Introduction

Inspecting a Light Sport Aircraft (LSA) requires more than walking around the aircraft, checking for visible damage, and confirming that the engine starts. A proper inspection is an airworthiness and risk-management exercise that combines physical condition, maintenance history, configuration, operating limitations, inspection requirements, and manufacturer guidance.

One of the most common mistakes is assuming that a smaller or simpler aircraft automatically requires a simpler inspection. In practice, lightweight airframes can contain systems and construction methods that demand careful attention, including composite structures, fabric components, Rotax or other specialized powerplants, retractable or nonstandard landing gear, ballistic recovery systems, electronic flight displays, and aircraft-specific control systems.

The inspection process also depends heavily on how the aircraft is certificated. Special Light-Sport Aircraft, Experimental Light-Sport Aircraft, and aircraft operating under other certification arrangements can have different maintenance and inspection requirements. FAA guidance emphasizes the importance of applicable manufacturer procedures and appropriate qualifications for people performing maintenance or condition inspections.

The goal should not simply be to find defects. A good inspection should establish whether the aircraft’s condition, records, configuration, and maintenance history provide sufficient evidence that it is appropriate for continued operation or purchase.

1. Treating Every Light Sport Aircraft as the Same

This is one of the first mistakes to avoid.

“Light Sport Aircraft” describes a regulatory category, but aircraft within that broad category can differ substantially in:

Construction
Propulsion
Avionics
Landing gear
Flight controls
Fuel systems
Electrical architecture
Inspection requirements
Maintenance documentation
Operating limitations
Certification basis

A metal high-wing aircraft should not be inspected using exactly the same approach as a composite low-wing aircraft. Likewise, an aircraft with conventional mechanical instruments requires different attention from one heavily dependent on integrated electronic displays.

Better approach

Start by identifying:

Aircraft make and model
Serial number
Certification category
Airworthiness certificate
Applicable operating limitations
Aircraft-specific maintenance documentation
Engine and propeller installations
Major modifications
Current inspection status

The inspection checklist should then be adapted to that aircraft.

2. Focusing on the Exterior and Ignoring the Records

A clean aircraft can have poor maintenance history.

This is particularly important when evaluating a used LSA. Physical condition tells only part of the story. Maintenance records can reveal:

Repeated component failures
Deferred maintenance
Recurring discrepancies
Major repairs
Structural repairs
Propeller changes
Engine work
Avionics modifications
Accident or incident history
Inspection findings
Compliance with applicable directives
Changes to the aircraft’s configuration

An aircraft that looks excellent but has incomplete or contradictory records deserves additional scrutiny.

What to compare

The aircraft itself should be compared against its records.

Check whether:

The installed engine matches the documentation.
The propeller installation is documented.
Major avionics installations are recorded.
Repairs and alterations have appropriate documentation.
Aircraft hours are internally consistent.
Engine and propeller time make sense.
Inspection entries correspond with the aircraft’s actual configuration.

Records are not paperwork separate from the aircraft. They are part of the aircraft’s continuing-airworthiness story.

3. Assuming a Current Inspection Means the Aircraft Is Problem-Free

A current inspection is important, but it should not be treated as a guarantee that every potential problem has been eliminated.

An inspection determines the aircraft’s condition according to the applicable inspection scope and requirements. It does not remove the need for sensible ongoing maintenance or eliminate every possibility of hidden deterioration.

FAA guidance notes that condition inspections for applicable aircraft must meet the required inspection scope, and manufacturer inspection programs can provide aircraft-specific coverage beyond generic inspection items.

Better approach

Ask:

What inspection was performed?
Who performed it?
What inspection program was used?
Were discrepancies identified?
Which discrepancies were corrected?
Were any items monitored rather than repaired?
Were manufacturer procedures consulted?
Were significant repairs or alterations reviewed?

The objective is to understand the quality and scope of the inspection, not simply its date.

4. Ignoring Manufacturer Inspection Procedures

A generic checklist can be useful, but it should not replace aircraft-specific maintenance information.

Manufacturer documentation may contain inspection requirements for:

Structural attachment points
Control systems
Composite components
Landing gear
Fuel tanks
Engine installations
Propeller systems
Fasteners
Inspection intervals
Special tools
Lubrication points
Known problem areas

FAA guidance encourages use of manufacturer-recommended inspection programs when available because they can address aircraft-specific features that generic inspection requirements may not fully capture.

