Aircraft inspections are the cornerstone of airworthiness management — yet the practice demands far more than ticking boxes on a maintenance schedule. This guide covers every major inspection type, the step-by-step process a technical representative follows from scope agreement to report delivery, and the documentation disciplines that separate an average report from one that protects all parties when a dispute arises.
At its most fundamental level, an aircraft inspection is a systematic evaluation of an aircraft's physical condition, maintenance records, and continued airworthiness status against a defined scope and standard. That definition, however, encompasses an enormous range of activities — from an owner-operator's annual check conducted under FAR Part 91 in a small hangar in Kansas, to a full lease-return inspection on an Airbus A330 being released from a major carrier in Singapore after eight years of commercial service. The technical representative engaged for each of these tasks works from the same foundational disciplines, but the commercial stakes, regulatory context, and deliverable format differ considerably.
In the regulatory context, the word "inspection" carries specific weight. Under EASA Part-M (Subpart I), an Airworthiness Review is a structured assessment of maintenance records and physical condition that forms the basis for issuing or reissuing an Airworthiness Review Certificate (ARC). Under EASA Part-145, approved maintenance organisations conduct scheduled and unscheduled inspections as part of a contracted maintenance programme, with every finding managed through a work order system and signed off under the organisation's certifying staff authorisation. In the United States, FAR 91.409 mandates an annual inspection for all aircraft not operated under a continuous airworthiness programme, requiring sign-off by an FAA-certificated Airframe and Powerplant mechanic holding Inspection Authorisation.
Commercial inspections — those commissioned outside of, or in parallel with, the regulatory framework — serve a different master. A pre-purchase inspection is commissioned by a buyer or their financing institution to establish the true technical condition of an asset before contract execution. A mid-lease check is commissioned by a lessor to verify the lessee is maintaining the aircraft in accordance with the lease agreement and approved maintenance programme. A redelivery inspection is triggered at lease expiration, establishing the return condition for the purposes of supplemental rent, security deposit reconciliation, and acceptance or rejection of the aircraft. In every one of these cases, the technical representative — whether employed by the lessor, the buyer, or engaged as an independent — is the person whose expertise, methodology, and documentation quality determines how useful the inspection actually is.
The role of the tech rep is distinct from that of a certifying engineer or an authorised release certifying staff (ARCS). The tech rep does not certify the aircraft for airworthiness — that authority rests with the Part-145 organisation or the owner-operator's Part-M organisation. The tech rep's function is investigative and representative: they audit the maintenance records, physically assess the airframe, engines, systems, and interior, document all findings with severity and photographic evidence, and deliver a structured report that gives their client an accurate, independent picture of the asset. When disputes arise post-transaction — and in commercial aviation, they frequently do — the tech rep's report is the document everyone reaches for first.
Consider a tech rep engaged by a European lessor to perform a mid-lease check on a B737-800 in Amsterdam. The aircraft is six years into a ten-year lease. Within the first hour of records review, she identifies two Airworthiness Directives in the AD log that show compliance accomplished, but the associated work order numbers do not appear in the aircraft's maintenance records. That discrepancy — worth documenting precisely, with document references and photographs of the relevant log pages — could indicate routine administrative error, or it could indicate a serious records integrity problem. The value of a rigorous tech rep lies entirely in recognising that difference and communicating it with the clarity that allows the lessor's legal team to act decisively.
The landscape of commercial aircraft inspections is broader than many outside the industry appreciate. Each inspection type exists to answer a specific question for a specific stakeholder, and understanding those distinctions is essential for a tech rep setting scope with a client.
A pre-purchase inspection (commonly abbreviated PPI) is commissioned by the prospective buyer — or their financier, in the case of a debt-financed acquisition — to establish the genuine condition of the aircraft before purchase contracts are signed. It is arguably the highest-stakes inspection type because the findings directly determine the purchase price, the conditions attached to the sale, and in some cases whether the transaction proceeds at all. The scope typically encompasses a full records review covering the aircraft's entire maintenance history, AD and SB compliance status, life-limited parts (LLPs) tracking, Certificate of Airworthiness validity, weight and balance documentation, and the full damage repair history including repairs not captured in the structural repair manual (SRM).
