An aircraft pre-buy inspection is the buyer's most powerful tool in any aircraft acquisition — and the one most frequently compromised by inadequate scope, unqualified representatives, or poor documentation. This guide explains what a pre-buy inspection covers, who should perform it, what it costs, what the report must contain, and how to avoid the red flags that experienced tech reps know to look for first.
An aircraft pre-buy inspection — sometimes referred to in the industry as a pre-purchase inspection or PPI — is a comprehensive technical assessment of an aircraft's physical condition and maintenance record status, conducted on behalf of a prospective buyer before the purchase agreement is signed. Its purpose is straightforward: to give the buyer, their legal advisors, and in most cases their financing institution an accurate, independent picture of what they are actually acquiring, rather than the picture presented by the seller's commercial interest. For a detailed overview of how pre-buy inspections fit within the broader landscape of inspection types, see our aircraft inspection guide.
The inspection occurs at a specific, carefully chosen point in the transaction timeline. A letter of intent (LOI) will typically have been executed — establishing the parties' intention to proceed subject to satisfactory inspection — but the purchase agreement will not yet have been signed. This is the window during which the buyer has maximum leverage: if the inspection reveals findings that change the asset's value, or conditions that were not disclosed, the buyer can renegotiate the price, require rectification as a condition of completion, or walk away. Once the purchase agreement is executed, that leverage largely disappears, which is why buyers who defer the inspection to post-signing — or who accept a cursory check to save time — frequently inherit problems they cannot commercially address.
It is important to distinguish a pre-buy inspection from a ferry flight check. A ferry check, sometimes conducted informally before a positioning flight, verifies that an aircraft is safe and serviceable for a specific flight — it is not a condition assessment. It checks that the aircraft is airworthy for that day's operation; it says nothing about the state of the maintenance records, the adequacy of the repair history documentation, the remaining life on life-limited parts, or the presence of deferred defects that fall within the MEL but represent a commercial liability for the buyer. A buyer who relies on a ferry check as their pre-purchase due diligence has not conducted a pre-buy inspection — they have conducted a spot airworthiness check. The distinction matters enormously when the aircraft arrives at its new operator's base and the first scheduled C-check reveals €800,000 of deferred structural work that the seller knew about.
Consider a private equity-backed aircraft leasing company acquiring a six-year-old Airbus A321 from a Middle Eastern carrier as part of a three-aircraft portfolio deal. The deal economics are tight, and the buyer's team proposes limiting the pre-buy to a one-day records review and external walkaround to save time and cost. Their tech rep pushes back and insists on a full two-day inspection including a borescope on both CFM56-5B engines. On day two, the borescope reveals significant HPT blade tip oxidation on the number two engine that correlates with an oil consumption trend the records review had already flagged as anomalous. The engine is within serviceable limits — but only just — and the next shop visit, less than 1,200 cycles away, will involve an unplanned HPT module replacement. The estimated cost: approximately €1.4 million per engine. The buyer renegotiates a price reduction that more than covers the pre-buy cost. That is what a pre-buy inspection is for.
A pre-buy inspection must be performed by a qualified aircraft technical representative with specific, documented experience on the aircraft type under inspection. The emphasis on type-specific experience is not formalistic: a highly experienced B737 tech rep working their first A320 inspection will miss findings that a seasoned A320 representative would identify immediately, because the structural architecture, corrosion-prone zones, known service difficulties, and AD landscape are fundamentally different. The buyer's interests are not served by a generalist who is learning the type on their time and money. Formal confirmation of type-specific experience — ideally evidenced by a portfolio of previous inspections on that type — should be requested before engagement.