Common mistake

An inspector checks every item on a familiar generic checklist but never asks:

“What does this particular aircraft manufacturer require me to inspect?”

That approach can create false confidence.

5. Overlooking Structural Damage

Structural inspection is one of the most important parts of an LSA evaluation.

Depending on the aircraft, attention may be required around:

Wing attach points
Fuselage frames
Spars
Landing gear attachments
Control-surface hinges
Engine mounts
Firewall areas
Composite joints
Fabric surfaces
Tubular structures
Fastener locations
Previous repair areas

Surface appearance alone may not reveal every structural problem.

Composite aircraft deserve particular attention

Composite structures can present inspection challenges because damage may not always be obvious from a casual visual inspection.

Potential warning signs include:

Unusual surface deformation
Cracks
Discoloration
Evidence of impact
Localized repairs
Delamination indicators
Previous hard-landing evidence
Unusual changes around attachment points

Inspection methods should follow applicable manufacturer or qualified maintenance guidance rather than relying on assumptions.

6. Checking for Corrosion Too Late

Corrosion is often treated as an obvious exterior problem, but important corrosion can exist in less visible locations.

Inspect areas such as:

Interior structural members
Fastener locations
Landing gear components
Engine compartment
Battery compartment
Drain areas
Control-system components
Hardware exposed to moisture
Areas where dissimilar metals meet

Aircraft stored in humid environments or operated around saltwater may require especially careful corrosion assessment.

Practical lesson

Do not ask only:

“Does the aircraft have corrosion?”

Ask:

“Where could moisture realistically accumulate on this aircraft?”

That question produces a much more useful inspection.

7. Inspecting the Engine Without Looking at Its Installation

An engine can run smoothly during a short ground test and still require further investigation.

An inspection should consider the complete installation, including:

Engine mounts
Mount hardware
Hoses
Fuel connections
Oil system
Cooling system
Exhaust system
Electrical connections
Sensors
Wiring
Propeller interface
Firewall penetrations
Evidence of leaks
Evidence of overheating
Abnormal vibration

The installation environment matters as much as the engine itself.

Do not rely only on startup performance

A successful engine start demonstrates that the engine can start.

It does not by itself establish:

Overall engine condition
Remaining component life
Maintenance quality
Absence of leaks
Correct installation
Propeller condition
Cooling-system integrity

Engine-specific inspection procedures should be followed.

8. Neglecting the Propeller

Propeller inspection is sometimes overshadowed by engine inspection.

That is a mistake.

Depending on the installation, inspect for:

Nicks
Cracks
Corrosion
Surface damage
Improper repairs
Hub condition
Fastener condition
Tracking issues
Unusual vibration
Documentation discrepancies

Propeller history should also be reviewed.

Questions worth asking include:

When was it installed?
Has it been repaired?
Has it experienced a significant impact?
What inspection requirements apply?
Does the documentation correspond to the installed propeller?

A propeller is a critical rotating component and should not be treated as a cosmetic item.

9. Missing Control-System Problems

Flight-control systems deserve careful inspection because small problems can have significant operational consequences.

Look at:

Control cables
Pushrods
Bellcranks
Hinges
Pulleys
Rod ends
Safetying
Attachment hardware
Control stops
Free movement
Control-surface alignment
Evidence of interference

The controls should move correctly through their intended range without unusual resistance, binding, excessive play, or interference.

Common mistake

Checking that the control surfaces move is not the same as inspecting the control system.

The inspection should consider both movement and the condition of the components producing that movement.

10. Ignoring Landing Gear and Wheel Assemblies

Landing gear experiences repeated loads and deserves more attention than a quick visual check.

Inspect:

Gear legs
Attachment points
Wheel bearings
Brakes
Brake lines
Tires
Axles
Hardware
Fairings
Steering mechanisms
Evidence of uneven wear
Evidence of hard landings

Look for clues that may indicate previous abnormal loading.

For example, unusual tire wear combined with wheel alignment issues may deserve investigation rather than simply replacing the tire.

11. Treating Tires and Brakes as Minor Items

Consumable components are easy to overlook because they are inexpensive compared with major aircraft components.

That does not make them unimportant.

