materials, or inspection methods that need to be validated. The objective is to ensure that the modified product, as manufactured, conforms to the revised design. Therefore, a change affecting critical aspects of the part necessitates a re-validation of the manufacturing process through a new FAI. This aligns with the aerospace industry’s stringent requirements for safety and reliability, where even minor deviations can have significant consequences. The process ensures that all stakeholders have confidence in the product’s ability to perform as intended under operational conditions.

The core principle guiding the AS9100:2016 standard, particularly concerning First Article Inspection (FAI), is the assurance of product conformity to specified requirements. This assurance is built upon a robust quality management system. When a significant change occurs in the manufacturing process, such as the introduction of a new supplier for a critical raw material, the fundamental basis of the original FAI is potentially compromised. The original FAI was performed based on the understanding and verification of processes and materials as they were at that time. A new supplier introduces variables related to material properties, processing capabilities, and quality control procedures that may differ from the original. Therefore, to maintain the integrity of the FAI and ensure continued product conformity, a re-evaluation is necessary. This re-evaluation, often termed a “delta FAI” or a “partial FAI,” focuses on the specific aspects impacted by the change. It is not a full re-inspection of every characteristic, but rather a targeted verification of those elements directly affected by the new supplier’s input. This approach aligns with the AS9100:2016 requirement for managing changes and ensuring that the product continues to meet all design and performance specifications, thereby upholding the aerospace industry’s stringent safety and reliability standards. This systematic approach prevents potential non-conformities that could arise from unverified changes in the supply chain.

The core of a successful First Article Inspection (FAI) lies in the thorough verification of all specified requirements against the actual manufactured product. This involves a systematic comparison of design data (drawings, specifications, engineering orders) with the physical part and its associated production records. The AS9102 standard, which provides the framework for FAI, mandates that all characteristics defined by the design data must be accounted for. This includes dimensions, tolerances, material specifications, surface treatments, and any other critical parameters. The FAI report serves as documented evidence that these requirements have been met. Therefore, the most critical aspect is the complete and accurate correlation of every design requirement with its corresponding measurement or verification result documented on the FAI report. This ensures that the product conforms to its intended design and is suitable for its intended aerospace application, adhering to the stringent quality and safety demands of the industry. The process is not merely about measuring; it’s about demonstrating traceability and conformity to the complete design baseline.

The core principle of a First Article Inspection (FAI) is to verify that a production process is capable of producing parts that conform to all design and specification requirements. This involves a comprehensive review of the manufacturing process, tooling, and inspection methods used for the initial production run. The FAI report, often documented on a Product Accountability Record (PAR) or equivalent, serves as objective evidence of this capability. Key elements include verifying that all specified dimensions, tolerances, material specifications, and process parameters are met. Furthermore, the FAI ensures that the inspection methods and equipment used are adequate and calibrated. The question probes the fundamental purpose of FAI in establishing process control and product conformity, rather than focusing on specific documentation formats or regulatory bodies outside the scope of AS9100. The correct approach is to identify the statement that most accurately encapsulates this foundational objective.

The core of a successful First Article Inspection (FAI) process, particularly within the stringent AS9100:2016 framework, lies in the comprehensive verification of product conformity against specified requirements. This involves a systematic review of all design and purchase requirements, including any applicable regulations or customer directives. The FAI report, often documented using forms like the Production Part Approval Process (PPAP) or specific aerospace equivalents, serves as irrefutable evidence that all manufacturing processes are capable of consistently producing conforming parts. This includes verifying that all dimensions, tolerances, material specifications, and process parameters are met. The depth of the FAI can vary, from a full FAI on the first production run to a partial FAI for subsequent production runs if significant changes occur. The objective is to provide confidence that the supplier’s manufacturing system is robust and capable of meeting all customer requirements. Therefore, the most critical element is the assurance that the product, as manufactured, aligns perfectly with the design intent and all contractual obligations, thereby mitigating risks of non-conformance in subsequent production.

The core principle being tested here is the requirement for a First Article Inspection (FAI) to verify that a production process has the capability to produce parts that conform to specified requirements. This involves a comprehensive review of the manufacturing process, materials, and tooling used for the first production run. The AS9102 standard, which is the foundation for FAI in the aerospace industry, mandates that FAI is performed on the first production run of a part or assembly after any changes that could affect form, fit, or function. This includes changes to design, material, manufacturing process, tooling, or location of manufacture. The objective is to provide objective evidence that all engineering design and specification requirements are correctly understood, verified, and documented. Therefore, the most critical element to confirm during an FAI is the validation of the manufacturing process’s capability to consistently produce conforming product. This encompasses verifying that the documented process, as executed for the first article, is capable of meeting all design specifications. The other options, while potentially related to quality control, do not represent the primary, overarching objective of the FAI itself. Verifying the calibration status of all measuring equipment is a crucial supporting activity for FAI, but not the fundamental purpose. Confirming the availability of all required raw materials is a prerequisite for production, not the core verification of the manufacturing process’s output. Documenting customer feedback on the initial production run is a post-FAI activity related to continuous improvement, not the initial validation of conformity.