In the EASA regulatory environment, the technical representative conducting a pre-buy inspection will typically hold an EASA Part-66 licence with a Category B1 (airframe/powerplant) rating and type endorsement for the aircraft under inspection, or a Category B2 (avionics) rating for the electrical and avionics elements of the assessment. Part-66 certification is not strictly a legal requirement for conducting a commercial pre-buy inspection — which is a condition assessment rather than a certifying release — but it is the industry standard for demonstrating competence, and any serious buyer's legal team or financing institution will expect the tech rep's credentials to be documented in the report. In the FAA environment, the equivalent standard is an Airframe and Powerplant (A&P) certificate, with Inspection Authorisation (IA) endorsement preferred for complex aircraft.
The independence requirement is non-negotiable. The pre-buy tech rep must be independent of the seller, the seller's maintenance organisation, and any other party with a financial interest in the transaction proceeding. This means the tech rep cannot be employed by the selling airline or lessor, cannot be affiliated with the MRO facility that has been maintaining the aircraft, and cannot receive any fee, benefit, or future work commitment from any party other than the buyer. Independence is not merely an ethical preference — it is the commercial foundation of the inspection's value. A report produced by a tech rep who is also the seller's preferred MRO contact, or who hopes to win the post-sale maintenance contract, is a report whose conclusions will be questioned and whose legal defensibility is compromised.
Buyers have three practical options for sourcing a pre-buy tech rep. A freelance independent technical representative with the relevant type experience and a documented inspection history is often the most cost-effective option for a single acquisition; the buyer engages them directly, they work solely in the buyer's interest, and the report carries their individual professional credentials. A technical services company — an organisation that employs a team of type-rated tech reps and provides inspection services commercially — offers greater institutional capacity and the ability to provide a team for a complex, time-constrained inspection, typically at a higher fee than a freelance representative. The buyer's in-house technical team, where the buyer is a sophisticated commercial operator with their own engineering department, can perform the inspection themselves if type-specific competence exists in-house and independence from the seller is clearly documented; this is common among the larger lessors and airlines acquiring aircraft for their own fleet. In all three cases, the key criteria are the same: type experience, independence, and a track record of producing defensible, structured reports.
The scope of a pre-buy inspection is determined by agreement between the buyer and the tech rep before the inspection begins. A well-scoped pre-buy inspection for a narrow-body commercial aircraft will cover the following areas. For a structured zone-by-zone checklist, refer to our dedicated aircraft pre-buy inspection checklist.
The physical airframe inspection follows the ATA zone numbering system, providing a systematic framework for covering the aircraft's entire external envelope without omission. The tech rep works through each zone — from the nose radome and forward fuselage through to the tail cone, wing surfaces, empennage, and all control surfaces — assessing the external skin for dents, scratches, corrosion, disbonded paint, and any evidence of previous repairs. Each finding is documented with its ATA zone reference, its dimensions where relevant, its severity classification per the applicable structural repair manual (SRM) criteria, and photographic evidence.
Structural zones that warrant heightened attention during a pre-buy include the forward and aft pressure bulkheads (prone to fatigue cracking and corrosion on high-cycle aircraft), the crown skin above the rear galley and lavatory area (prone to moisture-induced corrosion from condensation and plumbing leaks), the keel beam and lower fuselage below the wing-to-body join (prone to galvanic corrosion at dissimilar-metal fastener holes), and the wing-to-fuselage join fairing areas (prone to paint lifting and sealant deterioration leading to water ingress). A dent and buckle survey, correlating observed dents against the operator's damage chart and SRM allowable damage limits, is a standard component of the airframe physical assessment. Any repair not documented on the damage chart — particularly repairs to primary structure — is a significant finding requiring immediate escalation.
Engine condition assessment in a pre-buy inspection encompasses multiple information streams. The records review for each engine covers the technical logbook, the engine health monitoring (EHM) data if accessible, the oil consumption trend, the shop visit history (including all work cards and borescope findings from previous shop visits), and the current status of life-limited parts — specifically the remaining cycles to limits for the high-pressure compressor (HPC) disc stack, the high-pressure turbine (HPT) disc and blades, and the low-pressure turbine (LPT) disc stack. The LLP status document is not a summary to be trusted at face value — it must be cross-checked against the physical part numbers where accessible, and any discrepancy between the LLP status document and the actual part numbers installed is a serious records integrity finding.
