Can 3D Scans Be Used for AS9102 First Article Inspection Documentation?

Yes. Measurements derived from a 3D scan can be used as objective evidence within an AS9102C first article inspection report, provided the inspection process makes every reported design characteristic traceable, records a result that can be compared directly with the requirement, and controls the equipment, software, alignment, and source data used to produce that result.

The scan is not the entire First Article Inspection Report, or FAIR. It mainly supports dimensional verification and the design-characteristic accountability recorded on Form 3. Forms 1 and 2, FAI planning, material and special-process accountability, functional test evidence, nonconformance control, and customer-specific requirements remain part of the wider process.

This distinction matters because AS9102C is a process and documentation standard. It does not certify scanners, prescribe one measurement technology, or define a universal scanner accuracy. A measurement system can support an AS9102C-compliant FAI process, while the scanner itself is not “AS9102 certified.”

1. What a 3D scan can—and cannot—provide

3D scanning can measure a dense field of accessible surface points, compare the resulting geometry with CAD, extract dimensions and geometric characteristics, and create visual evidence such as deviation maps and annotated views. For freeform surfaces, profiles, hole patterns, trimming features, and distributed geometry, this coverage can reveal conditions that sparse point measurement may not show.

The FAIR, however, is an accountability record. It must connect the manufactured article, configuration, design requirements, production process, verification results, and supporting evidence. The following division keeps those roles clear.

The practical answer is therefore “yes, as controlled measurement evidence.” A point cloud, polygon mesh, or color map stored without characteristic-level traceability is useful engineering data, but it is not yet AS9102 first article inspection documentation.
 

2. What AS9102C actually requires

AS9102C, revised in June 2023, establishes requirements for performing and documenting FAI. SAE states that those requirements complement rather than replace customer, statutory, and regulatory requirements. IAQG describes the standard as a way to create consistent FAI process and documentation requirements across the aviation, space, and defense supply chain.

FAI is broader than checking whether one part is dimensionally acceptable. It provides objective evidence that the product-realization processes understand and have incorporated the applicable requirements and can produce conforming product. Revision C reinforced documented planning and clarified that FAI is not itself a product-acceptance document.

The requirement is also not automatic simply because an organization is working in aerospace. IAQG's Supply Chain Management Handbook explains that 9102 may be contractually required or self-imposed; it is not made mandatory by another published standard. The contract, purchase order, customer flowdown, and internal quality procedure determine the applicable revision, submission method, and additional expectations.

This is why the measurement plan must begin with the controlled requirement set, not with a scanner demonstration. Define which characteristics require verification, which evidence is acceptable, who approves the method, and how the result will enter the FAIR. When a customer requires its own FAI portal or supplementary form, a technically sound scan report still has to be mapped into that system.
 

3. Where scan results fit in Forms 1, 2, and 3

The official IAQG forms page provides the current revision C forms while emphasizing that users need access to the associated standard and must control the revision of the forms. The three forms have different jobs.

Form 1—Part Number Accountability establishes the article and configuration context. A scan report can carry matching identifiers, but it does not replace the part number, revision, assembly, and FAIR accountability maintained here.

Form 2—Product Accountability: Materials, Special Processes, and Functional Testing records evidence that dimensional scanning normally cannot create. A scanner may verify external geometry after heat treatment, coating, or machining, but it cannot replace a material certificate, special-process approval, or functional test report.

Form 3—Characteristic Accountability, Verification, and Compatibility Evaluation is where scan-derived dimensional results most often contribute. Each design characteristic should be extracted from the drawing or digital product definition, assigned a characteristic number, and linked to its requirement, result, and inspection method or equipment. The attached scan report should use the same numbering so a reviewer can move from the ballooned drawing or PMI to Form 3 and then to the measured result without interpretation.

IAQG's Revision B FAQ, which remains listed in the current SCMH toolbox, has long allowed reports produced by automated inspection tooling to be referenced and attached when the Form 3 characteristic numbers are clearly linked, the attachment remains traceable, and the reported value is directly comparable with the design requirement. For example, coordinate values alone do not communicate compliance with a positional tolerance; the report should provide the calculated position result.
 

4. Turn a scan report into audit-ready evidence

An audit-ready package is built through identifiers and controlled relationships. A good implementation does not force every technical detail into Form 3. It records the required accountability there and references a controlled report that contains the measurement detail.

