AS9145 Aerospace APQP and PPAP: A Field Map for Suppliers Coming From AIAG

A machining supplier that had run automotive PPAP for a decade won a first aerospace program last quarter. The purchase order came with a flow-down line that read "APQP and PPAP per AS9145." The quality manager forwarded it to the SQE with a one-line note: "This is just PPAP, right? We do this every day."

Mostly right, and the "mostly" is where the first submission got kicked back. The team built a proper AIAG PPAP 4th Edition package, all 18 elements, five submission levels, warrant signed, and shipped it. The aerospace customer replied that the package was missing a Design Risk Analysis, that the First Article Inspection needed to be an AS9102 report and not a dimensional results sheet, and that the PPAP Approval Form was not the AIAG PSW. The part was capable. The documentation spoke a different dialect.

AS9145 is the aerospace industry's own APQP and PPAP standard. If you came up through automotive, you already know 80 percent of it, which is exactly the problem, because the other 20 percent is what a customer reviewer checks first. This guide maps AS9145 against the AIAG framework you know, walks the five phases and the 11 aerospace PPAP elements, and calls out the divergences that turn a capable part into a rejected submission.

What AS9145 Is and Where It Sits

AS9145 was released in 2016 by the International Aerospace Quality Group (IAQG), the same body behind AS9100 and AS9102. The full title is "Requirements for Advanced Product Quality Planning and Production Part Approval Process." The European and Japanese editions are EN 9145 and JISQ 9145, harmonized to the same content.

The standard did not invent APQP or PPAP. It adapted the automotive discipline, which the aerospace supply base had been importing informally for years, into a single aerospace-specific requirement. What AS9145 adds is integration. It explicitly ties into the 9100 series: AS9100 for the quality management system, AS9102 for First Article Inspection, and AS9103 for variation management of key characteristics. A supplier does not run AS9145 in isolation. It runs alongside the AS9100 QMS and pulls AS9102 in as one of its own deliverables.

The relationship to AS9100 matters for audits. AS9145 is not a certification standard on its own. When a customer flows down AS9145 as a contractual requirement, it becomes a customer-specified requirement inside your AS9100 system. An AS9100 auditor then checks your APQP and PPAP evidence under Clause 8.4 (control of externally provided processes, when you flow it to your own suppliers) and Clause 8.5.1 (control of production). A missing PPAP element stops being a customer complaint and becomes a QMS finding.

If you are new to the underlying concepts, our what is APQP and what is PPAP primers cover the automotive baseline that AS9145 builds on.

The Five Phases, and Where PPAP Lives

AS9145 defines five APQP phases. An automotive engineer will recognize the shape immediately, because the phase model traces back to the same AIAG lineage:

1. Planning. Translate customer inputs, the statement of work, and the design record into a program plan. Identify key characteristics early, define the cross-functional team, set the timing chart.
2. Product Design and Development. Mature the design, run the Design Risk Analysis (the aerospace term for DFMEA), and confirm the design record and key characteristics before releasing to process design.
3. Process Design and Development. Build the process flow diagram, the Process FMEA, and the control plan. Design the manufacturing process to hold the key characteristics identified upstream.
4. Product and Process Validation. Run the production process at rate, prove capability, complete the First Article Inspection, and assemble the PPAP file. This is where PPAP is submitted.
5. Ongoing Production, Use, and Post-Delivery Service. Sustain the process, feed corrective action and lessons learned back into the system, and manage changes that would trigger a re-submission.

The critical scheduling fact: PPAP is a Phase 4 deliverable, but the elements that populate it are produced across Phases 2 and 3. The Design Risk Analysis is a Phase 2 output. The PFMEA and control plan are Phase 3 outputs. Teams that treat PPAP as a paperwork exercise at the end of the program discover in Phase 4 that half the required documents were never built with submission in mind. The discipline AS9145 is really enforcing is simultaneous engineering: product and process designed together, with the risk analyses feeding forward into the control plan rather than being reverse-engineered after the part is already running.

This is the same failure mode the automotive world sees when APQP collapses into a binder assembled the week before PPAP is due. Our APQP 3rd Edition transition piece walks the phase-gate discipline in the AIAG context; the phase logic is identical under AS9145.

