Home / Aerospace and defense program execution / Front-end planning for aerospace and defense programs
Aerospace customers increasingly want proof that a production process will deliver good parts every time, not just that the first one passed. AS9145 is how they ask for it. For suppliers and program teams it is also a practical discipline: plan quality in while the design can still change, and prove the process before production depends on it.
What does AS9145 require?
AS9145 sets out Advanced Product Quality Planning, a phased approach that runs alongside product development, and the Production Part Approval Process, the formal step where the supplier proves the production process and the customer approves it. The standard was developed for aviation, space and defense, drawing on long experience with similar approaches in the automotive industry but adapted to aerospace, including the use of AS9102 first article inspection. Customers flow it to suppliers through purchase orders and supplier quality requirements, often specifying which elements they expect.
What happens in each APQP phase?
| Phase | Focus | Typical outputs |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Planning | Understand customer requirements and plan the work | Requirements review, preliminary bill of materials and process flow, project plan, initial risk assessment |
| 2. Product design and development | Design the product with its risks understood | Design risk analysis, key characteristics, design verification plans, manufacturability reviews |
| 3. Process design and development | Design the manufacturing process to deliver the design | Process flow diagram, process risk analysis, control plan, measurement system plans |
| 4. Product and process validation | Prove the process on production equipment | Production run, measurement system analysis, capability studies, first article inspection, PPAP submission |
| 5. Ongoing production, use and post-delivery service | Keep the process capable and learn from use | Process monitoring, corrective action, lessons learned, continual improvement |
What goes into a PPAP submission?
The customer defines the required elements, but aerospace PPAP submissions commonly include:
- Design records and any engineering change documentation
- Design and process risk analyses, often failure mode and effects analyses
- A process flow diagram covering every operation
- A control plan stating how each characteristic, especially key characteristics, is controlled
- Measurement system analysis showing the gauges are adequate for the tolerances
- Initial process capability studies for key characteristics
- First article inspection results under AS9102
- Records of material and special process conformance
- A part submission or approval form summarizing the package
Why does this matter to program schedules?
Because PPAP approval often gates production. A supplier that cannot show a capable, controlled process cannot move to rate, and a program that discovers this late finds its production schedule blocked by paperwork that is really a process problem. Planning APQP deliverables into the integrated master schedule, with realistic durations for capability studies and customer review, prevents that surprise. So does starting the risk analyses early, while design changes are still cheap.
What are key characteristics, and why do they matter here?
Key characteristics are the features whose variation most affects fit, performance, service life or safety. They are the focus of APQP: the design risk analysis identifies them, the process risk analysis examines how the process could fail to hold them, the control plan states how they are controlled, and capability studies prove they are held consistently. Getting the list right early, with the customer, keeps effort where it matters rather than spread evenly over every dimension on the drawing.
How does AS9145 relate to AS9100 and AS9102?
AS9100 is the quality management system standard for the whole organization; AS9145 is a product-level planning and approval process that works within it. AS9102 defines first article inspection, which AS9145 uses as one of the elements of a production part approval. In practice, a supplier certified to AS9100 already has many of the processes APQP relies on, such as risk-based thinking, design control and control of external providers. AS9145 adds the structure that connects them for a specific new part, from requirements through to a proven production process.
Who should own APQP on a program?
A named APQP lead for each significant part or supplier, usually from quality or manufacturing engineering, with engineering, supply chain and the supplier all contributing. At program level, someone must own the overall APQP and PPAP plan, so that every part's approval is scheduled, tracked and escalated when it slips. Without that program-level owner, approvals are managed part by part and the program learns about the late ones only when production needs them. A single tracker, reviewed weekly with dates and owners, prevents that and gives leadership an honest view of production readiness.
What goes wrong most often?
APQP started too late. Treating APQP as documentation to assemble before PPAP, rather than planning done during development, produces paperwork without the benefit. Risk analyses done once and filed. They should be living documents updated as problems are found. Measurement systems not checked. Capability studies built on inadequate gauges prove nothing. Sub-tier suppliers left out. Special processes and purchased parts need their own evidence. Customer requirements misread. Submission levels and required elements vary; confirming them first avoids rework.
How should a program manage APQP across its suppliers?
By treating it as part of the program plan. List every part that needs APQP and PPAP, with the supplier, the required elements and the target approval date, and track them in the weekly rhythm alongside first articles and deliveries. Hold phase reviews with critical suppliers rather than waiting for the final submission. And make sure engineering changes are fed back into the supplier's APQP documents, because a PPAP approved on an old revision is not approval of the current part.