The borescope inspection is a mandatory element of any credible pre-buy on a turbofan engine and must be performed by a licensed engineer with specific borescope endorsement on that engine type. The borescope covers the fan stage (FOD damage, tip damage, blade crack assessment), the intermediate compressor and high-pressure compressor stages (blade condition, tip rubs, housing condition), the combustion section (liner condition, igniter plug condition, hot streaks), the HPT stage one and stage two nozzle guide vanes (NGVs) and rotating blades (oxidation, thermal fatigue cracking, erosion), and the LPT stages (blade condition, tip clearances where assessable). Findings are graded against the engine manufacturer's Engine Manual (EM) serviceable limits, with out-of-limits findings classified as airworthiness issues requiring immediate action, and within-limits-but-deteriorating findings classified as commercial watch items for the buyer's financial modelling. The ECAM (Airbus) or EICAS (Boeing) maintenance messages history is reviewed for repetitive fault codes that may indicate latent system issues not captured in the maintenance log.
The records review is arguably the most technically demanding element of a pre-buy inspection, and the one where a competent tech rep adds the most value over an untrained buyer's representative. The tech rep works through the aircraft's technical records in a systematic sequence, cross-checking each document against the relevant regulatory database and manufacturer's publications rather than simply confirming that a document exists.
Airworthiness Directive compliance is verified by cross-checking the aircraft's AD compliance status document against the FAA and EASA current AD listings for the type certificate. Each AD on the compliance list must have a corresponding work order reference traceable to the aircraft's maintenance records, and the accomplishment method must comply with the AD's approved means of compliance. Service Bulletin incorporation status is reviewed against the manufacturer's current SB index; the tech rep notes which SBs have been incorporated (distinguishing mandatory from optional), which are open and at what status, and whether any open SBs affect systems or components that are material to the buyer's intended operation. The Certificate of Airworthiness and its validity, the weight and balance manual's currency relative to the aircraft's current configuration, and the noise certificate are verified. The maintenance programme document, confirming that the aircraft is maintained under an approved programme and that the current interval structure is correctly applied, is reviewed and any deviations or concessions noted.
The avionics and systems assessment in a pre-buy context is typically a combination of records review and functional verification rather than a deep-strip inspection. The tech rep reviews the current MEL (Minimum Equipment List) deferred item log to identify any items that have been deferred for an extended period — a deferred item that has been carried for six months on MEL relief may indicate an unresolved parts supply issue or an underlying system fault that has not been fully investigated. The cockpit documentation check verifies that all required manuals and checklists are on board and current to the applicable revision. Where time and seller access allow, a cockpit power-on to verify avionics functionality and to check for active fault messages is included. SATCOM, ADS-B Out compliance certification, and RVSM approval documentation are specifically verified, as gaps in any of these certifications can affect the aircraft's ability to operate in certain airspaces immediately upon transfer to the buyer's AOC.
The landing gear assessment covers both the structural condition of the gear legs, drag braces, and bay structure, and the life status of time-controlled components. The tech rep inspects the main gear and nose gear bays for corrosion on the bay structure and surrounding fuselage frames, condition of hydraulic lines and electrical harnesses, freedom from FOD, and the condition of gear door hinge fittings and actuator attach points. The shock strut extension is measured and compared to the manufacturer's specified normal range — a significantly under-extended strut indicates a nitrogen or fluid loss that should be investigated before acceptance. The gear HT component status document is verified against the installed components, with particular attention to any components approaching their calendar or cycle limits that will require replacement within the first year of the buyer's operation.