The physical inspection in a pre-purchase context is equally comprehensive: an ATA zone walk covering all accessible external surfaces, control surfaces, and undercarriage bays; a borescope inspection of each engine core; an avionics and systems functional check where access and time permit; and an interior survey covering cabin, galley, lavatory, and cargo hold condition. The deliverable is a written report with findings classified by severity, a complete photo annex, and — if the tech rep has been adequately briefed — a commercial summary that allows the buyer's negotiating team to calculate a fair market adjustment. Detailed guidance on the pre-purchase process appears in our dedicated resource at aircraft pre-buy inspection guide, and our aircraft pre-buy inspection checklist provides a structured template for zone-by-zone coverage.
The annual inspection under FAR 91.409 applies to aircraft operated in the United States that are not on an approved continuous airworthiness maintenance programme. It must be completed every twelve calendar months and signed off by an IA-authorised mechanic. The scope follows the manufacturer's maintenance manual and is generally defined by the FAA-accepted inspection procedures for the aircraft type, covering airframe, engine, propeller (where applicable), and required instruments. The 100-hour inspection is structurally identical to the annual inspection but applies to aircraft operated commercially for hire — it must be performed every 100 flight hours rather than annually, with the annual still required once per calendar year regardless of hours flown.
For a commercial aircraft tech rep, these inspection types are more commonly encountered in the general aviation context — a turboprop commuter, a Cessna Citation operated under FAR Part 135, or a piston twin used for charter. The tech rep engaged for an annual on a commercial turboprop will review the aircraft's airframe and powerplant logbooks, verify all ADs are current and properly documented, inspect the airframe against the manufacturer's inspection checklist, and confirm the avionics are functional and the cockpit documentation (AFM, MEL, weight and balance) is on board and current. The annual inspection is also the event at which an EASA Part-M organisation performs an airworthiness review for the purposes of issuing or revalidating an ARC under Part-M Subpart I.
A C-check — or its structural inspection equivalent, the D-check for a full structural overhaul — represents the most intensive level of scheduled maintenance a commercial aircraft undergoes. Performed at intervals specified in the aircraft's approved maintenance programme (typically every 18–24 months for a C-check, dependent on utilisation and programme structure), it is conducted in a Part-145 approved heavy maintenance facility and involves the removal of interior, access panels, and fairings to allow inspection of structural frames, skin doublers, floor beams, and corrosion-prone zones that are inaccessible during line maintenance. For a wide-body aircraft, a full C-check can run to 25,000 man-hours over three to four weeks.
The tech rep's role during a C-check is that of an owner's or lessor's representative embedded in the MRO facility. They attend daily or twice-daily workscope review meetings with the MRO's planning team, review Non-Routine (NR) cards raised when additional findings are uncovered during the check, assess findings against SRM limits to determine whether repair or deferral is appropriate, and track the labour hours and material costs against budget. A well-organised tech rep running a C-check will maintain a live log of all open NR cards, their status, and their financial impact — a discipline that becomes critical when the aircraft's owner is being billed for additional work and needs real-time visibility into what is being authorised. The deliverable at the end of a C-check oversight engagement is typically a completion report detailing all NR findings, their resolution, and any deferred items carried forward with appropriate deferred defect documentation.
A delivery inspection occurs when a new aircraft is accepted from the manufacturer or when a used aircraft is delivered into a new operating lease. The lessee's tech rep — or the lessor's rep if the lessee is a start-up without in-house technical capacity — verifies that the aircraft matches its delivery specification, that all contractually required maintenance has been accomplished, that the aircraft's records are complete and properly organised, and that the physical condition corresponds to what was agreed in the lease agreement. For a new-delivery aircraft from an Airbus or Boeing final assembly line, the delivery inspection includes witnessing of ground runs, systems tests, and a production acceptance flight before the lessor's formal acceptance signature.
A redelivery inspection — triggered at lease end — is in many respects the mirror image of delivery. The lessor's tech rep compares the aircraft's current condition against the delivery condition and the maintenance return conditions stipulated in the lease. Any shortfall generates a findings list, and the financial settlement between lessor and lessee depends directly on the accuracy, completeness, and defensibility of the tech rep's documentation. This is the inspection type where inadequate photo evidence and imprecise finding descriptions most frequently result in protracted commercial disputes. A tech rep who can link every finding to a specific ATA zone, photograph, and document reference — and who has secured a signed scope agreement before the inspection began — is infinitely better positioned to defend their conclusions than one who relied on handwritten notes and verbal agreements about inspection scope.