The 11 Aerospace PPAP Elements, Mapped to the Automotive 18

Here is the divergence that trips up automotive suppliers first. AIAG PPAP 4th Edition lists 18 elements. AS9145 defines 11. Fewer elements does not mean less work; it means the requirements are bundled differently and one of them, First Article Inspection, is a full AS9102 report rather than a dimensional results page.

The AS9145 PPAP file consists of these 11 elements:

Two things fall out of this table.

First, several AIAG elements have no standalone slot in AS9145 because they are folded into the FAI report or the design record. Material and performance test results, records of compliance, and the appearance approval report either live inside the AS9102 Forms or are handled as customer PPAP requirements (element 10). Do not read the shorter list as permission to drop that evidence. The reviewer expects material certs, functional test results, and special-process (NADCAP) certifications, they just expect to find them inside the FAI package or the customer requirements element rather than as their own numbered tabs.

Second, the Design Risk Analysis (element 2) is called out explicitly. In the automotive world, a build-to-print supplier with no design authority often marks DFMEA as not applicable and moves on. AS9145 keeps the element in the file. If you are genuinely build-to-print, you still document the design risk position and the customer's ownership of it rather than deleting the element. Reviewers read a silently missing DFMEA as an oversight, not a scoping decision.

Where AS9145 Diverges From What You Already Do

First Article Inspection is an AS9102 report, not a results sheet

This is the single most common kickback for an automotive team. Under AIAG PPAP, dimensional results (element 9) can be a ballooned print plus a results table. Under AS9145, element 9 is a full First Article Inspection Report per AS9102, which means Forms 1, 2, and 3, characteristic accountability with a one-to-one balloon-to-Form-3 mapping, material and special-process traceability on Form 2, and part number accountability on Form 1.

If your team has never produced an AS9102 FAIR, budget real time for it. The balloon discipline alone, every characteristic on the drawing numbered and accounted for including notes, GD and T feature control frames, and title-block tolerances, is a different level of rigor than a typical automotive dimensional layout. Our characteristic accountability under AS9102 and AS9102 Forms 1, 2, and 3 guides cover the FAIR mechanics in detail. If you already run FAI for other aerospace customers, this element is a solved problem; you simply attach the FAIR to the PPAP file. Our FAI vs PPAP comparison covers the overlap between the two frameworks for shops that produce both.

There are no five submission levels

AIAG PPAP defines five submission levels that scale what the supplier sends to the customer versus retains on site, from a warrant only (Level 1) to full submission with sample product (Level 4) and beyond. AS9145 does not carry that five-level construct. What gets submitted versus retained is defined by the customer PPAP requirements (element 10) and the flow-down. Do not go looking for a Level 3 default. Read the customer requirement, confirm scope in writing, and build to that.

The PPAP Approval Form is not the AIAG PSW

The sign-off document under AS9145 is the PPAP Approval Form, not the AIAG Part Submission Warrant. They serve the same purpose, a formal supplier declaration that the parts meet requirements and were produced by the approved process, but the form itself and the fields differ. Use the customer's form when they supply one. Submitting an AIAG PSW into an AS9145 package is a guaranteed comment.

Initial process studies still expect the right index

Element 8, Initial Process Studies, carries the same statistical discipline as the automotive world. Initial studies on special or key characteristics report Ppk, not Cpk, because an initial run cannot claim long-term stability and must use total-variation sigma. The measurement system feeding the study needs an acceptable Gauge R and R first. This trips aerospace-native teams as often as automotive ones. Our Cpk vs Ppk and Gauge R and R acceptance criteria pieces cover the index selection and MSA prerequisites that a reviewer checks before accepting a capability claim.

AS9145 vs AS9100: One Feeds the Other

A frequent point of confusion is whether AS9145 replaces or competes with AS9100. It does neither. AS9100 is your quality management system standard, the one you hold certification against. AS9145 is a program-execution discipline for planning and part approval that runs inside that system.

The practical link is flow-down. When a prime or a tier-1 flows AS9145 to you contractually, it becomes a customer requirement your AS9100 QMS has to satisfy. Your AS9100 certification body will then audit your APQP and PPAP records as objective evidence of Clause 8.1 (operational planning), Clause 8.5.1 (production control), and, when you flow AS9145 down to your own sub-tier suppliers, Clause 8.4 (control of externally provided processes). The key characteristics identified in your APQP tie to AS9103 variation management. A gap in the PPAP file is not just a customer problem; it surfaces as an AS9100 finding at your next surveillance audit.