Interior condition assessment in a commercial pre-buy covers the cabin structure (sidewall panels, overhead bins, floor panels, seat track condition), the galley and lavatory installations (plumbing integrity, waste system function, galley insert mounting condition), the cargo hold (floor board condition, liner condition, door seal condition), and the general state of the passenger cabin furnishings. On an aircraft coming off a long operating lease, the interior condition is frequently the most visible indicator of the lessee's general maintenance culture: a meticulously maintained interior usually — though not always — correlates with meticulously maintained records. Interior findings that have structural implications — seat track corrosion, floor beam access panel corrosion, damaged bulkhead or partition attach fittings — are classified as structural findings and escalated accordingly.
The cost of a pre-buy inspection is a function of the aircraft type and complexity, the scope of the inspection, the tech rep's fee structure, and the costs associated with specialist support services such as an independent borescope team. Buyers who approach the pre-buy as a cost to be minimised are approaching it from the wrong direction: the inspection cost should be evaluated against the value of the asset and the commercial exposure that a missed or understated finding represents.
For a narrow-body commercial aircraft — an Airbus A320-family or Boeing 737-family — a full pre-buy inspection conducted by an experienced independent tech rep over two to three days will typically cost between €2,500 and €5,000 in tech rep fees, plus travel and expenses. If the buyer engages a separate EASA Part-66 licensed engineer for the borescope inspection (which is standard practice when the tech rep does not hold a specific engine-type endorsement), borescope engineer fees run to approximately €800–€1,500 per day, with a typical borescope of two CFM56 or IAE V2500 engines requiring one full day. Some MRO facilities charge an access fee for inspection visits conducted in their facilities; these vary considerably by facility but typically range from €500 to €2,000 per day and should be confirmed before the inspection is scheduled. Total out-of-pocket cost for a well-scoped narrow-body pre-buy, including all professional fees and travel, typically falls in the range of €6,000–€12,000.
For a wide-body commercial aircraft — an Airbus A330, A350, Boeing 777, or Boeing 787 — the scope is correspondingly larger, the timeline longer, and the professional fees higher. A tech rep experienced on wide-body types will typically charge between €4,000 and €8,000 in fees for a three-to-four-day inspection, with a more complex records review on a larger aircraft that may have been through multiple operators and maintenance environments. The borescope requirement is proportionally larger — two high-bypass turbofans on a wide-body are more complex instruments than the powerplants on a narrow-body, and the borescope team may require two days rather than one. For a long-haul wide-body with a detailed records review, total inspection costs in the €15,000–€25,000 range are not unusual.
The question of cost must always be set against the value of the asset being acquired. A narrow-body commercial aircraft in mid-life is typically valued between €15 million and €30 million. A wide-body in comparable condition will be valued between €30 million and €80 million or more depending on type and configuration. In that context, a pre-buy inspection budget of €10,000–€20,000 represents a fraction of a percentage point of the purchase price — and the cost of a single missed structural finding, an undetected engine condition trend, or an unresolved AD compliance gap will almost always dwarf that inspection cost many times over. Experienced asset managers who have been through post-purchase disputes understand this arithmetic intuitively. Those who learn it for the first time when they are presented with a repair bill after completion tend not to make the same mistake twice.
A regional lessor completing their first wide-body acquisition declined to commission a borescope inspection, citing the cost and the seller's assertion that the engines were "in excellent condition." Within eighteen months of acquisition, both GE90 engines required unplanned shop visits. The primary cause on the number one engine was advanced HPT blade oxidation that a borescope would have identified as a watch item at the pre-buy stage. The number two engine had a fan blade replacement requirement that was visible borescope-accessible. The combined unscheduled shop visit cost exceeded €4 million. The pre-buy borescope would have cost under €3,000.
The pre-buy inspection report is the documentary output that justifies the entire investment of time and professional fees. A report that is structurally sound and evidentially complete will survive scrutiny long after the inspection itself is a memory — in a purchase price dispute, in a seller's warranty claim, or in a subsequent redelivery negotiation years later. A report that is poorly structured, light on evidence, or vague in its findings classifications will be challenged at the first opportunity, and the buyer's position will suffer accordingly.