Mid-lease inspections are periodic checks conducted by or on behalf of the lessor during the term of the lease to verify that the lessee is maintaining the aircraft in accordance with the approved maintenance programme and the lease agreement. They are not defined by regulation — they exist purely as a contractual right of the lessor — but most commercial aircraft leases include provisions for one or more mid-lease checks, typically at 36 or 48-month intervals. The scope is primarily records-focused: verifying that the maintenance programme is being applied correctly, that ADs are being addressed within their compliance windows, that LLP status is being accurately tracked, and that the aircraft's maintenance records are being maintained in an organised, traceable state. A physical spot-check of accessible areas is normally included, with particular attention to corrosion, damage history, and the condition of high-wear items such as landing gear doors, cargo hold linings, and thrust reverser components.
The Airworthiness Review Certificate is the EASA instrument that confirms an aircraft meets the conditions for continued airworthiness under Part-M. It is issued following a structured airworthiness review that includes a records review (verifying the aircraft's maintenance programme is approved and being applied, that all mandatory modifications are incorporated, and that all life-limited components are within their approved limits) and a physical survey of the aircraft to confirm its condition is consistent with the records. The review may be performed by a Part-M Continuing Airworthiness Management Organisation (CAMO) holding appropriate approval, or by a Part-145 organisation with Part-M Subpart I approval. The ARC is issued for twelve months and may be revalidated up to twice by appropriately qualified Part-M subpart-G or subpart-F personnel before a full re-issue is required. For independent tech reps working in the Part-M environment, understanding the ARC process — even if they are not the issuing authority — is essential context for interpreting maintenance records and assessing an aircraft's regulatory standing.
Regardless of inspection type, a professional tech rep follows a structured process from the moment of engagement to the moment of report delivery. The discipline of the process — not the tech rep's experience alone — is what produces consistent, defensible results. Experience shapes judgment; process ensures nothing is missed.
The process begins with the client brief and scope agreement. Before travelling to any aircraft, the tech rep must establish in writing exactly what the client needs to know, what physical areas and systems are in scope, what documentation access has been arranged with the operator or MRO, and what constraints apply — time available, access limitations, whether the borescope team has been separately arranged. A scope agreement signed by both parties protects the tech rep from post-inspection claims that they should have checked something outside the agreed scope, and protects the client from receiving a report that does not address their actual concerns. The scope agreement should specify the aircraft registration, MSN, and type; the inspection dates and location; the specific areas included and excluded; and the intended report format and delivery date.
The records review phase typically precedes the physical inspection and can account for a significant portion of the total inspection time — on a complex pre-purchase of a ten-year-old widebody, records review alone can run to two or three days. The tech rep works through the aircraft's technical records in a structured sequence: Certificate of Airworthiness and associated documentation; the aircraft's current approved maintenance programme; AD compliance status against the applicable FAA or EASA AD databases; SB incorporation status against the manufacturer's current revision of the SB index; LLP tracking document for each engine and APU; the damage and repair history; the maintenance log covering recent flights and defect rectification; and the HT (hard-time) component status document confirming all time-controlled items are within their limits. Any gap, inconsistency, or anomaly identified during records review is documented at the time, with the relevant document references noted for inclusion in the report.
The physical inspection follows a zone-based structure aligned to the ATA 100 chapter system. A tech rep on a B737-800 mid-lease check in Amsterdam, for example, will begin with the nose radome and forward fuselage zones (ATA Zones 100–120), working aft along the fuselage to the tail, then addressing the wing, pylon and engine nacelle zones, and finally the landing gear bays. Each zone is inspected systematically: skin condition for dents, scratches, corrosion, and disbonding; fastener condition for fretting and missing hardware; seal and gasket condition on access panels and fairings; any visible structural repair documentation compared against the aircraft's SRM repair record. The tech rep photographs each finding at the time of discovery, with a reference object for scale where the finding's dimensions are relevant, and records the finding against the appropriate ATA zone immediately rather than relying on memory at end-of-day writeup.
The findings documentation and photo management phase is where inspection quality is most visibly differentiated. A finding is only as useful as the description attached to it. "Corrosion noted on frame" is not a finding — it is an observation. A proper finding reads: "Zone 141, FS 727, LH Side — Filiform corrosion observed on the inner skin surface at approximately 3 o'clock on frame S-14L. Affected area approximately 80mm x 40mm. Corrosion is light surface corrosion per SRM 53-10-01 criteria; no pitting observed. Photos 047–052." That level of specificity allows the aircraft operator to route the finding to the correct engineering authority, the correct SRM chapter, and the correct maintenance planning desk. Photos should be numbered sequentially, associated with specific findings by number, and organised by ATA zone. At the end of each inspection day, the day's findings and photos should be backed up to a second location — losing a day's work to a dropped phone is not theoretical.
