One revision state
A change to a drawing applied to the whole programme rather than drifting between workshops. The incoming inspection had a single set of numbers to check at despatch.
Case note 02 · ATA 25 interiors & ATA 32 wheel and brake
Two part families, one routing, and one file that had to close
A holder asked for cabin interior details and wheel and brake components in the same programme. The processes sat in different workshops; the revision state, the first article plan and the traceability file did not. This note is about the second half, because that was the half that decided whether the programme ran cleanly.
Names and counts are withheld. The approval holder, the aircraft programme, the qualified facilities, part numbers and quantities do not appear here. Nothing in this note is a catalogue, an availability statement or an offer of parts for sale — the work was built against issued requirements, and the customer signed the release under its own approval.
What the brief contained
Three groups of work, each judged against a different set of requirements, all placed under one programme.
| Work group | Built to | Evidence returned |
|---|---|---|
| Seat and cabin hardware | The holder’s drawing and revision, including finish and marking | Dimensional record, material certificates, surface treatment record |
| Moulded panels and soft trim | The holder’s specification and its flammability, smoke and toxicity evidence | FST evidence, lot traceability, first article report where the plan called for one |
| Steel brake and wheel components | The requirements issued for the programme, including the accessories named in them | Dimensional and material records, assembly and hardware traceability |
The table describes the shape of one programme, not a list of parts we hold or can quote from stock. A new programme starts from the drawing status you send.
Why both families stayed on one routing
The workshops were different. Keeping three things common is what made the difference.
One first article plan
The AS9102 submission was planned across both families before any production was released, so acceptance was written down once, for the programme, rather than negotiated family by family.
One place for exceptions
Nonconformance, concessions and change control ran through the same window. That is usually where a two-family programme comes apart — not in the machining.
Where the responsibility stayed
Splitting the work across two families did not move any of these answers across the table.
| Question | Answer |
|---|---|
| Who held the approval | The customer, for both families. We held none and issued no release document. |
| Who manufactured | Qualified partner facilities in China, selected and routed to the issued requirements. |
| Who accepted the first article | The customer, in writing, before production was released. |
| Who signed the release | The customer, under its own approval, after its own final inspection. |
| What was not in the brief | Finished parts offered for sale, a stock position, a catalogue to browse, or a quoted delivery date before the first article plan existed. |
Before you copy this shape of programme
The useful output of a case note is a checklist, not a promise that it will work the same way for you.
- Obtain a written release path determination for the registry you intend to sell into. A case note is not an installability finding.
- Confirm the approval basis family by family. A cabin trim item and a brake component are not substantiated in the same way, even when they sit on one purchase order.
- Agree the document set for each family before the first article is cut, and name who signs each record.
- Decide whether any output will be handed over at an intermediate process stage; that changes both the paperwork and who performs final inspection.
Records are not approvals. A first article report, a certificate of conformity and a signed traveller describe what was made and checked. They do not replace the release document issued under an approval by its holder. Seehow those records are produced and kept.
Send the drawing status for the families you need
List the part families, the operations you intend to keep and the state of registry. The first written reply sets out the routing, the first article plan and the document set — or tells you plainly that the release path does not work.