Check:

Tire condition
Age and serviceability according to applicable guidance
Tread and sidewalls
Wheel condition
Brake wear
Brake-fluid condition where applicable
Hydraulic lines
Leaks
Parking-brake operation where installed

Small maintenance deficiencies can become operational problems if they accumulate.

12. Overlooking Fuel-System Problems

Fuel-system inspection should include more than checking fuel quantity.

Consider:

Fuel lines
Fittings
Clamps
Tanks
Vents
Drains
Filters
Pumps
Fuel selectors
Connections
Evidence of leakage
Fuel-system modifications
Correct fuel requirements

Pay particular attention to routing.

Fuel lines should not be exposed to unnecessary:

Heat
Chafing
Vibration
Abrasion
Sharp edges
Improper support

Fuel-system modifications should be traceable to appropriate technical documentation.

13. Ignoring Electrical Wiring Quality

Modern LSAs can contain surprisingly sophisticated electrical systems.

Inspect:

Battery installation
Battery connections
Circuit protection
Wiring support
Ground connections
Connectors
Chafing protection
Routing
Firewall penetrations
Avionics wiring
Switches
Electrical loads

A beautifully installed avionics display does not automatically mean the underlying wiring is professionally installed.

Warning signs

Pay attention to:

Loose wiring
Unsecured harnesses
Improvised splices
Unidentified modifications
Poor strain relief
Excessive wire movement
Heat-damaged insulation
Unprotected penetrations

Electrical workmanship is an important indicator of overall maintenance quality.

14. Assuming Avionics Are Fully Functional Because the Screens Turn On

Electronic displays can power up while individual functions remain defective.

Test applicable systems rather than merely confirming that the screens illuminate.

Depending on the aircraft, this may include:

Flight displays
Engine monitoring
GPS/navigation equipment
Communication radios
Transponder
ADS-B equipment
Audio panel
Intercom
Backup instruments
Warning systems
Sensors

Also check whether installed equipment is properly documented.

An avionics upgrade without adequate documentation should trigger additional questions.

15. Forgetting Backup Instruments and Failure Modes

Modern aircraft often rely heavily on electronic systems.

The inspection should therefore consider:

What happens if the primary electronic system fails?

Look for:

Backup instruments
Independent power sources
Battery backup
Appropriate circuit protection
Emergency procedures
System redundancy where applicable

The purpose is not to make every LSA excessively complex. It is to understand the aircraft’s actual failure modes.

16. Ignoring the Battery and Charging System

Battery condition is often underestimated.

Inspect:

Battery installation
Terminals
Mounting
Venting where applicable
Corrosion
Charging performance
Electrical connections
Alternator or generator system
Related circuit protection

A weak battery can expose other electrical-system problems that may not be obvious during normal operation.

17. Failing to Investigate Previous Repairs

A repair itself is not necessarily a problem.

An undocumented, poorly executed, or inappropriate repair is a different matter.

Previous repairs should be evaluated for:

What happened?
What component was damaged?
How was it repaired?
Who performed the work?
What data or procedure supported the repair?
Was the repair documented?
Does the current aircraft configuration match the records?

The objective is not to reject an aircraft simply because it has repair history.

The objective is to understand the quality and implications of that history.

18. Overlooking Modifications and Alterations

Modified aircraft require additional scrutiny.

Examples include:

Avionics upgrades
Engine changes
Propeller changes
Lighting modifications
Electrical modifications
Interior changes
Structural changes
Wheel and brake changes
Instrument-panel redesigns
Additional equipment

The question should always be:

“Is this configuration properly supported by the applicable aircraft documentation and approval or authorization requirements?”

This becomes especially important because certification category and applicable rules affect how repairs and alterations are handled. FAA guidance distinguishes maintenance and alteration requirements across different LSA and experimental configurations.

19. Confusing Safety Directives With Airworthiness Directives

This is an area where terminology and regulatory treatment matter.

Applicable Airworthiness Directives can impose mandatory requirements. FAA guidance also discusses manufacturer-issued safety directives and the different treatment that can apply depending on aircraft certification status.

Therefore, an inspection should not simply ask:

“Are all manufacturer service bulletins completed?”

Instead, determine:

Which directives apply?
Which are mandatory?
Which are recommended?
What aircraft certification category applies?
What does the applicable operating limitation or maintenance framework require?
Has a safety-related condition been identified?

This distinction should be confirmed against the current regulatory and aircraft-specific documentation.