If you are preparing for an AS9100 audit and want to understand how customer-specific requirements like AS9145 show up in the clause structure, our AS9100 clause-by-clause audit readiness guide walks the evidence an auditor asks for at each clause.

Migration Traps for an Automotive Supplier

Five patterns account for most first-submission rejections when an AIAG-fluent team crosses into AS9145:

1. Shipping the 18-element AIAG structure. The reviewer wants the 11 aerospace elements in the expected order with the FAIR as element 9. An AIAG binder gets returned for re-formatting even when every piece of evidence is present.
2. A dimensional results sheet in place of an AS9102 FAIR. Element 9 is a full First Article Inspection Report. A ballooned print and a results table is not sufficient.
3. DFMEA marked not applicable and deleted. Keep element 2 in the file. Document the design responsibility position rather than removing the element.
4. Special-process evidence missing. Heat treat, plating, NDT, and other NADCAP-accredited special processes need traceable certifications inside the FAIR or the customer requirements element. The 11-element list does not have a "special process" tab, so teams forget it, but the reviewer checks source and NADCAP scope against the specification.
5. AIAG PSW instead of the PPAP Approval Form. Use the customer's sign-off form.

Run the process flow, PFMEA, and control plan as a linked chain, not three independent documents. The process flow's operations must appear in the PFMEA, and every PFMEA control must land in the control plan at the right frequency. Our Process FMEA guide and control plan for manufacturing cover that linkage, which reviewers check for traceability in both the automotive and aerospace worlds.

A 15-Minute Pre-Submission QA Pass

Before you send an AS9145 PPAP file, walk this checklist. It catches the divergences above before a customer reviewer does:

• All 11 elements present and ordered per the AS9145 structure, not the AIAG 18.
• Design Risk Analysis (element 2) present, with the design responsibility position stated even if build-to-print.
• Process flow, PFMEA, and control plan traceable to each other operation by operation.
• Key characteristics identified in planning propagate through PFMEA into the control plan.
• Element 9 is a complete AS9102 FAIR: Form 1 part number accountability, Form 2 material and special-process traceability, Form 3 characteristic accountability with one-to-one balloon mapping.
• Special-process certifications (NADCAP scope verified against the specification) are traceable inside the package.
• Initial process studies (element 8) report Ppk on key characteristics, with an acceptable MSA behind the measurement data.
• Customer PPAP requirements (element 10) reviewed and every named deliverable included.
• Sign-off is the customer's PPAP Approval Form, complete and signed, not an AIAG PSW.
• Revision levels on the design record, FAIR, and control plan all agree.

Revision agreement is worth a second look. A design record at Rev D with a FAIR built to Rev C is the fastest way to a rejection, and it is invisible unless someone checks the levels against each other explicitly.

How QualityEngineer.ai Handles the AS9145 File

The reason AS9145 punishes automotive teams is not the content. It is the mapping and the discipline of keeping 11 linked documents in agreement across two revision cycles. That is precisely the work a platform should own.

QualityEngineer.ai AI APQP runs the five-phase plan with the deliverables gated to the right phase, so the Design Risk Analysis and PFMEA exist before Phase 4 rather than getting reverse-engineered at submission time. Build generates the process flow, PFMEA, and control plan as a linked cascade, so an operation added to the flow propagates into the PFMEA and control plan instead of drifting out of sync. Blueprint Intelligence extracts every characteristic off the drawing, balloon by balloon including GD and T, notes, and surface finish, which is the foundation of an AS9102 FAIR that survives characteristic accountability review. Analyze computes Ppk with the correct total-variation sigma and flags non-normal geometric characteristics that would void a two-sided index. Package assembles the PPAP file and runs a gap analysis so a missing element surfaces before the customer sees it.

The point is not to replace the quality engineer's judgment. It is to make sure that when an aerospace customer flows down AS9145, the supplier is not translating a decade of AIAG habits by hand under a program deadline. The mapping is known. The linkage is enforceable. The engineer spends the time on the risk analysis and the capability, not on reformatting a binder.

If AS9145 just landed on a purchase order and you are staring at the gap between what you produce today and what the customer expects, that gap is a mapping problem with a known answer. Start with the 11 elements, treat First Article Inspection as a full AS9102 report, and keep your linked documents in revision agreement. The rest is discipline you already have.