How US Aerospace Primes Qualify Indian Forging Suppliers: AS9100D and NADCAP

American aerospace prime contractors and their tier-1 suppliers – Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon Technologies, Northrop Grumman, GE Aerospace, Pratt & Whitney – apply qualification processes for new forging suppliers that are more structured, more technically detailed, and more consequential than any other industrial procurement qualification. The consequence of a forging failure on a commercial aircraft or a military platform is not a commercial quality event it is a safety event with potential for loss of life and airworthiness authority intervention. The qualification process that aerospace primes impose on Indian forging suppliers exists to verify, before the first production part is delivered, that the supplier’s quality system and process capability will produce conforming parts consistently across the years and decades of a production programme. This guide gives US aerospace procurement and supply chain quality teams the complete picture of how that qualification process works for Indian suppliers.

At a Glance: US Aerospace Prime Qualification Process for Indian Forging Suppliers

Why US Aerospace Prime Qualification Is Fundamentally Different from Oil and Gas Qualification

Oil and gas supplier qualification covered in earlier blogs in this series is demanding but self-contained. A US oil and gas buyer who qualifies an Indian API 20B supplier through document review, site visit, qualification test forgings, and TPI integration has performed a complete qualification that the operator’s procurement team manages directly.

US aerospace prime qualification involves additional complexity that changes both the process structure and the timeline:

Airworthiness authority oversight.
Forgings incorporated in type-certificated aircraft are part of the certified configuration reviewed by the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) for commercial aircraft, or DCMA (Defense Contract Management Agency) for military platforms. Changes to approved manufacturing sources including adding a new Indian forging supplier may constitute a design change requiring airworthiness authority review and approval. The prime contractor’s approved supplier list is therefore not purely a commercial procurement decision it has regulatory implications.

Cascading qualification requirements.
When an Indian forging supplier is qualified by a Boeing tier-1 supplier (for example, a machining company that supplies finished structural fittings to Boeing), Boeing’s supplier management system typically requires that Boeing’s own supplier quality requirements flow down to the tier-2 Indian forging supplier. This means the Indian supplier must effectively meet Boeing’s supplier requirements even though Boeing is not the direct customer.

NADCAP as a mandatory rather than advisory requirement.
For oil and gas, API 20B is the certification standard and TPI provides independent verification. For US aerospace prime qualification, NADCAP accreditation for heat treatment and NDT is frequently a hard gate a mandatory requirement that cannot be waived regardless of how impressive the supplier’s other credentials are.

Programme-specific material and process specifications.
US aerospace primes do not simply reference AMS material specifications they layer company-specific process specifications (Boeing BAC specifications, Lockheed Martin LMI specifications, GE PWA specifications) that define additional requirements beyond the AMS baseline. An Indian supplier who understands AMS 5663 for Inconel 718 but has not seen Boeing’s BAC 5680 (Boeing’s heat treatment specification for nickel alloys) is not prepared for Boeing programme qualification.

Stage 1: OASIS Verification and Initial Screening

The OASIS Check – Not Optional

The first action any US aerospace prime quality team takes when a new Indian forging supplier is proposed is OASIS verification searching the IAQG database for the supplier’s AS9100D certification.

A supplier who does not appear in OASIS or who appears with an expired certificate is not AS9100D certified for US aerospace supply purposes regardless of what their website or their own certificate says. The OASIS check takes 2 minutes and is non-negotiable.

For Indian suppliers who appear in OASIS, prime quality teams read the scope statement carefully. The scope of certification defines what the certificate covers and for forge-to-finish supply, the scope must cover every process the supplier performs:

Acceptable scope for forge-to-finish aerospace supply: “Design and manufacture of closed die and open die steel, titanium, nickel alloy, and aluminium alloy forgings, including heat treatment, non-destructive testing, and CNC machining for aerospace, defence, and industrial applications.”

Inadequate scope for forge-to-finish aerospace supply: “Manufacture of closed die steel forgings” does not cover heat treatment, NDT, titanium, nickel alloys, open die forging, or machining.