The report opens with a cover page carrying the aircraft type, MSN, registration, inspection dates and location, client name, tech rep name and licence/authorisation details, report reference number, and revision status. The cover page is not a formality — it establishes the chain of authority for the document and confirms the inspection's scope at a glance. Immediately following is the executive summary: a standalone section of one to three pages that provides the buyer's non-technical decision-makers with the essential conclusions. The executive summary states the tech rep's overall assessment of the aircraft's airworthiness and commercial condition, identifies the most significant findings and their immediate commercial implications, and sets out any conditions that should be addressed before or as conditions of completion. An executive summary written for an asset manager or finance director — not for an engineer — is one of the marks of a professional tech rep.
The body of the report is structured as follows. A scope and limitations section defines precisely what was inspected and what was not, and documents any access constraints encountered during the inspection. A records review summary provides a systematic assessment of the documentation reviewed — AD status, SB incorporation, LLP tracking, C of A validity, maintenance programme compliance, and the damage repair history — with specific anomalies or gaps called out. The zone-by-zone physical findings section presents all physical findings in ATA zone order, each finding with its description, severity classification, applicable standard reference, and photo cross-reference. A severity classification legend, defined in the report's methodology section, must be applied consistently throughout. The photo evidence annex is appended as a separately numbered section with photos organised by ATA zone and each photo carrying the finding reference number and a brief caption identifying what is shown.
The sign-off page carries the tech rep's full name, qualifications, licence number, type ratings, signature, and date of issue. Where multiple specialists contributed to the report — a separate borescope engineer, for instance — their credentials and sign-off appear in the relevant section. The report should also carry a recommendations section in which the tech rep provides their professional assessment of the most important findings and, where appropriate, a suggested approach to resolution or further investigation. Recommendations should be framed in terms of airworthiness priority and commercial priority separately, since these do not always coincide. For a comprehensive treatment of report structure and professional standards, see our guide to how to write an aircraft inspection report. AircraftInspecti's aircraft inspection report app automates the report structure and photo-finding cross-referencing, producing a professionally formatted PDF directly from the inspection workflow.
Experienced pre-buy tech reps develop a pattern recognition for the findings and records anomalies that most reliably indicate a problematic aircraft history. These red flags do not necessarily mean the aircraft is un-airworthy or un-purchasable — but they do mean the buyer must go in with eyes open, with appropriate legal protections in the purchase agreement, and with a clear-eyed assessment of the commercial implications.
Corrosion in structural zones beyond SRM limits is the pre-buy finding that most directly determines an aircraft's immediate airworthiness and commercial value. Light surface corrosion in skin panels is a normal maintenance finding on any aircraft over five years old and is routinely addressed within SRM limits. What is not normal — and what represents a serious finding — is corrosion on primary structural members (frames, stringers, keel beam, pressure bulkhead webs) that exceeds the allowable damage dimensions in the applicable SRM, or corrosion that has been treated and re-treated multiple times in the same zone without permanent resolution. Recurring corrosion in the same structural zone frequently indicates a systemic moisture ingress problem — a leaking seal, a drainage path blockage, a galley or lavatory plumbing failure — that has not been addressed at source. A tech rep who finds corrosion that is within limits but shows evidence of multiple previous treatment cycles should document the full treatment history and flag it as a commercial watch item, because that corrosion will recur and the next treatment may require a more extensive — and more expensive — structural repair.
Undocumented or uncategorised repairs are among the most commercially significant findings in a pre-buy. Every repair to an aircraft's structure must be documented against an authorised repair scheme — an SRM repair, a manufacturer's engineering order, or a Repair Design Approval (RDAS/STC) from an approved design organisation. A physical repair visible on the aircraft skin that has no corresponding entry in the damage chart, or an entry in the damage chart with no associated repair scheme reference, means that at some point in the aircraft's history a repair was accomplished without proper engineering authority or documentation. The implications range from the merely inconvenient (the repair is within SRM allowable damage and simply needs retrospective documentation) to the potentially serious (the repair is outside SRM limits and there is no engineering authority available to validate it retrospectively). In either case, the presence of undocumented structural repairs is a disclosure failure by the seller and a material finding that should be addressed as a condition of completion.