Which metrics show APQP is working?
| Metric | What it reveals |
|---|---|
| PPAP approvals on time versus plan | Whether suppliers will be ready for production when the program needs them |
| First-time PPAP approval rate | The quality of the planning and documentation behind submissions |
| Key characteristics with demonstrated capability | How much of the critical product is proven, not assumed |
| Escapes after PPAP approval | Whether the approved controls actually work in production |
What evidence proves a production process is capable?
Three kinds of evidence, in this order: the measurement system can be trusted, the process is stable, and the stable process sits comfortably inside the tolerance. Skip the first and the other two prove nothing, because a capability study is only as good as the gauge that produced its numbers. Most rejected or stalled PPAP submissions fail on one of these three, not on missing paperwork.
| Evidence | What it shows | Common practice | What to watch for |
|---|---|---|---|
| Measurement system analysis | Whether the gauge and the people using it can reliably tell a good part from a bad one | The AIAG Measurement Systems Analysis manual treats a gauge repeatability and reproducibility result under 10 percent as generally acceptable, 10 to 30 percent as possibly acceptable depending on the application, and above 30 percent as not acceptable | A study run on a different gauge, fixture or operator group from the ones production will use |
| Control charts on key characteristics | Whether the process is stable and predictable over the production run | Charts kept from the validation run onward, with the reaction to out-of-control signals written into the control plan | Capability calculated on a process that is not yet stable, which describes nothing the supplier can repeat |
| Initial capability study | The spread and centering of each key characteristic against its tolerance | The customer sets the minimum. Automotive PPAP practice uses a preliminary index of 1.67 as the usual acceptance level, and many aerospace customers state their own targets | Indices quoted from a handful of parts, or from parts made on prototype tooling |
| Ongoing capability | Whether the process stays capable once it runs at rate | Periodic recalculation from production data, commonly against a lower target such as 1.33 | Studies done once for the submission and never repeated |
| First article inspection | That a production part meets every characteristic on the design record | A full AS9102 first article on a part made with production tooling, processes and people | A first article done on a part that did not come from the approved process |
When a key characteristic cannot yet be shown to be capable, the honest answer is containment, not optimism. The control plan should state how the characteristic is protected in the meantime, usually by added inspection, and the improvement plan should have an owner and a date. Agree that approach with the customer before submission. AS9103 describes this kind of variation management for key characteristics, and following it keeps the conversation about the process rather than about the paperwork. If a supplier is already behind on capability and production dates are at risk, it is usually a supplier recovery problem rather than a documentation one.
When does a PPAP or first article have to be redone?
Whenever the part, or the process that makes it, changes in a way that could affect conformance. The customer's requirements decide the exact triggers, so read them first, but they usually match the list AS9102 gives for repeating a full or partial first article inspection: a design change affecting fit, form or function; a change in manufacturing source, process, inspection method, location, tooling or material; a change to a numerical control program; an event that may have disturbed the process; and a lapse in production of two years, unless the customer specifies another period.
| Change | Why it matters | Typical response |
|---|---|---|
| Drawing revision affecting fit, form or function | The approved package now describes a different part | Partial first article on the affected characteristics, updated risk analyses and control plan, resubmission of the affected elements |
| New or modified tooling, or a numerical control program change | The process that was proven is no longer the process in use | Partial first article and fresh capability evidence on the characteristics the tool or program produces |
| New manufacturing location or new equipment | People, machines and conditions all change at once | Usually a full first article and new capability studies, treated almost as a new part |
| New sub-tier source for material or a special process | Heat treatment, plating, coating and similar processes carry risk that inspection of the finished part cannot fully reveal | Evidence of the new source's approval and conformance, plus a partial first article where characteristics are affected |
| Production lapse | Skills, tooling condition and set-up knowledge decay | A new first article before production resumes, two years being the AS9102 default |
| Disruptive event, such as a fire, flood or major equipment failure | The process may not return to its approved condition | An assessment of what changed, then a partial or full first article as the assessment requires |
At program level, the protection is a link between the engineering change process and the PPAP tracker. Every change notice should list the parts it touches and the approval status of each, so that nobody discovers months later that a supplier's approval covers a revision the program has already left behind. That link is part of configuration management and the wider technical baseline, and it is one of the first things we check when supplier approvals start slipping. To talk through your supplier approval plan, schedule a call.