A supplier with an inadequate scope is not disqualified but the prime quality team will require scope expansion before production approval, and the Indian supplier’s AS9100D certification body must conduct a scope expansion audit that verifies the additional processes meet AS9100D requirements.

Initial Screening Criteria for US Aerospace Primes

After OASIS verification, US aerospace prime initial screening covers :

Production history in the relevant material family.
An Indian supplier claiming titanium forging capability must have documented production history completed deliveries with material certifications in Ti-6Al-4V aerospace forgings. “We have the equipment to forge titanium” without production history is not qualification evidence. US primes apply informal minimum history thresholds: typically 3 years of continuous production in the material family, with at least 5 different part numbers delivered to aerospace or defence customers.

NADCAP status.
Does the supplier hold NADCAP accreditation for heat treatment and NDT? If yes, the qualification timeline is significantly shorter because one of the largest qualification barriers is already cleared. If no, the prime quality team assesses whether the programme can proceed with the supplier committing to pursue NADCAP or whether NADCAP must be in place before qualification begins.

NABL scope for aerospace-relevant testing.
NABL accreditation for chemical analysis (OES spectrometry to AMS specifications), tensile testing (ASTM E8), and critically for rotating component applications ultrasonic testing methodology verification and low-temperature impact testing where required.

Reference customer list.
Has the supplier delivered aerospace or defence forgings to any recognisable US or international prime or tier-1 customer? A supplier with delivery history to Safran, Rolls-Royce, HAL, or Bombardier has demonstrated that its quality system can support aerospace supply relationships. This history is the strongest possible endorsement during initial screening.

Stage 2: Supplier Self-Assessment Questionnaire

US aerospace primes send structured self-assessment questionnaires to new supplier candidates before committing to a site visit. These questionnaires are detailed typically 60–150 questions and serve to identify gaps that either disqualify the supplier before the investment of a site visit or that focus the site visit agenda on specific risk areas.

Key Sections of a US Aerospace Prime Supplier Self-Assessment

Quality management system:

1. Date of last AS9100D recertification audit and surveillance audit
2. Name of certification body (verified against IAQG recognised body list)
3. NCR rate for the past 12 months absolute number and as percentage of production lots
4. Average corrective action closure time in days
5. Internal audit programme schedule adherence percentage of planned audits completed on time
6. Number of open customer SCARs and their age

Special processes heat treatment:

1. List all furnaces with: furnace number, type, working zone dimensions, temperature range, AMS 2750 class
2. For each furnace: date of last TUS, TUS result (temperature uniformity achieved at survey), date of last SAT, SAT result
3. For Inconel 718 programmes: TUS results at 718°C and 621°C specifically
4. Furnace atmosphere control capability: air, inert gas, vacuum? Which materials are heat treated in which atmosphere?
5. Continuous data logging on all production cycles: yes/no, system used

Special processes NDT:

1. UT equipment list: manufacturer, model, frequency range
2. Immersion UT capability: tank dimensions, scanning system (manual or automated), position encoding?
3. Calibration reference standards held: list of materials and FBH sizes
4. FPI system qualification: AMS 2647 equivalent sensitivity level qualified to
5. MT capability: wet or dry method, UV lamp model and calibration records
6. NDT operator certifications: ASNT Level II for each method and technique, all current certifications listed with expiry dates

Process capability forging:

1. Press capacities (each press): type, rated capacity in tonnes, year of manufacture
2. Hammer specifications
3. Ring rolling mill: maximum diameter, maximum height, maximum ring weight
4. Maximum closed die forging weight ever produced (with material and customer reference)
5. Maximum open die forging weight (same)
6. FEM simulation capability: software used, in-house or subcontracted

Material traceability:

1. Describe the material traceability system from billet incoming to finished forging shipping
2. What is the system for tracing a forging currently in production to its MTR without advance preparation?
3. Physical marking method for titanium billets (must not be die stamp stress concentration risk)
4. Physical marking method for Inconel billets

FAIR capability:

1. Number of AS9102 FAIR packages completed in the past 24 months (to any aerospace customer)
2. Most recent FAIR customer name (if permitted to disclose)
3. CMM make and model, probing system, software for AS9102 dimensional reporting
4. Who completes FAIRs is there a dedicated FAIR team or is it done by general quality staff?

