Structural condition
Corrosion and structural-inspection records review
A corrosion and structural-inspection records review confirms that the corrosion prevention and control program tasks and the structural inspection findings are recorded, dispositioned, and tracked. It is used before a purchase, a lease return, or a heavy check. It checks that program tasks were accomplished, that findings were graded and dispositioned, and that recurring inspections from findings are live in the program. You receive a findings-and-tasks register, the items missing accomplishment or disposition, and the evidence needed to close each one.
When this review is needed
- An older airframe has a corrosion history and a buyer needs the program and findings confirmed.
- A heavy check will repeat structural inspections and the crew needs the prior findings in hand.
- A return references the corrosion program state the lessor needs verified.
- Findings graded above the allowable level may carry recurring inspections that must be in the program.
The problem
Corrosion and structural inspections generate findings that have to be graded, dispositioned, and sometimes converted into recurring inspections, and that chain spans inspection cards, engineering dispositions, and the program. A finding can be recorded with no grade, a grade above the allowable level can be dispositioned with no recurring task added, and a program task can show accomplished with no inspection record behind it. The structural condition can read as managed while a recurring inspection driven by a finding never reached the program.
What gets reviewed
- Corrosion prevention and control program tasks and their accomplishment
- Structural inspection findings with their grade or severity
- The disposition recorded for each finding above the allowable level
- Recurring inspections generated from findings and their place in the program
- Findings that closed against a repair and the link between the two
- Zones with repeated findings that point to a developing condition
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
- Each corrosion program task has an accomplishment record behind it
- Findings are graded and findings above the allowable level carry a disposition
- Recurring inspections from a finding are present and current in the program
- A repair that closed a finding traces to the specific finding it resolved
- Repeated findings in one zone are linked rather than treated in isolation
Evidence normally required
- The corrosion prevention and control program and its task accomplishment records
- Structural inspection cards and the findings raised against them
- Engineering dispositions for findings above the allowable level
- The maintenance program entries for finding-driven recurring inspections
- Repair packages for repairs that closed structural findings
Common discrepancies
- A corrosion program task marked accomplished with no inspection record
- A structural finding recorded with no grade or severity
- A finding above the allowable level with no disposition
- A recurring inspection from a finding that never reached the program
- Repeated findings in one zone treated each time as a new, isolated event
What is at stake
A finding above the allowable level with no recurring inspection added leaves a known condition unmonitored, and a program task accomplished only on paper leaves a zone unverified. In a transaction, structural history that cannot be reconstructed from findings to dispositions to recurring tasks forces conservative assumptions about the airframe, and that judgment is expensive on an older asset.
Move from findings to resolution
Move from findings to a documented resolution path.
How the work runs
Confirm program accomplishment
Check that each corrosion prevention and control program task has an inspection record behind its accomplishment sign-off.
Grade and disposition findings
For every structural inspection finding, confirm a grade was assigned and that findings above the allowable level carry a disposition.
Trace recurring inspections
Verify that recurring inspections generated from a finding reached the program and are current, and link repairs to the findings they closed.
Map zone trends and gaps
Connect repeated findings in one zone, list items missing accomplishment, grade, or disposition, and set a closure path for each.
What the buyer receives
- A findings-and-tasks register tying inspections to grades, dispositions, and recurring tasks
- A list of items missing accomplishment, grade, disposition, or program entry
- A recommended closure path for each gap with the evidence to obtain
Who uses the output
- Structures engineering judging the airframe's corrosion and structural condition
- Continuing-airworthiness teams confirming finding-driven inspections are live
- Acquisition and asset teams pricing structural history into the airframe
How the work fits into the transaction or program
The review supports a pre-purchase, a redelivery, or heavy-check planning by turning inspection history into a traced findings record. It feeds the structures section of a discrepancy register and the check work scope.
Jurisdiction-specific considerations
A finding disposition rests on an approval basis tied to the authority it was issued under. Where the airframe changes registries, the review flags dispositions and finding-driven inspections the receiving authority will need to confirm.
Regulatory limits
The review confirms that the corrosion and structural inspection records are complete, consistent, and traceable to dispositions and tasks. It does not inspect the structure, grade a finding, or make an airworthiness determination.
What this review does not cover
- Physical inspection or grading of the structure
- Issuance of a finding disposition or repair approval
- Any airworthiness determination on the airframe
Specific to this review
- A finding above the allowable grade usually requires a recurring inspection, and the common failure is that the recurring task never reached the program.
- A corrosion program task can be signed as accomplished with no inspection record behind it, which leaves the zone unverified despite a clean program status.
- Repeated findings in one zone describe a developing condition, but records that log each finding in isolation hide the trend.
Sources
U.S. Government (eCFR). Maintenance recordkeeping content and approval-for-return-to-service requirements, including 43.9, 43.11, and Appendix B.
European Union / EASA. Continuing airworthiness, maintenance records, CAMO responsibilities, and the airworthiness review process in the EASA system.
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.
Frequently asked questions
Do you inspect the airframe for corrosion?
No. The review works from the corrosion program, the inspection findings, and their dispositions. Where the records cannot resolve a finding, it identifies what a physical inspection or further data would need to confirm.
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.
Walk through your situation with an engineer who has done this work.