Diligence methods
Records review vs physical inspection
A records review confirms what the documents say about an aircraft. A physical inspection confirms what the aircraft itself shows. The review traces AD status, life-limited part history, and release paperwork to source documents and finds gaps in the paper trail. The inspection looks at the airframe, engines, and installed components for condition, corrosion, and configuration the records cannot reveal. They answer different questions, and a buyer or lessor usually needs both, sequenced so the records findings guide where the physical survey looks hardest.
When this review is needed
- A buyer is scoping diligence on an aircraft and has to decide what the records review and the physical survey each cover.
- A physical survey came back clean but the records were never traced to source, or the reverse.
- A lender is sizing risk on an asset and wants to know which questions the paper trail can and cannot answer.
- A deal timeline forces a choice about which method runs first and what the second one then targets.
The problem
Buyers often treat the two methods as interchangeable diligence and assume a clean result from one covers the other. A spotless physical survey says nothing about whether AD closures are evidenced or life-limited parts trace to origin, and a tidy records set says nothing about corrosion or an as-installed configuration that drifted from the paper. Running them blind to each other means the survey looks everywhere equally and the records review never targets the items the airframe is actually carrying.
What gets reviewed
- What a records review confirms: paper-trail completeness, consistency, and traceability to source
- What a physical inspection confirms: condition, corrosion, damage, and as-installed configuration
- The overlap where configuration claims in the records are checked against the actual installation
- The gaps each method leaves that only the other can close
- How findings from each method are mapped against the other
- A sequence that lets records findings target the physical survey
Scope this review
Tell us the asset, the event, and the evidence in scope, and we will outline a focused first engagement.
Send a representative, redacted record set and we will scope the review.
What gets validated
- The records review traces each status claim to a source document rather than a summary
- The physical inspection records condition and configuration the documents cannot show
- Configuration in the records is reconciled against what is actually installed
- Findings from each method are mapped so neither is treated as covering the other
- Items the records flag are passed to the survey as places to look first
- The sequence lets records gaps direct where the physical survey looks first
Evidence normally required
- AD, LLP, and component status reports with their source documents
- Release certificates and logbooks for the records review
- Access to the aircraft and engines for the physical survey
- The survey scope and the inspector's configuration findings
- The acquisition or lease terms that define what each method has to evidence
Common discrepancies
- Records that look complete but describe a configuration the aircraft does not show
- Physical condition issues that the paper trail could never have surfaced
- A release certificate present in the records for a part not found installed
- A clean survey paired with an untraced status list, leaving value unsupported
- Configuration claims that neither method alone would have caught as inconsistent
What is at stake
Relying on one method to answer the other's questions leaves value unsupported at close. A clean survey paired with an untraced status list can mean buying life remaining that the documents do not back, and a complete records set with no survey can miss condition that only the airframe shows. The gap surfaces after the price is fixed.
How the work runs
Separate the questions
List what the records review can prove and what only the airframe can show, so neither method is asked to answer the other's question.
Run the records review first
Trace status claims to source and surface the configuration and life items worth a closer physical look.
Target the survey
Hand the records findings to the survey so condition checks concentrate where the paper trail raised a question.
Reconcile the two
Map findings from each method against the other to catch configuration that neither would have flagged alone.
What the buyer receives
- A comparison of what each method confirms and the gaps it leaves
- A reconciled configuration view tying records claims to the installation
- A recommended sequence so the records review targets the physical survey
- A mapping of findings from each method against the other
Who uses the output
- Buyers and lessors scoping which methods a deal needs
- Lenders sizing risk on the asset behind the financing
- Technical teams coordinating the records review and the survey
How the work fits into the transaction or program
This comparison sits at the front of diligence, before either method is commissioned, so the buyer scopes both deliberately and sequences them to reinforce each other. The records review then runs as its own workstream and feeds the survey the items worth a closer look.
Aircraft-specific considerations
Where the two methods diverge depends on the type. On a heavily modified aircraft the records carry approval dossiers the survey cannot judge, while on a high-cycle airframe condition findings dominate and the records mainly confirm life status. The split of effort between the methods is set to the aircraft rather than applied evenly.
Regulatory limits
Neither method is an airworthiness determination. The records review confirms completeness, consistency, and traceability, the survey reports condition and configuration, and the airworthiness decision stays with the operator and the authority.
What this review does not cover
- Performing the physical survey itself
- Negotiation of the acquisition or lease terms
- Any airworthiness determination on the aircraft
Specific to this review
- The records review and the physical inspection answer different questions, so a clean result from one does not stand in for the other.
- Configuration is the seam between the two methods: the records claim a configuration and the inspection shows the installation, and they are reconciled against each other.
- Running the records review first lets its findings direct where the physical survey concentrates, which is cheaper than surveying blind and reconciling afterward.
- A release certificate in the records for a part not found installed is only caught when both methods are mapped against each other, not by either one alone.
Sources
U.S. Government (eCFR). Maintenance recordkeeping content and approval-for-return-to-service requirements, including 43.9, 43.11, and Appendix B.
Federal Aviation Administration. FAA guidance on making and keeping maintenance records and acceptable recordkeeping practices.
U.S. Government (eCFR). Records an owner or operator must keep, including total time in service, current status of life-limited parts, and AD compliance.
U.S. Government (eCFR). The legal basis for issuing and enforcing Airworthiness Directives on U.S.-registered products.
Frequently asked questions
Can a physical inspection replace a records review?
No. An inspection shows condition and configuration but cannot prove AD closure, life-limited part history, or release traceability, which live only in the records. The two methods evidence different things.
Which one should run first?
Usually the records review, because its findings can direct where the physical survey looks hardest. Surveying first and reconciling the paper afterward tends to cost more and miss the targeted condition checks the records would have prompted.
Relevant glossary terms
Related pages
Where this fits
Talk to an engineer who has done this work
We will walk through your current state, the records or evidence involved, and a scoped first engagement.
Adapt the checklist to your asset, event, and jurisdiction.