ITAR awareness:

1. Does the supplier have an ITAR awareness procedure?
2. Has the supplier received ITAR-controlled US technical data previously? If so, under what authorisation?
3. Does the supplier have or is it pursuing a Technology Control Plan (TCP)?

Red Flags in Self-Assessment Responses

NCR rate zero or near-zero in a busy forge shop: Either NCRs are not being formally recorded (quality system maturity concern) or production volumes are so low that the response to the NCR rate question is meaningless without volume context.

TUS records only at solution annealing temperatures for Inconel 718 claims: Indicates the supplier has not validated their ageing furnace at the critical ageing temperatures.

No immersion UT for rotating component claims: Contact UT only is inadequate for aeroengine rotating component inspection.

FAIR count zero or very low: A supplier claiming aerospace forging capability who has never completed an AS9102 FAIR will require substantial learning investment during qualification.

“ITAR not applicable” response: A supplier who has not considered ITAR implications for receiving US aerospace drawings does not understand the regulatory environment they are entering.

Stage 3: On-Site Initial Assessment

The on-site initial assessment is the most resource-intensive and most revealing qualification activity. US aerospace prime quality engineers or their contracted supplier development engineers travel to the Indian facility for a structured 3–4 day assessment.

Before the Visit: Assessment Preparation

US prime preparation:

1. Review all self-assessment questionnaire responses and identify gaps for follow-up
2. Prepare an assessment checklist that maps to AS9100D clause requirements and programme-specific requirements
3. Identify the specific risk areas from the questionnaire that require verification on the shop floor
4. Confirm interpreter availability if needed for Hosur and Bangalore facilities, English communication with quality and technical staff is generally adequate

Indian supplier preparation:

1. Notify production planning to ensure representative production activity is underway during the visit if possible a shop floor with active titanium or Inconel forging work is more revealing (and more impressive) than an empty shop
2. Prepare all records requested in the questionnaire for immediate production during the visit
3. Assign a senior quality engineer as the US visitor’s primary contact throughout the visit
4. Brief the quality team on what the visitor will ask not to rehearse answers, but to ensure relevant documentation is accessible without extensive searching

Day 1: Quality Management System Assessment

Document control system walk-through: The assessment begins in the quality management area not the shop floor. The US assessor reviews: how documents are controlled (electronic or paper-based document management system), how the current revision of customer drawings is verified against the customer’s release, how changes to the scope of a production job order are handled and documented, and how the internal audit programme is managed.

NCR and SCAR system review: The NCR log for the past 12 months is reviewed. The assessor selects 5–10 NCRs covering different types (incoming material, in-process, customer complaint) and reviews the complete record from identification through containment, root cause analysis, corrective action implementation, and effectiveness verification. The quality of root cause analysis is a direct indicator of quality culture depth “operator error retrained” is a superficial root cause; a root cause that identifies the systemic process control gap that allowed the error to occur is evidence of genuine quality maturity.

Supplier management review: For any processes subcontracted by the Indian forging manufacturer coating, heat treatment if partially external, machining if partially external the US assessor reviews how subcontractors are qualified, monitored, and managed. For US aerospace supply, any subcontracted special process must be performed at an AS9100D-certified (and NADCAP-accredited if required) facility. A subcontractor who is not AS9100D certified is not acceptable for aerospace subcontracting.

Day 2: Shop Floor Assessment Forging Area

Press and hammer area: The US assessor observes a forging operation if one is underway. Specific observations:

1. Pyrometer use is the operator actually measuring billet temperature before each forging pass, or is the pyrometer present but not used?
2. Die condition verification is a check forging produced at the start of each run and measured before the batch proceeds?
3. Heat number transfer at billet cut the assessor observes the billet cutting operation and verifies that every piece receives the original heat number marking before being moved

Billet storage and identification: The assessor inspects the raw material storage area. Are billets organised by material and heat number? Are they physically segregated titanium from steel, aerospace grade from industrial grade? Is the identification (heat number, material specification, inspection status) legible on every billet? The physical organisation of raw material storage is a reliable proxy for the rigour of the traceability system.