Start with a characteristic plan derived from the ballooned drawing, DPD, or model-based definition. The inspection program should preserve the original characteristic number and associate it with the nominal value, tolerance, units, datum reference frame, alignment, measurement method, actual result, and disposition. For a profile tolerance, show the evaluated profile result under the required datum scheme. For a hole pattern, report the defined size and position characteristics rather than only a surface map.

The supporting record package should also identify, as required by the organization's QMS and customer:

• the FAIR identifier, part number, serial or lot number, and inspection-report identifier;
• the drawing, CAD, DPD/PMI, and inspection-program revisions;
• the scanner, scale bar, probe, or other equipment used and its calibration or reverification status;
• the alignment and datum strategy, fixture or restraint condition, and relevant environmental controls;
• the operator, date, software version, analysis template, and report revision;
• the controlled location of raw scans, processed data, report files, and linked nonconformance records.

Avoid three common documentation gaps. First, a global best-fit color map may distribute error in a way that does not match the engineering datum system. Second, a “pass” entry without the required actual value may be insufficient where the customer or standard requires a measured result. Third, a screenshot can lose units, tolerances, revision context, or feature identity. Use annotated views to make evidence readable, but keep the underlying numerical result and traceability intact.

5. Prove that the measurement is valid for the tolerance

AS9102C does not state that an accuracy of 0.015 mm, 0.020 mm, or any other number is adequate for every FAI. The organization must select a measurement process capable of supporting the specific conformity decision. Begin with the characteristic tolerance and the applicable decision rule, then allocate acceptable measurement uncertainty under the organization's quality procedure.

Do not treat resolution as accuracy. Resolution describes represented detail or point spacing; accuracy describes performance under stated test conditions; volumetric accuracy describes length-dependent performance across a measurement volume. For a small bracket, local scanner accuracy and feature access may dominate. For a long panel or distributed hole pattern, volumetric performance and global reference control become critical.

The actual process includes more than the scanner specification. Surface reflectivity, deep recesses, thin-wall deflection, temperature, vibration, target placement, photogrammetry, operator technique, mesh settings, feature extraction, and alignment can all affect the result. Validate the method on representative hardware through repeatability studies, known artifacts or check lengths, comparison measurements where appropriate, and periodic reverification.

Optical scanning also should not be forced onto every characteristic. Threads, very small bores, hidden datums, sharp internal edges, and optically inaccessible points may require a contact probe, fixed CMM, PCMM, specialized gauge, or another approved method. Internal or subsurface conditions require the applicable NDT technique. A hybrid Form 3 is normal: different characteristics can be verified by different capable methods.
 

6. SCANOLOGY equipment for an FAI measurement plan

The right SCANOLOGY configuration depends on part size, tolerance, feature access, and the required evidence. Two handheld scanners and a complementary PCMM cover distinct roles.

SIMSCAN-S Gen2 for small, detailed aerospace parts

SIMSCAN-S Gen2 is suited to small machined parts, brackets, fittings, blades, castings, and geometry with slots or restricted access. SCANOLOGY lists accuracy of 0.015 mm, standard volumetric accuracy of 0.015 mm + 0.030 mm/m, sphericity of 0.025 mm, and flatness of 0.035 mm. The current product documentation reports these characteristics separately and cites ISO 10360-13, VDI/VDE 2634 Part 3, and JJF 1951 in the accompanying test notes.

The 560 g body and short-baseline layout help an operator maintain viewing angles around channels and compact assemblies. These specifications support equipment selection; the complete FAI method still needs to demonstrate capability for the actual feature and tolerance.

KSCAN-E for mixed-size parts and larger structures

KSCAN-E supports work ranging from detailed components to housings, panels, tooling, and structures several meters long. SCANOLOGY states an accuracy of 0.020 mm, standard volumetric accuracy of 0.015 mm + 0.030 mm/m, and an object-size range of 0.05 to 8 m. Integrated photogrammetry is rated at 0.015 mm + 0.015 mm/m; with the MSCAN-L15 system, the published value is 0.015 mm + 0.012 mm/m.

Its maximum large-area scan field of 1,440 × 1,000 mm helps cover broad surfaces, while hyperfine and deep-hole modes support local inspection. The report and measurement plan should identify the configuration used. Quoting the 0.020 mm scanner accuracy alone does not describe a multi-meter measurement.