Once all zones have been inspected and all records reviewed, the tech rep moves into report preparation. The draft report should be circulated to the client for factual review before finalisation — not to allow the client to remove adverse findings, but to verify that the tech rep has not misidentified an aircraft component or misquoted a document reference. Once confirmed, the report is issued as a finalised PDF with a clear revision number and date on each page, the tech rep's contact details and qualifications on the cover, and a scope and limitations section that makes explicit the boundaries of the assessment. An inspection report that does not state its own limitations is less defensible than one that is frank about what was not checked and why.
The ATA 100 chapter system is the universal organisational framework for commercial aircraft maintenance and inspection documentation. Originally developed by the Air Transport Association (now Airlines for America) in the 1950s and since adopted globally, the ATA numbering system assigns a two-digit chapter number to every aircraft system and structural zone: ATA 05 covers time limits and maintenance checks; ATA 21 covers air conditioning; ATA 27 covers flight controls; ATA 32 covers landing gear; ATA 53 covers fuselage structure. For inspections, the ATA zone numbering system — distinct from but complementary to the chapter system — divides the aircraft's physical envelope into standardised zones to allow systematic physical coverage. Any professional inspection checklist is structured around these zone numbers, ensuring that every zone is visited in a logical sequence and that findings are recorded in a way that is immediately interpretable by any qualified engineer familiar with the aircraft type.
In the fuselage zones (Zones 100–200 in the standard Boeing zone system; Zones 100–199 in the Airbus convention), the tech rep assesses external skin condition across all fuselage panels from nose to tail, with particular attention to the crown skin (prone to disbonding of insulation blankets leading to corrosion), the keel beam area (prone to moisture ingress and galvanic corrosion at fastener holes), the window belt area (prone to fatigue cracking at window corners on high-cycle aircraft), and the forward and aft cargo doors and their surrounding structure. On narrow-body aircraft with high utilisation, the fuselage crown skin aft of the wing box and above the rear galley/lavatory area is a known site of accelerated corrosion from moisture accumulation, and a thorough tech rep will request access to the crown panels in this zone specifically.
The wing and empennage zones (Zones 500–600 in both major conventions) cover the wing leading edge, trailing edge, upper and lower wing surfaces, slat and flap track fairings, fuel tank access panels, and the horizontal and vertical stabiliser. Wing lower surface inspection is particularly important on aircraft that have operated in environments with aggressive deicing fluid use, as certain Type I and Type II fluids can attack composite materials and sealants around fuel tank access panels if groundhandling procedures are not rigorously applied. The tech rep checks for delamination, paint blistering, and sealant deterioration around panel edges. Aileron, spoiler, and flap hinge areas are checked for evidence of corrosion and proper lubrication, with any hardover-stop paint transfer on flight control surfaces noted as a potential indicator of a previous overload event.
For the engines and pylons (ATA Chapter 71–80 series, Zone 700 in the zone system), the physical inspection covers the fan cowl panels and their latching mechanisms, the thrust reverser translating sleeve and its actuator fairings, the nacelle lipskin and inlet cowl, the exhaust system, and the pylon-to-wing and pylon-to-engine attach fittings. The borescope inspection — conducted by a qualified borescope technician, typically a licensed engineer with engine type endorsement — covers the fan, compressor, combustion section, turbine, and exhaust using a flexible borescope via the borescope ports defined in the engine maintenance manual. Findings are recorded with the borescope stage and clock position, and graded against the engine manufacturer's serviceable limits in the relevant Engine Manual (EM) or its equivalent.
The landing gear (ATA Chapter 32) is one of the most scrutinised areas in any major inspection. The main gear and nose gear bays are inspected for corrosion on the bay structure, condition of hydraulic lines and electrical wiring bundles, condition of door hinges and actuation mechanisms, and the state of the gear leg paint and surface protection. The shock strut extension is measured and compared to the manufacturer's specified range. Brake wear indicators are checked and remaining wear is documented. Tyre condition, including tread depth and sidewall condition, is recorded. The life status of any time-controlled gear components — shock strut seals, gear pin bushings, actuators with calendar or cycle limits — is verified against the HT component status list.
The records review checklist is as important as the physical checklist. AD compliance verification requires cross-checking the aircraft's AD status document against the FAA and EASA AD databases for the applicable type certificate — not simply accepting the operator's list at face value. Service bulletin incorporation status is checked against the manufacturer's current SB index, noting which SBs have been accomplished (mandatory or optional), which are open, and which have been deferred with engineering authority. The weight and balance manual must be confirmed as current to the aircraft's actual configuration. Damage repair documentation must be reviewed against the aircraft's structural damage history to confirm all documented repairs have an associated authorised SRM or engineering order repair scheme and have been properly signed off.
