Cost-benefit case for the quality-system investment inside this program's budget — the AS9100 QMS discipline, First Article Inspection, and Material Review Board process — measured against the cost of a single prevented field escape.
This is a scenario estimate, not a guarantee: the avoidance figure below uses a widely cited aerospace rule of thumb that a defect caught at First Article is far cheaper to fix than the same defect caught after delivery (an Aircraft-on-Ground event, warranty claim, and supplier corrective-action cycle). It illustrates why the investment is proportionate to the risk, not a forecast of an actual incident.
Quality Investment (this program)
| Line | Amount |
|---|---|
| Tooling & Fixtures NRE (supports repeatable FAI) | $210,000 |
| FAI Lab / Metrology / NDT Testing | $55,000 |
| Dedicated Quality Engineering labor (Phase 1+2, QMS/FAI/MRB roles) | $55,000 |
| Total Quality Investment | $320,000 |
Estimated Cost of One Prevented Field Escape
| Scenario | Estimated Cost |
|---|---|
| Aircraft-on-Ground (AOG) response, root-cause investigation, supplier corrective action, and potential re-work/return-to-supplier for a nonconformance discovered after delivery instead of at First Article | $2,100,000 |
Return on Quality Investment
| Metric | Value |
|---|---|
| Quality Investment | $320,000 |
| Estimated Avoidance (one prevented escape) | $2,100,000 |
| Estimated ROI | 6.6x |
See First Article Inspection and Material Review Board for the process detail behind this investment.