Gaps in AD compliance records are a records integrity issue that must be taken seriously even when the underlying ADs themselves appear to have been accomplished. An AD compliance list that shows "accomplished" against an AD, but for which the corresponding work order, certifying release, and parts data cannot be traced in the maintenance records, leaves the buyer in a legally and commercially exposed position. If the aircraft is re-registered to a different regulatory authority, the receiving authority will require evidence of AD compliance — not just a summary statement. If the maintenance records cannot substantiate the compliance list, the buyer may face the cost of re-accomplishing ADs that were notionally already done. For an aircraft with a complex multi-operator history and multiple national registrations, gaps in AD compliance records are not uncommon, but every gap must be investigated and documented before the inspection report is finalised.
High-cycle engines with no recent shop visit history present a specific commercial risk that the borescope inspection is designed to quantify. A CFM56 or IAE V2500 engine on a short-haul aircraft accumulating 2,500 or more cycles per year, operating at high-altitude airports, and sustained through multiple years without a performance restoration shop visit is likely to be carrying significant HPT blade deterioration, NGV erosion, and compressor coating loss. The engine may remain within its engine manual limits at the time of inspection, but the gap between current condition and the limits — the "remaining life" before the next shop visit becomes mandatory — may be narrow enough that the buyer's operational plans will require a shop visit within 18 months of acquisition. That shop visit cost must be factored into the acquisition price. A pre-buy engine records review that does not include a trend analysis of EGT margin degradation over the last 1,000 cycles is an incomplete engine assessment, regardless of the borescope findings.
Inconsistency between the maintenance programme and actual maintenance accomplished is a subtler red flag than an outright AD compliance gap, but one with potentially serious regulatory implications. If the aircraft's approved maintenance programme specifies a structural inspection task at a certain interval — say, an inspection of the forward pressure bulkhead web at every 6,000-flight-cycle interval — and the maintenance records show that this task was last accomplished 7,800 cycles ago, the aircraft is operating outside its approved maintenance programme. The task may have been deferred under an engineering concession that is properly documented; or it may simply have been missed. Either way, the buyer is acquiring an aircraft that is out of programme compliance, and the cost and timeline of returning it to compliance is a material financial consideration. A thorough records review will identify every overdue or approaching-overdue structural task and calculate the compliance position at the time of the inspection.
A sixth common red flag deserves specific mention: a damage chart that has not been updated to the current standard. Aircraft operators are required to maintain an accurate, current record of all damage to the aircraft's structure, cross-referenced to approved repair documentation. A damage chart that was clearly last updated several years ago — evidenced by absence of known repairs, missing zone entries, or cross-references to maintenance records that do not exist — is an indication that the operator's continuing airworthiness organisation has not been managing the aircraft's structural history with adequate rigour. It does not necessarily mean the aircraft has a dangerous undocumented repair, but it does mean the buyer cannot rely on the damage chart as an accurate statement of the aircraft's structural condition, and must treat every physical finding as potentially undocumented until proven otherwise.
Finding the right tech rep for a pre-buy inspection is not simply a matter of finding a licensed aircraft engineer who is available. The qualifications that matter are type-specific: an engineer with twenty years of experience on Boeing 747 freighters is not the right person to inspect an Airbus A220, regardless of their general competence. The buyer should ask specifically for evidence of previous pre-buy inspections conducted on the same aircraft type — not just maintenance experience on the type, but commercial inspection experience, because the disciplines of records review, findings documentation, and commercial report writing are learned through inspection practice rather than line maintenance.
When engaging a tech rep, the buyer should ask for their Part-66 licence category and type endorsements, their CV listing inspection engagements rather than just maintenance positions, and where possible two or three references from previous clients for whom they have conducted pre-buy or redelivery inspections. A tech rep who cannot provide references from previous commercial inspection clients — or who declines to provide them — is one the buyer should approach with caution. The inspection community is relatively small; an experienced tech rep with a solid track record will have no difficulty providing references from lessors, airlines, or advisory firms for whom they have worked.