AircraftInspecti's aircraft inspection checklist app provides structured, type-specific checklists built around the ATA zone system, with integrated photo capture, finding classification, and automatic organisation by zone — designed specifically for tech reps who need to manage findings systematically from a mobile device in the hangar, rather than working from a spreadsheet that must be manually organised after the fact.
The technical quality of an aircraft inspection and the documentary quality of its report are not the same thing. A tech rep with twenty years of type-specific experience can still produce a report that is commercially useless — or worse, legally indefensible — if their documentation discipline is poor. These are the mistakes that most frequently degrade the value of an otherwise competent inspection.
Vague finding descriptions are the most widespread problem in aircraft inspection documentation and the one with the most direct commercial consequences. A finding described as "corrosion noted on wing structure" provides no actionable information. It does not identify the ATA zone, the specific structural member, the type of corrosion (filiform, pitting, intergranular, galvanic), the affected area in measured dimensions, or a reference to the applicable SRM assessment criteria. When that aircraft is sold and the buyer's engineer attempts to assess the finding three months later, the description is worthless — they cannot determine whether the corrosion was within SRM limits, has propagated, or was in a primary or secondary structure location. Every finding must answer the same set of questions: where exactly, what type, what dimensions, what severity classification, what standard was applied to that classification, and which photographs reference the finding.
Missing photo cross-references are the second most common failure. Inspection reports that contain a findings table and a separate photo appendix with no explicit link between the two force the reader to spend time matching photos to findings by visual inspection — a process that introduces ambiguity and erodes confidence in the report. Every finding should carry a photo reference number, and every photo in the appendix should carry the finding reference number and ATA zone. This is not administrative pedantry; it is the difference between a report that can be used directly by an engineering authority to raise a work order, and one that requires a follow-up call to the tech rep to clarify what they were looking at.
Failure to document scope limitations is a subtler but equally serious problem. Inspection scopes are almost always constrained by practical realities: an aircraft may be in service and certain zones are not accessible without a hangar slot and panel removal; the client's timeline may not allow a full records review; the borescope team may not have been available. A report that does not explicitly state what was not checked — and why — will eventually be read by someone who assumes the absence of a finding means the area was clean rather than uninspected. The scope and limitations section of a report is not a liability disclaimer; it is a critical piece of information that allows the reader to correctly interpret the report's conclusions. "Engine borescope not performed — operator declined access during this inspection" is an important datum, not a failure of the tech rep.
Inadequate severity classification is particularly damaging in pre-purchase and redelivery contexts where the findings table drives a direct commercial negotiation. When all findings are recorded as "noted" or "for attention" without differentiation between a cosmetic paint chip and a structural crack approaching an SRM limit, the client is left without the prioritisation they need to negotiate effectively. A well-structured inspection report applies a consistent severity classification system — such as Critical / Major / Minor / Cosmetic, or a numerical 1–4 scale — defined clearly in the report's methodology section and applied uniformly across all findings. A finding classified as Critical should carry the specific regulatory or engineering basis for that classification, so the finding cannot be contested on the grounds that the tech rep applied their own arbitrary standard.
Absence of revision control on the report creates confusion when, as commonly happens, the initial draft generates questions or corrections that require the report to be updated. A report with no revision number and no revision history section makes it impossible to determine — six months later, in a dispute — which version of the report was relied upon for a particular decision. Every report should carry a revision index on the cover and a revision history table on the first internal page. Rev 00 is the initial issue; Rev 01 incorporates client corrections of factual errors; Rev 02 might add findings identified during a re-inspection of disputed items. Each revision should be dated and should note what changed. This discipline also prevents the inadvertent use of a superseded report version in a subsequent transaction involving the same aircraft.
The inspection report is the only tangible product of a tech rep's engagement. The quality of the physical inspection will ultimately be judged by the quality of the report — not because the two are the same thing, but because the report is all the client, their legal team, and any future reader has to work with. A report that accurately reflects a thorough inspection but is poorly structured, inconsistently formatted, or lacking in evidential rigour will undermine the credibility of the work it describes.