20. Assuming the Inspection Rules Are Identical for Every LSA

This is a particularly important mistake.

LSA maintenance and inspection requirements can depend on the aircraft’s certification and configuration.

For example, FAA materials distinguish special light-sport aircraft from experimental light-sport aircraft and describe different repairman privileges and inspection responsibilities.

Before inspecting, establish the aircraft’s status

Inspection Question	Why It Matters
What certification category does the aircraft have?	Determines applicable requirements
What airworthiness certificate does it hold?	Establishes the regulatory framework
What operating limitations apply?	May contain important maintenance provisions
What inspection program applies?	Defines required inspection scope
Who performed previous inspections?	Helps establish qualification and record quality
What manufacturer documentation applies?	Provides aircraft-specific procedures
What modifications exist?	May change inspection requirements

Do not apply a familiar checklist simply because the aircraft looks familiar.

21. Failing to Verify the Inspector’s Qualifications

A technically capable person is not automatically authorized to perform every inspection or approve every maintenance task.

The qualifications and privileges required depend on the work and aircraft.

FAA guidance explains that light-sport repairman certificates have specific privileges and limitations, including distinctions between inspection and maintenance ratings.

Before relying on an inspection, establish:

Who performed it?
What certificate or authorization did they hold?
What privileges applied?
Was the aircraft within the scope of those privileges?
Was the appropriate inspection program used?

For unfamiliar aircraft systems, FAA guidance also emphasizes the importance of competence with the specific task and appropriate training or supervision.

22. Relying on a Short Test Flight as the Final Inspection

A test flight can provide valuable information, but it should be one component of the overall evaluation.

A flight may reveal:

Vibration
Trim problems
Instrument discrepancies
Cooling issues
Engine behavior
Control anomalies
Electrical problems
Radio problems

But flight testing should be conducted only within appropriate operational, regulatory, and safety boundaries.

A test flight should never be used to compensate for inadequate maintenance-record review or an incomplete physical inspection.

23. Not Comparing the Aircraft With Its Documentation

This is one of the highest-value inspection habits.

The aircraft and paperwork should tell the same story.

Compare:

Physical aircraft → maintenance records → inspection program → operating limitations → installed equipment

Look for inconsistencies such as:

Different engine configuration
Different propeller
Unrecorded avionics
Missing equipment
Changed instrumentation
Structural repairs
Unexplained weight or configuration changes

A discrepancy does not automatically mean the aircraft is unsafe, but it does mean the discrepancy needs explanation.

24. Ignoring Evidence of Poor Workmanship

Aircraft inspection is partly a technical assessment and partly an assessment of maintenance quality.

Look for:

Loose hardware
Improper routing
Missing safetying
Chafing
Poorly supported wiring
Unsecured hoses
Inconsistent fasteners
Improvised repairs
Unfinished modifications
Leaks
Contamination
Evidence of repeated temporary fixes

One poor installation does not prove that the entire aircraft is poorly maintained.

Several unrelated examples can, however, justify a deeper inspection.

25. Inspecting Only What Is Easy to See

A common inspection failure is “access bias.”

Inspectors naturally spend more time on components that are easy to reach.

Important components may be hidden behind:

Fairings
Interior panels
Inspection covers
Engine cowling
Instrument panels
Wheel pants
Access panels

Where inspection procedures require access, do not assume that a component is satisfactory simply because it was not convenient to inspect.

The inspection scope should determine the required level of access.

26. Ignoring Environmental History

An aircraft’s operating and storage environment can influence its condition.

Ask about:

Indoor versus outdoor storage
Coastal operation
Humidity
Long periods of inactivity
Frequent short flights
Dust exposure
Harsh operating environments
Significant weather exposure

An aircraft with low flight time is not automatically in better condition.

Long periods of inactivity can create their own maintenance concerns.

27. Treating Low Hours as Proof of Low Risk

Aircraft time is useful information, but it is only one variable.

A low-time aircraft can still have:

Aging components
Deteriorated seals
Corrosion
Poor storage history
Outdated equipment
Deferred maintenance
Incomplete records
Previous damage

Conversely, an aircraft with more operating time may have an extensive and well-documented maintenance history.

The better question is:

“What does the combination of time, age, usage, storage, inspection history, and maintenance quality tell us?”

28. Not Investigating Repeated Discrepancies

Repeated defects deserve attention.

