An aircraft inspection shows what a specialist can examine today. Maintenance records explain how that condition was reached and what obligations come next. For a buyer or lessor, the two reviews belong together. An attractive price cannot resolve an unexplained technical history, and a folder labelled complete does not establish that its contents reconcile with the aircraft.
Establish the identity being reviewed
Begin with a reconciled schedule of the airframe, engines and relevant installed components. The technical adviser should confirm that records refer to the assets actually presented, and identify replacements or configuration changes requiring further review. A model name and registration photograph are insufficient foundations for an acquisition file.
ALFA's whitepaper identifies asset identity, title, technical records and maintenance position as separate diligence requirements. Completing one should not be reported as completing the others.
Ask for a substantiated maintenance position
The review should connect recorded utilisation, completed work, inspections and the next scheduled obligations under the applicable programme. Qualified specialists should assess the evidence and explain exceptions. Investors need a usable account of what is established and what remains uncertain, rather than a data-room index that merely confirms files were uploaded.
FAA Advisory Circular 43-9D addresses maintenance record-making and recordkeeping under US rules. Its scope is jurisdiction-specific, but it illustrates why documented maintenance evidence deserves explicit attention in a transaction review.
Give discrepancies an owner
Missing entries, inconsistent component references or unexplained changes should enter an exception register. Each issue needs a responsible party, the evidence required for resolution and its significance for acceptance. The technical adviser should distinguish an administrative correction from a question that affects the aircraft's usable maintenance history.
A transaction team can then decide whether a condition must be satisfied before closing, addressed through agreed work or reflected in the commercial assessment. Those decisions require the actual findings rather than a standard allowance for imperfect records.
Connect technical findings to cash requirements
Upcoming maintenance and unresolved work can affect deployment timing and near-term funding. A financial model should therefore use the reviewed maintenance position for the identified aircraft instead of a generic assumption for its type. Timing matters alongside estimated cost: an asset awaiting work cannot support the same availability assumption as one ready for its intended operation.
The buyer should also understand what evidence will support a later sale, lease return or change of operator. Technical records remain relevant beyond the acquisition date.
Preserve the record after closing
Agree custody, access, update responsibility and backup arrangements before the asset enters service. Owners need appropriate oversight information while the accountable operator and maintenance organisations retain their responsibilities. For ALFA’s documented aviation programme, a completed asset review would be a meaningful milestone only when attached to an identified transaction and documented participation. It would not, by itself, establish acquisition, delivery or operating availability.