Live traceability test: The assessor identifies a forging currently in production on the shop floor and asks the quality contact to trace it to the MTR in real time, without advance preparation. Complete trace in under 15 minutes is passing. Incomplete trace or a trace that requires more than 30 minutes is a finding.

Day 3: Heat Treatment and NDT Assessment

Heat treatment area: The assessor reviews all furnaces used for aerospace heat treatment. For each furnace:

1. The AMS 2750 calibration label is the current TUS within the required interval?
2. The last TUS report what temperature uniformity was achieved at the survey temperature?
3. A furnace chart from the most recent production cycle is it complete? Are the target temperatures achieved and maintained? For Inconel 718 double ageing, does the chart show the controlled furnace cool between stages?
4. Thermocouple storage are thermocouples individually identified, stored in protective containers, and calibration certificates filed?

Quench tank (for alloys requiring rapid quench): For titanium STA and Inconel 625 solution annealing: what is the quench tank volume? Is there mechanical agitation? Is water temperature monitored and controlled?

NDT area:

1. UT equipment: calibration label current? Calibration standard materials available specifically in the alloys required for the programme (Ti-6Al-4V, Inconel 718, steel)?
2. Immersion UT: tank dimensions measured (the assessor measures the tank physically, not relies on the supplier’s stated dimensions). Scanning system demonstrated is there automated position encoding?
3. FPI: penetrant system qualification records reviewed. UV lamp intensity verification records for the past 3 months reviewed
4. MT: method (wet or dry), UV lamp if wet fluorescent, calibration records
5. Inspector certifications: ASNT Level II certificates physically inspected all methods, all techniques, all expiry dates verified

Day 4: Test Laboratory and FAIR Capability

NABL-accredited laboratory:

1. OES spectrometer: make, model, calibration certificate current, standard reference materials in all relevant alloy families (steel, titanium, nickel alloys)
2. Tensile tester: load cell capacity, calibration certificate current
3. Impact tester: minimum achievable test temperature (physical demonstration if possible lower the cooling bath to -46°C and verify with a calibrated thermometer)
4. Hardness tester: all scales, calibration blocks current

FAIR capability:

1. CMM demonstration: the assessor asks to see the CMM probe a simple reference part and verify the measurement output format
2. Sample FAIR package review: the assessor reviews a completed AS9102 FAIR from a previous aerospace programme all forms present, balloon numbers cross-referenced correctly, all key characteristics on Form 4, special process certificates on Form 9

Assessment closeout: At the end of Day 4, the assessor presents a preliminary finding summary. Findings are classified as:

1. Major non-conformances: Issues that prevent qualification must be corrected and reverified before qualification proceeds
2. Minor non-conformances: Issues that require correction but do not prevent qualification proceeding if a corrective action plan is submitted
3. Observations: Good practice suggestions that are not formal findings

Stage 4: Corrective Action on Initial Assessment Findings

Typical Finding Categories and Resolution

Finding: TUS records not current at ageing temperatures (major)
Resolution: The supplier must conduct TUS at 718°C and 621°C on all furnaces used for Inconel 718 heat treatment, verify conformance to AMS 2750 uniformity requirements at these temperatures, and provide TUS reports to the prime for review before Stage 5 begins. Timeline: 4–8 weeks depending on TUS scheduling.

Finding: Immersion UT tank too small for expected disc forgings (major)
Resolution: Capital investment in a larger immersion tank or commitment to subcontract rotating component inspection to a facility with adequate immersion UT capability. If subcontracting, the subcontractor must be NADCAP-accredited for NDT. Timeline: 3–12 months depending on whether tank investment or subcontracting is the chosen path.

Finding: No Inconel 718 UT calibration standard (major)
Resolution: Procure an Inconel 718 calibration reference block with appropriate FBH sizes from a recognised reference standard manufacturer. Have it certified and entered into the calibration system. Timeline: 4–8 weeks.

Finding: FAIR samples show Form 4 (Key Characteristics) incomplete (minor)
Resolution: Retrain the FAIR preparation team on key characteristic identification for the prime’s drawing convention. Establish a second-person review of Form 4 completeness before any FAIR is submitted. Timeline: 2–4 weeks.