Suppose records repeatedly mention:

Electrical faults
Brake problems
Cooling issues
Control-system adjustments
Instrument failures
Fuel leaks

The right response is not simply to count the repairs.

Ask whether the underlying cause was actually resolved.

Recurring discrepancies can indicate:

Root-cause problems
Installation issues
Incorrect parts
Maintenance practices
Environmental effects
Design-specific weaknesses

29. Treating a Pre-Purchase Inspection Like a Routine Annual Inspection

These inspections have different objectives.

A routine inspection determines whether the aircraft meets the applicable inspection requirements.

A pre-purchase inspection should additionally help the buyer understand:

Condition
Maintenance quality
Upcoming maintenance
Significant repairs
Configuration
Documentation
Known discrepancies
Ownership risks
Likely near-term costs

The scope should therefore be agreed before the inspection begins.

A buyer should understand exactly what the inspection includes and what it does not include.

30. Failing to Create a Defect-Severity Framework

Not every finding has the same significance.

A practical inspection report can classify findings into categories such as:

Finding Type	Typical Response
Immediate airworthiness concern	Address before operation
Significant mechanical issue	Investigate and correct promptly
Documentation discrepancy	Resolve before relying on the record
Maintenance deficiency	Correct according to applicable requirements
Wear item	Monitor or replace according to condition and guidance
Cosmetic issue	Evaluate separately from airworthiness
Information gap	Obtain additional documentation

This prevents minor cosmetic observations from receiving the same attention as safety-critical defects.

31. Not Documenting Findings Properly

A useful inspection report should be understandable to someone who was not present during the inspection.

Record:

Component
Location
Observed condition
Relevant measurement where applicable
Supporting photograph where appropriate
Applicable reference
Recommended follow-up
Whether further investigation is required

Avoid vague statements such as:

“Aircraft looks good.”

A professional inspection should communicate evidence, not impressions.

32. Failing to Establish a Clear Inspection Boundary

No inspection can examine every possible condition without limits.

The inspector and owner should understand:

What was inspected
What was not inspected
What components were inaccessible
What tests were performed
What tests were not performed
Whether the engine was operated
Whether a flight test occurred
Which documents were reviewed

Clear boundaries reduce misunderstandings.

A Practical LSA Inspection Workflow

A disciplined inspection can be organized into several stages.

Stage 1: Establish Aircraft Identity

Verify:

Make
Model
Serial number
Registration
Certification category
Airworthiness documentation

Stage 2: Review the Documentation

Collect:

Maintenance records
Inspection records
Aircraft manuals
Engine documentation
Propeller documentation
Modification records
Repair records
Operating limitations
Applicable directives and service information

Stage 3: Build an Aircraft-Specific Inspection Plan

Identify:

Known model-specific issues
Structural inspection points
Engine-specific requirements
Propeller requirements
Avionics configuration
Modification areas
Special inspection requirements

Stage 4: Perform the Physical Inspection

Work systematically through:

Structure
Flight controls
Landing gear
Engine
Propeller
Fuel system
Electrical system
Avionics
Interior
Emergency equipment where applicable
Exterior
Identification and placards

Stage 5: Reconcile Findings With Records

Every significant discrepancy should lead to a question:

“Is this already documented?”

If not, investigate why.

Stage 6: Assess Airworthiness and Maintenance Needs

Separate:

Safety-critical findings
Regulatory/documentation findings
Maintenance findings
Wear items
Cosmetic issues

This produces a more useful final assessment.

Stage 7: Document the Results

Create a clear report with:

Findings
Evidence
Severity
Recommended action
Open questions
Documentation gaps
Follow-up requirements

LSA Inspection Checklist

Use this as a high-level reminder rather than a substitute for the applicable aircraft-specific inspection program.