The briefing process is as important as the selection process. Before the tech rep travels to the aircraft, the buyer should provide a written scope document that specifies the aircraft registration, type, MSN, current location and operator; the inspection dates and the access arrangements that have been confirmed with the seller or MRO; any specific areas of concern that have been identified in the pre-inspection due diligence — for example, a known corrosion history flagged in the seller's disclosure, or an engine shop visit that occurred outside the expected interval; the report format and delivery deadline; and the budget for the engagement including any pre-authorised costs for specialist support services. A buyer who sends their tech rep to an aircraft without a written scope agreement is creating the conditions for a dispute about what the tech rep was and was not supposed to check.
The seller's cooperation in providing MRO access, maintenance records, and personnel availability during the inspection should be confirmed in writing before the inspection date is fixed. A seller who is resistant to full records access, who insists on limiting the physical inspection scope, or who pressures the buyer's tech rep to reach conclusions quickly is exhibiting behaviour that should itself be treated as a due diligence finding. An aircraft whose seller is forthcoming with complete documentation and full physical access is an aircraft whose seller has confidence in what the inspection will find. The converse is equally instructive.
AircraftInspecti is a purpose-built mobile application for aircraft technical representatives conducting commercial inspections, including pre-buy assessments. The application addresses the practical workflow challenge that every working tech rep faces: conducting the inspection with a mobile phone camera and a notebook, then spending several hours or days assembling the report from an unorganised photo library, handwritten notes, and a generic document template that was never designed for aircraft inspection findings.
During the inspection, AircraftInspecti provides the tech rep with a structured, ATA-zone-based checklist customisable to the specific pre-buy scope agreed with the client. As the tech rep works through each zone, findings are logged directly against the relevant ATA zone reference. Photos are captured within the app and linked automatically to the specific finding they document — no separate camera roll management, no post-inspection photo sorting, no risk of mismatching a photo to the wrong finding. Each finding carries a severity classification, a free-text description field, and automatic timestamp and location metadata. The records review section allows the tech rep to log AD compliance anomalies, SB status notes, and LLP discrepancies with document references as they are identified, rather than reconstructing them from memory during report writing.
At the end of the pre-buy inspection, the tech rep uses AircraftInspecti to generate a professionally formatted PDF report with a cover page, scope and limitations section, records review summary, zone-by-zone findings table with severity classifications, and a fully cross-referenced photo annex — all produced directly from the inspection data captured during the physical inspection. The tech rep reviews, edits where needed, enters their credentials and sign-off details, and delivers the report to the buyer. The entire report generation process, for a well-documented two-day pre-buy, typically takes less than two hours. Compared to the alternative — sorting through 300 photos on a laptop, manually populating a Word template, and cross-referencing findings to photos by hand — the efficiency gain is substantial and directly benefits the client through faster delivery of a more complete and professionally structured report.
AircraftInspecti gives tech reps ATA-structured pre-buy checklists, integrated photo-finding links, and automated PDF report generation — purpose-built for commercial aircraft pre-purchase assessments.
Get Early AccessFor tech reps who conduct multiple pre-buy inspections per year, the standardised output format creates a body of work that is consistent, professional, and easily referenced in subsequent engagements. Buyers and their advisors who receive AircraftInspecti-generated reports quickly recognise the structured format and the completeness of the photo-findings cross-reference, which contributes directly to the tech rep's professional reputation and their ability to command appropriate fees for their expertise. The application is designed for the hangar and the MRO floor: it operates offline with automatic synchronisation when connectivity is restored, and the interface is optimised for a working environment rather than a desktop context. AircraftInspecti does not change how a tech rep inspects an aircraft — it changes how efficiently and completely that inspection is captured, organised, and communicated to the people who need the information.