The core principle guiding the determination of the appropriate First Article Inspection (FAI) level, particularly when considering deviations from the original design, hinges on the impact of those changes on critical characteristics. AS9102, the standard that provides guidance for FAI, outlines different levels of FAI based on the nature and extent of modifications. When a change affects form, fit, or function, it necessitates a more thorough review and potentially a full FAI. This is because such changes can introduce new failure modes or alter performance characteristics that were validated during the initial FAI. The objective is to ensure that the modified part still meets all design specifications and safety requirements. A change to a non-critical dimension, for instance, might only require a partial FAI or even a record of the change if it doesn’t impact any functional aspect. However, altering a material specification, a critical dimension that affects mating parts, or a functional parameter directly triggers the need for a comprehensive re-evaluation of the part’s compliance. Therefore, the most robust approach, and the one that aligns with the intent of ensuring product conformity and safety in aerospace, is to conduct a full FAI when form, fit, or function is impacted. This ensures that all previously verified characteristics, as well as any newly introduced or affected characteristics due to the change, are re-validated against the design documentation.

The core of a successful First Article Inspection (FAI) lies in the robust verification of the manufacturing process against the design documentation. When a supplier identifies a deviation during the FAI process that impacts form, fit, or function, and this deviation is not explicitly authorized by a customer-approved engineering change order (ECO) or a deviation disposition, the FAI cannot be considered complete or acceptable in its current state. The AS9100:2016 standard, particularly in clauses related to product conformity and control of nonconforming outputs, mandates that such deviations must be addressed through formal channels. This involves obtaining customer approval for the change or deviation before the part can be released as conforming. Therefore, the correct course of action is to halt the FAI process and seek customer authorization for the identified discrepancy. This ensures that any departure from the original design is documented, evaluated for its impact, and formally accepted by the entity that holds the ultimate design authority and acceptance responsibility. Without this customer approval, the FAI would represent a false conformity, potentially leading to significant issues in the aerospace supply chain.

The core of a successful First Article Inspection (FAI) hinges on the meticulous verification of all specified requirements against the actual product. This involves a systematic comparison of design documents, engineering drawings, material specifications, process instructions, and any other applicable customer or regulatory requirements with the physical article. The FAI report, often documented using forms like the Production Part Approval Process (PPAP) or specific aerospace equivalents, serves as irrefutable evidence that the manufacturing process is capable of consistently producing parts that meet all design and specification requirements. This includes dimensional checks, material certifications, process validation evidence, and functional testing where applicable. The objective is to ensure that the production process, as established by the first article, is repeatable and capable of meeting all quality standards. Therefore, the most comprehensive and accurate approach to validating the first article is to ensure that every single characteristic and requirement documented in the design and planning phases has been thoroughly checked and confirmed against the physical part and its associated production records. This thoroughness is paramount in the aerospace industry due to the critical nature of flight safety and the stringent regulatory environment.

The core principle being tested here is the understanding of the scope and purpose of a First Article Inspection (FAI) report in relation to subsequent production runs. An FAI is a detailed examination and documented verification that a manufacturing process produces parts that conform to all drawing and specification requirements. It is a one-time event for a specific part number, produced by a specific process, at a specific manufacturing location. If any of these parameters change significantly, a new FAI is typically required. The question focuses on identifying the scenario that necessitates a re-evaluation of the FAI’s validity. The correct answer reflects a change in the manufacturing process that could impact part conformity. The other options represent situations that, while potentially requiring internal review or documentation updates, do not inherently invalidate the original FAI’s findings regarding the part’s design conformance. For instance, a change in inspection personnel or a minor adjustment to a non-critical dimension that remains within tolerance does not fundamentally alter the manufacturing process or the part’s ability to meet design intent as verified by the initial FAI. The critical factor is a change that could introduce new non-conformities or alter the established process capability.

No calculation is required for this question. The core of First Article Inspection (FAI) under AS9102 is to verify that the manufacturing process is capable of consistently producing parts that meet all design requirements. This involves a thorough review of production records, material certifications, process controls, and dimensional verification against the engineering drawing. The objective is to ensure that the first production run accurately reflects the intended design and that the manufacturing process is robust and repeatable. A key element is the traceability of all inspection and test results back to the specific production run and the associated documentation. This comprehensive verification provides confidence that subsequent production will yield conforming parts. The absence of a formal FAI report or incomplete documentation directly undermines this assurance, indicating a potential breakdown in the verification process and a failure to meet the fundamental requirements of FAI. Therefore, the most critical consequence of an incomplete FAI is the lack of documented assurance that the manufacturing process is capable of producing conforming parts.

The core principle being tested here is the scope and intent of AS9102, specifically concerning the documentation requirements for a First Article Inspection (FAI). AS9102, the standard for FAI, mandates specific forms and the information they must contain. These forms are designed to provide objective evidence that all engineering and design requirements have been correctly understood and are being met by the manufacturing process. The standard emphasizes the need for complete and accurate records of all inspections performed on the first article. This includes recording the results of every characteristic defined on the engineering drawings and specifications. Therefore, the most comprehensive and compliant approach involves documenting *all* inspection results, even those that are within tolerance. This ensures a complete history of the first article’s conformity and provides a baseline for future production. Failing to record acceptable results would leave gaps in the objective evidence, potentially leading to questions about the thoroughness of the FAI and compliance with the standard’s intent. The standard does not permit selective recording of only non-conforming or borderline results.