Documentation

Aircraft identity verified
Airworthiness documentation reviewed
Operating limitations reviewed
Maintenance records reviewed
Inspection history reviewed
Major repairs identified
Modifications identified
Applicable directives reviewed
Manufacturer documentation available

Structure

Wings inspected
Fuselage inspected
Attach points inspected
Landing gear structure inspected
Composite areas checked where applicable
Corrosion assessed
Previous repairs reviewed

Flight Controls

Control surfaces inspected
Hinges checked
Cables/pushrods checked
Pulleys checked
Control-system hardware checked
Full movement verified
Abnormal play investigated

Engine

Engine installation inspected
Mounts checked
Hoses checked
Fuel system checked
Cooling system checked
Exhaust system checked
Electrical connections checked
Leaks investigated

Propeller

Blades inspected
Hub inspected
Mounting checked
Damage history reviewed
Documentation verified

Landing Gear

Gear structure checked
Wheels checked
Tires checked
Brakes checked
Bearings checked
Steering checked where applicable

Electrical and Avionics

Battery checked
Charging system checked
Wiring inspected
Circuit protection reviewed
Avionics function checked
Backup systems considered
Modifications documented

Final Review

Findings documented
Records reconciled
Open discrepancies identified
Inspection limitations recorded
Follow-up actions identified

The Most Important Inspection Questions

When evaluating an LSA, the following questions can uncover issues that a simple walk-around may miss:

What certification category does this aircraft actually have?
What inspection program applies to it?
Are the aircraft’s current configuration and records consistent?
Who performed the most recent inspection, and were they appropriately qualified?
What major repairs or alterations have been performed?
Are manufacturer inspection procedures available and being followed where applicable?
Are there recurring discrepancies in the maintenance history?
What components are approaching required or recommended maintenance?
Are there undocumented modifications?
Are there unresolved documentation gaps?
What evidence exists regarding previous damage or hard landings?
What parts of the aircraft could not be adequately inspected?

These questions help shift an inspection from a simple visual exercise toward a structured airworthiness assessment.

Special Considerations for Buyers

If the inspection is part of an aircraft purchase, avoid selecting an inspector solely because they are nearby or inexpensive.

Relevant considerations include:

Familiarity with the aircraft type
Experience with its engine
Experience with its construction
Knowledge of its avionics
Understanding of its certification category
Ability to interpret maintenance documentation
Willingness to document findings clearly

The inspector should work for the quality of the evaluation rather than simply confirming what the buyer or seller hopes to hear.

A pre-purchase inspection should also be agreed in writing so that everyone understands its scope.

How to Avoid the Most Expensive Inspection Mistakes

The most costly mistakes are often not individual defective components. They are failures in the inspection process.

A strong process should:

1. Start With Certification Status

Know what regulatory and maintenance framework applies.

2. Read Before Inspecting

Review the records and manufacturer information before beginning the physical inspection.

3. Inspect Systematically

Use an aircraft-specific workflow rather than relying on memory.

4. Investigate Anomalies

Do not dismiss unusual wear, undocumented changes, or recurring defects.

5. Reconcile the Records

Make sure the paperwork and aircraft configuration agree.

6. Separate Findings by Significance

A cosmetic defect should not obscure a structural or control-system concern.

7. Document Everything Material

Good documentation supports better maintenance decisions later.

8. Escalate When Necessary

If a finding requires specialized knowledge, obtain the appropriate qualified expertise rather than guessing.

Why a Good LSA Inspection Is More Than a Checklist

Checklists are valuable because they reduce omissions.

But an experienced inspection requires judgment.

For example, a checklist may say:

Inspect engine mounts.

An experienced inspector also considers:

Why is there unusual wear?
Is there vibration?
Has the engine been replaced?
Has the mount hardware been disturbed?
Is there evidence of previous damage?
Does the maintenance history explain the condition?

That difference—between checking a box and understanding the evidence—is what makes an inspection genuinely useful.

Final Takeaways

The most common Light Sport Aircraft inspection mistakes involve assumptions: assuming all LSAs have identical requirements, assuming a current inspection means everything is satisfactory, assuming a clean exterior means the structure is sound, or assuming complete-looking records tell the entire story.

A strong inspection combines the aircraft’s physical condition, certification status, maintenance history, configuration, manufacturer guidance, and applicable requirements.

The inspection should also recognize the limits of what can be established through a single examination. FAA guidance makes clear that LSA maintenance and inspection privileges depend on the aircraft and the qualifications of the person performing the work.

For buyers, owners, and operators, the safest approach is systematic: establish the aircraft’s regulatory status, review the records, follow the applicable inspection program, investigate discrepancies, document findings, and obtain qualified specialist input when the aircraft or problem is outside the inspector’s experience.

A good inspection does not merely answer whether an aircraft looks acceptable. It creates a defensible understanding of what is known, what needs attention, what remains uncertain, and what should happen next.

pilotsnow