Most aerospace suppliers still build their first article inspection reports in Excel. The AS9102 forms translate easily into spreadsheet tabs, templates are free to download, and every inspector already knows how to use them. Because the spreadsheet feels like no cost at all, the hours spent filling it in rarely get counted.
Those hours add up fast on a complex part. A single FAIR can eat several hours of transcription before anyone checks it, and one wrong row can send the whole package back from the customer.
Purpose-built FAI software takes over the repetitive part of the job, from ballooning the drawing to populating the AS9102 forms. Below we look at where spreadsheet-based FAI tends to break, what actually changes after a move to software, and what to check before picking a tool.
Where spreadsheet-based FAI breaks down
Excel works well enough for a simple bracket with twenty characteristics. The trouble starts as parts, drawings and customer requirements get more complex.
Every value gets typed by hand
Form 3 for a machined housing can run to several hundred characteristics. An inspector reads each dimension and tolerance off the drawing and types it into a row, then types the measured result beside it, usually copied from a CMM printout. Each number is keyed in at least twice, and a transposed digit on one row is enough for a customer to reject the report.
Balloons and rows fall out of sync
Ballooning usually happens in a separate PDF markup tool, and every balloon number has to match its Form 3 row exactly. When engineering releases a new drawing, someone re-balloons the print and renumbers the spreadsheet by hand. A customer reviewer can spot a mismatch between the drawing and the form in seconds, and it is grounds for sending the FAIR back.
Files multiply on the shared drive
Spreadsheets live as files, so each round of edits tends to produce another copy with a new suffix. After a few weeks the folder holds five workbooks for the same part number, and nobody is sure which one went to the customer.
Nobody can see status without opening the file
A quality manager who wants to know how many first articles are waiting on CMM results has to open each workbook or ask around. Customers receive the finished report as an email attachment, review it offline, and send comments back in a separate thread that someone then has to reconcile.
What changes when FAI moves into software
The biggest shift is where the work starts. Instead of a blank Form 3, the inspector opens a report that already has the characteristics on it and spends their time checking rather than typing.
Characteristics come off the drawing automatically
FAI software reads the drawing, picks up dimensions, GD&T callouts and notes, assigns balloon numbers, and writes each one to its own Form 3 row. The balloon on the print and the row in the report are created together, so they start out matched.
Measured results go in once
Many tools import CMM output and map each result to its characteristic. The measurement is recorded where it was taken, and nobody retypes it from a printout.
One record per part
Engineering, quality and inspection all work in the same report instead of passing a workbook around by email. Whoever opens it next sees the latest state of the FAIR, without hunting through a folder for the right file.
Partial FAIs start from what already exists
AS9102 calls for a partial FAI when a design or process change affects the part, covering only the characteristics that changed. With the original report already in the system, the team works from it and reinspects the affected features instead of rebuilding a spreadsheet from scratch.
Status is visible at a glance
A quality manager can see which first articles are still waiting on measurements and which have already gone to the customer, without opening a single file. When the customer reviews the FAIR on the same platform, their comments sit on the report itself rather than in a separate email chain.
What to check before choosing FAI software
Not every tool handles the same drawings or produces output your customers will accept. Run a real part through any tool you evaluate, ideally one with dense GD&T, and look closely at the following.
- AS9102 output. The finished report should match the current revision of AS9102, and you should be able to export it in the format your customers ask for, including a customer's own template if they require one.
- GD&T and notes, not just dimensions. Check whether the tool captures feature control frames and the characteristics buried in drawing notes and flag notes, which are easy to miss when ballooning by hand.
- How corrections work. Automatic extraction will occasionally misread a callout. See how quickly an inspector can fix a balloon or a Form 3 row before the report goes out.
- Measurement import. Confirm the tool reads the CMM report formats your shop produces today.
- Data handling for controlled drawings. If you build ITAR or export-controlled parts, ask where drawings are stored and who can access them.
- Time to first report. Ask how long it takes an inspector to produce a complete FAIR on day one, and try it yourself during the trial.
Moving your first articles off Excel
Spreadsheets got the aerospace supply chain through decades of first article inspections, and plenty of shops still run on them. As part counts grow and customers tighten their review of incoming FAIRs, the hours spent retyping and reconciling become harder to justify.
GroundControl's FAI Generation tool builds the AS9102 report from your drawing, ballooning the print and populating the forms so inspectors start with a completed draft. For primes and OEMs, FAIR Review lets you review every FAIR your suppliers submit directly on the platform.
Book a demo to see a first article report generated from one of your own drawings.