Finding: Titanium billet marking uses die stamps (major)
Resolution: Implement vibro-engraving or ink marking for titanium billet identification. Die stamping creates stress concentrations that can initiate fatigue cracks in titanium it is prohibited by most aerospace titanium specifications. Timeline: 1–2 weeks (implement marking procedure change).

Stage 5: Qualification Part Production and FAIR

Designing the Qualification Part Programme

The qualification part programme is designed to exercise every process step that the production programme will use in the same conditions that production will use them. Common mistakes that extend qualification timelines:

Mistake 1: Qualification at a lower complexity level than production.
If the production programme will require STA Ti-6Al-4V with immersion UT, but the qualification programme uses annealed Ti-6Al-4V with contact UT, the qualification does not validate the capabilities that production actually requires. The prime quality team will identify this and require a repeat qualification at the correct complexity level.

Mistake 2: Enhanced controls during qualification not representative of production.
If the Indian supplier assigns their most experienced operator to the qualification parts, uses fresh tooling that would not be used in normal production, and performs twice the normal inspection sampling, the qualification results do not represent what normal production will deliver. US prime quality teams are alert to this a qualification that goes perfectly with no findings, on a supplier who has never previously completed a FAIR to a US customer, raises questions about whether production controls are representative.

Mistake 3: Qualification geometry that does not challenge the supplier’s capability.
A simple rectangular forging is not representative of a complex structural fitting with multiple lugs and tight-tolerance features. The qualification geometry should be representative of the range of complexity the supplier will be asked to produce. Many primes specify a surrogate geometry for qualification not the actual production drawing (which may be ITAR-controlled) but a representative geometry with comparable geometric complexity.

The AS9102 FAIR: The Gateway to Production Approval

The First Article Inspection Report (FAIR) to AS9102 is the gateway document for production approval. US aerospace primes will not approve production of a new part number without a reviewed and accepted FAIR.

FAIR review by US prime quality teams:

US prime quality engineers review the FAIR package with a specific checklist:

Form 1 (Part Number Accountability): Is the drawing number and revision letter current? Does it match the drawing that was used for production?

Form 2 (Product Design Documentation): Are all referenced specifications listed? Are they at the current revision? A FAIR that references AMS 5663 Revision G when the current revision is Revision J will be returned.

Form 3 (Engineering Drawing Inspection): Every dimension on the drawing is ballooned. Every balloon number appears on Form 3 with actual measured value, nominal value, tolerance, measurement method, and equipment. Missing balloon numbers are a major FAIR finding.

Form 4 (Design Characteristic Accountability): All key characteristics are listed. Are they correctly identified on the ballooned drawing? Is the inspection method for each KC appropriate 100% inspection, not sampling?

Form 5 (Material Test Results): MTR attached and consistent with Form 1 part number. Independent chemistry analysis confirming AMS material specification compliance. Mechanical test results from witness coupons heat-treated with the production lot.

Form 9 (Special Process Certificates): Heat treatment certificate referencing the specific furnace, the procedure number and revision, the AMS 2750 calibration reference (TUS record number), and the batch identifier. NDT certificates referencing the specific inspector’s ASNT Level II certification number and expiry date, the calibration standard used, and the acceptance criteria applied.

FAIR common rejection reasons from US prime quality teams:

1. Drawing revision mismatch – Form 1 references earlier revision than current release
2. Missing dimensions not all drawing dimensions ballooned and measured
3. Form 4 incomplete key characteristics missed because the prime’s KC symbol was not recognised
4. Form 9 heat treatment certificate references a procedure that is not current revision
5. Form 9 NDT certificate references a calibration standard not in Inconel 718 for Inconel 718 forgings

Stage 6: Production Approval and First Production Lot

What Production Approval Means

Production approval by a US aerospace prime means that :

1. The Indian supplier’s AS9100D quality system has been assessed and found adequate for the programme
2. The specific processes used for the qualification part have been demonstrated to produce conforming parts
3. The AS9102 FAIR has been reviewed and accepted
4. Any findings from the initial assessment have been corrected and closed
5. The supplier is listed on the prime’s Approved Supplier List (ASL) for the specific material, process, and part category demonstrated

Production approval is part-number-specific and process-specific. Approval for titanium structural forgings does not extend to Inconel 718 rotating components. Approval at one material grade and process condition does not automatically extend to other grades and conditions each new combination typically requires a FAIR and may require a new assessment.