How does Set Boundaries help?
Set Boundaries plans APQP into the program from the front end, tracks PPAP and first article status across the supplier base, works with suppliers on the elements that stall, and makes sure approvals happen before production depends on them. It connects directly to first article inspection and the transition to production.
If supplier approvals are threatening your production schedule, schedule a call.
Related guides
- First article inspection under AS9102
- Transitioning a program to production
- Supplier recovery on aerospace programs
- Front-end planning
References
- SAE International, AS9145, Aerospace Series: Requirements for Advanced Product Quality Planning and Production Part Approval Process.
- SAE International, AS9102, Aerospace First Article Inspection Requirement.
- SAE International, AS9103, Variation Management of Key Characteristics.
- SAE International, AS9100D, Quality Management Systems for Aviation, Space and Defense Organizations.
- Aerospace Engine Supplier Quality (AESQ) Strategy Group, guidance on APQP and PPAP implementation.
- Automotive Industry Action Group (AIAG), Measurement Systems Analysis reference manual.
Questions
Common questions
What is AS9145?
AS9145 is the aerospace standard for Advanced Product Quality Planning and the Production Part Approval Process. Published by SAE International for the aviation, space and defense industry, it defines a phased approach to planning new products and processes so that production parts meet requirements from the start, and a formal approval process that proves the production process can do so consistently.
What are the five phases of APQP under AS9145?
Planning, product design and development, process design and development, product and process validation, and ongoing production, use and post-delivery service. Each phase has defined outputs and a review before moving on. The phases run in parallel with the engineering program, so quality planning happens while the design is still changeable rather than after problems appear in production.
What is the difference between APQP and PPAP?
APQP is the planning process that runs across the whole development of a product and its manufacturing process. PPAP is the approval step near the end of it, where the supplier submits evidence that the production process consistently produces parts meeting all requirements, and the customer approves it. APQP builds the capability; PPAP proves it.
How does PPAP relate to first article inspection?
First article inspection under AS9102 verifies that a production part meets every design characteristic. PPAP goes further, adding evidence that the process producing the part is understood, controlled and capable: risk analyses, a control plan, measurement system analysis and capability studies. In aerospace PPAP, a first article inspection is typically one of the required elements.
Who requires AS9145?
Many aerospace engine and airframe manufacturers now flow AS9145 requirements to their suppliers through purchase orders and supplier quality requirements, and some defense primes do the same. Whether it applies, and which elements are required, depends on the customer. Suppliers should check their customers' requirements, since the expected depth of APQP and the PPAP submission level vary.
Is APQP worth it for a small supplier?
Yes, when scaled sensibly. The core ideas, understanding customer requirements early, analyzing design and process risk, planning controls before production and proving capability before rate, prevent the costly escapes and rework that hurt small suppliers most. The documentation can be proportionate to the part and the risk, but skipping the thinking usually costs more than doing it.
What are the 5 levels of PPAP?
In the automotive AIAG PPAP manual, the five submission levels are: Level 1, warrant only; Level 2, warrant with product samples and limited supporting data; Level 3, warrant with samples and complete supporting data, the usual default; Level 4, warrant and other requirements defined by the customer; and Level 5, warrant with samples and complete data available for review at the supplier's site. AS9145 does not use these numbered levels in the same way. Aerospace customers usually specify the required PPAP elements directly, and Set Boundaries helps suppliers plan to those.
What is APQP and PPAP in quality?
APQP, Advanced Product Quality Planning, is a phased way of planning quality into a product and its production process during development. PPAP, the Production Part Approval Process, is the formal step at the end where the supplier shows evidence that its production process makes conforming parts and the customer approves it. APQP is the plan and the work, and PPAP is the proof. In aerospace both are defined by AS9145. Set Boundaries helps program teams run APQP alongside the program schedule so PPAP is not a surprise at the end.
Is AS9145 part of AS9100?
No. AS9145 is a separate standard in the same aerospace family as AS9100, published to define APQP and PPAP requirements for aviation, space and defense. AS9100 sets requirements for the quality management system and product realization, while AS9145 describes a specific method for planning and approving production processes. Certification to AS9100 does not by itself mean a supplier meets AS9145; customers usually invoke AS9145 through contracts or supplier quality requirements. Set Boundaries helps suppliers fit AS9145 work into their existing AS9100 processes.
Have a question that is not here? Ask Holly on a short call