A professional inspection report opens with a cover page that carries the aircraft type and registration, the MSN, the inspection date(s) and location, the client's name and the tech rep's name and qualifications, the report reference number, and the revision status. The first substantive section is an executive summary — typically one to two pages — that provides a non-technical reader with the aircraft's overall airworthiness and commercial condition assessment, highlights the most significant findings, and states any conditions the tech rep considers necessary for the aircraft to meet its contractual or regulatory obligations. The executive summary must be written as a standalone document: a lessor's asset management director who does not have time to read 80 pages of technical findings must be able to form an accurate operational picture from the first two pages.
The body of the report follows a defined structure: scope and limitations; records review summary; physical inspection findings by ATA zone; and a recommendations section where the tech rep provides their professional assessment of priority and proposed resolution for each finding. The photo evidence annex is appended as a separate section with photos organised by ATA zone and cross-referenced to findings by number. In complex inspections, a separate damage chart or findings map — typically a simplified aircraft outline with finding locations marked — is included to give a spatial overview of the findings distribution.
Sign-off requirements vary by inspection type and jurisdiction. A tech rep performing a commercial inspection for a lessor is not signing an airworthiness release — they are providing a professional opinion, and the report should make that distinction explicit. The sign-off page should carry the tech rep's name, licence number (EASA Part-66 or FAA A&P/IA as applicable), type ratings held, the date of signature, and a statement of the basis on which the assessment was made. If multiple tech reps contributed to the inspection — one for records, one for physical, one for borescope — each signs off their respective section. Avoid the practice of having a single tech rep sign off work performed by another: in a dispute, that conflation of responsibility will be the first line of attack on the report's credibility.
Reports should be delivered as PDF files with embedded photos rather than as linked files or separate photo archives. A self-contained PDF ensures that the report is readable — and the photos are visible — regardless of the client's email infrastructure or document management system. The PDF should be named with the aircraft registration, MSN, inspection type, and report revision: G-ABCD_MSN4729_RedeliveryInspection_Rev01_20260526.pdf. Retention of the native files — including the original photo files — is the tech rep's professional obligation for a minimum of five years after report issue, providing the ability to respond to any subsequent dispute or query. For a more detailed treatment of report structure and professional standards, see our complete guide to how to write an aircraft inspection report.
AircraftInspecti is a purpose-built mobile application designed for professional aircraft technical representatives who conduct commercial inspections — pre-purchase, mid-lease, redelivery, C-check oversight, and annual reviews. The application addresses the workflow gap that every working tech rep knows: the inspection itself is conducted with a phone camera and handwritten notes, and the report is then assembled hours later in a hotel room from imperfect recollections, an unorganised photo library, and a generic Word template that was never designed for the task.
The app structures the inspection workflow from the moment the tech rep arrives at the aircraft. Checklists are organised by ATA zone and customisable to the specific scope agreed with the client. Findings are logged directly against the relevant ATA zone, with immediate photo capture linked to the finding record — no post-inspection photo sorting required. Each finding carries a severity classification, a free-text description field, and automatic timestamp and GPS metadata. The result is a structured, referenced findings database that reflects the actual sequence of the inspection and provides the complete evidentiary basis for the report.
At the end of the inspection, AircraftInspecti generates a formatted PDF report with a cover page, executive summary, zone-by-zone findings table, and integrated photo annex — all cross-referenced automatically. The tech rep reviews and finalises the report within the app, signs off with their licence and rating details, and delivers it to the client directly. Revision control is managed within the application, maintaining a complete revision history for every report. The approach does not change how a tech rep inspects an aircraft — it changes how efficiently and completely that work is captured and communicated.
AircraftInspecti gives professional tech reps ATA-structured checklists, integrated photo-finding links, and one-tap PDF report generation — purpose-built for commercial aircraft inspections.
Get Early AccessFor independent tech reps managing a high volume of inspection engagements, the efficiency gain is substantial: less time spent organising photo archives and manually cross-referencing findings reduces the post-inspection report assembly time from several hours to a fraction of that, allowing the tech rep to take on more engagements at the same level of report quality. For lessors and technical services companies deploying multiple tech reps simultaneously — on a portfolio-wide mid-lease programme, for example — the standardised output format means every report from every team member follows the same structure, simplifying review by in-house engineering and asset management teams.
The application is designed for use in the hangar environment: it functions offline, syncing when connectivity is restored, and the interface is built for gloved hands and bright ambient light rather than optimised for comfortable desktop use. AircraftInspecti is not a generic inspection app adapted for aviation — it is built from the ground up for the specific workflow of an aircraft technical representative conducting a commercial inspection on a commercial transport category aircraft.