First Production Lot – Enhanced Controls

Most US aerospace primes apply enhanced inspection and surveillance to the first 3–5 production lots after approval:

1. 100% mechanical testing (tensile, hardness) rather than lot sampling
2. Prime quality representative present for heat treatment witness on the first lot (the prime travels to India or delegates to an approved source inspection company)
3. 100% FAIR for the first lot (all dimensions measured on all parts, not just the first article)
4. Detailed review of production records before first lot ships

After 3–5 successful first lots, controls typically relax to normal production sampling levels with periodic surveillance.

Stage 7: Ongoing Surveillance and Periodic Re-Assessment

Annual Surveillance

Most US aerospace primes conduct annual supplier surveillance either by questionnaire, remote desktop audit, or on-site visit for all AS9100D suppliers. For Indian suppliers, the surveillance visit may be conducted:

1. By the prime’s own supply chain quality engineer (requires India travel)
2. By a contracted supplier assessment service
3. By the prime delegating to the AS9100D certification body’s surveillance audit records (if the certification body’s audit scope and frequency are adequate for the prime’s requirements)

Annual surveillance covers: AS9100D recertification status in OASIS, NADCAP accreditation currency, delivery performance metrics, quality escape history, and any changes to key personnel, equipment, or processes since the last visit.

Notification of Changes

One of the most critical ongoing obligations for Indian aerospace forging suppliers is prompt notification of changes that may affect product conformance.
US aerospace primes require notification before any changes to:

1. Manufacturing location
2. Key processes (heat treatment procedures, NDT procedures)
3. Key equipment (replacing a production furnace or UT system)
4. Key personnel (quality director or lead metallurgist)
5. Subcontractors used for any processes
6. Raw material sources

Undisclosed changes even changes that the Indian supplier believes are neutral or positive are a major quality system violation. US primes who discover undisclosed changes may suspend the supplier from their ASL pending investigation.

Vinir Engineering’s Qualification Readiness for US Aerospace Primes

Vinir Engineering’s qualification position for US aerospace prime supplier assessment:

AS9100D: Current across all four manufacturing units, Bureau Veritas (IAQG-recognised), verifiable in OASIS. Scope covering closed die forging, open die forging, ring rolling, radial forging, heat treatment, NDT, CNC machining, and assembly for aerospace, defence, and industrial applications.

NABL: NABL-accredited in-house testing laboratory covering OES chemical analysis, tensile testing, Charpy impact, and hardness to ASTM methods aligned with AMS specifications.

AMS 2750 compliance: All production furnaces calibrated per AMS 2750. TUS records current at production temperatures including ageing temperatures for Inconel 718 double ageing.

NDT: Contact UT with alloy-specific calibration standards (steel, titanium, Inconel). FPI to AMS 2647 equivalent. MT. ASNT Level II certified operators.

FAIR experience: AS9102 FAIR packages completed for aerospace and defence OEM customers in India and internationally. CMM dimensional inspection for key characteristics.

Material traceability: Documented traceability procedure. Live traceability demonstration available during site visits any forging in production traced to its MTR within 15 minutes.

ITAR awareness: ITAR awareness procedure in place. Engagement with ITAR compliance pathway for US defence programme technical data.

Production history: 42 years of aerospace and defence forging production. Ti-6Al-4V, Inconel 718 and 625, 4340, 300M, EN24, 7075-T6 all with documented production history.

For US aerospace prime supply chain quality teams planning Indian supplier assessments, Vinir provides a pre-assessment package within 5 working days: AS9100D certificate with OASIS verification reference, NABL scope, AMS 2750 TUS record summary, ASNT Level II operator certifications, sample FAIR package from previous aerospace programme, and a completed self-assessment questionnaire aligned to the prime’s format.

Frequently Asked Questions
US Aerospace Primes Qualifying Indian Forging Suppliers