AccuArm for complementary contact measurement

AccuArm is SCANOLOGY's portable coordinate measuring machine, or PCMM—not a fixed laboratory CMM. It provides tactile measurement at the part and is useful for discrete datums, deep or hidden features, fixture points, and characteristics that do not suit optical capture. SCANOLOGY states that AccuArm contact measurement complies with ISO 10360-12, with available reach configurations from 2.5 to 4.5 m.

AccuArm can integrate with SCANOLOGY scanners and optical systems, allowing dense surface data and probed points to contribute to one measurement strategy. That does not make scanning, PCMM probing, and fixed CMM measurement interchangeable; each method should be assigned to the characteristics it can measure credibly.

DefinSight as the measurement-evidence layer

DefinSight, SCANOLOGY's own all-in-one 3D digitization software platform, connects scanning, data processing, meshing, dimensional analysis, GD&T evaluation, and reporting. For FAI, its role is to produce controlled measurement results and supporting visual evidence.

SCANOLOGY does not currently state that DefinSight automatically completes the official AS9102C Forms 1–3. The practical workflow is to export or retain the inspection report, map its characteristic numbers and actual results to the organization's controlled Form 3 or validated FAI system, and reference the report as an attachment. This preserves the strength of full-field inspection without confusing a metrology report with the complete FAIR.
 

7. A quantified first-part inspection example

In a published SCANOLOGY initial-sampling case, an internal-combustion-engine manufacturer used the earlier KSCAN-Magic to inspect a formed engine pipe. The reported workflow required approximately one minute for on-site measurement, one minute for offline processing, and one minute for the analysis report. SCANOLOGY reported a 60% reduction in inspection cycle time.

This is not an AS9102 aerospace case and does not establish AS9102 compliance. It demonstrates the transferable workflow: capture surface data, compare it with the nominal model, calculate usable characteristic results, and issue a report. In an AS9102C implementation, those results would additionally need the configuration control, characteristic mapping, equipment accountability, and FAIR references described above.
 

8. Recommended implementation sequence

For an aerospace supplier introducing scanning into FAI, use a controlled pilot on a representative part family:

1. Confirm the requirement. Identify the AS9102 revision, customer flowdown, submission format, approval path, and retention rules.
2. Extract every design characteristic. Balloon the drawing or use controlled DPD/PMI characteristic identifiers; include notes and requirements that are not purely dimensional.
3. Assign the measurement method. Select scanning, probing, CMM, gauges, functional testing, or NDT according to tolerance, access, uncertainty, and evidence required.
4. Validate the scan process. Establish equipment configuration, datum alignment, surface and environmental controls, repeatability, report template, and data storage.
5. Run and review the FAI. Record directly comparable actual results, link the scan report to Form 3, resolve nonconformances, and complete the remaining Forms 1 and 2 accountability.
6. Control the released package. Retain the FAIR, attachments, source data, program and software revisions, equipment status, and review evidence under the QMS.

Used this way, 3D scanning can make AS9102 first article inspection more complete and easier to review. Its value is not simply a dense point cloud. It is the ability to turn accessible surface geometry into traceable, characteristic-level evidence within a disciplined FAI process.
 

Frequently asked questions

Is a 3D scan report alone an AS9102 FAIR?

No. It can be a referenced attachment containing dimensional evidence, mainly supporting Form 3. A complete FAIR also addresses part and configuration accountability, materials, special processes, functional testing, planning, and applicable customer requirements.

Does AS9102 specify the required accuracy of a 3D scanner?

No. The measurement process must be suitable for the characteristic, tolerance, decision rule, and applicable customer or QMS requirements. Evaluate full-process uncertainty and repeatability, not only the scanner's headline accuracy.

Can a color deviation map be used as a Form 3 result?

A color map can support interpretation, but it should not replace a directly comparable numerical result where one is required. The report must preserve the characteristic number, datum and alignment context, tolerance, units, actual result, and disposition.

Can scanning be used with model-based definition and PMI?

Yes. The controlled DPD/PMI dataset can provide nominal geometry and characteristic definitions. The inspection process must control its revision and maintain traceability from each digital characteristic to the measured result and FAIR record.

When is contact measurement still needed?

Use contact measurement or another approved method when optical access, surface condition, feature geometry, tolerance, or uncertainty makes scanning unsuitable. Hidden datums, small bores, discrete tooling points, and some high-accuracy features are common examples.