​

Were you forwarded this newsletter? Subscribe here. Trust the Process, Not the Promises.™

​

PrivateJetBS | Edition 16

When Curiosity Costs — Scoping Engines and the Out-of-Sequence Dilemma

In brokerage, few technical questions divide a hangar faster than this: Should we—or should we not—scope an engine during a pre-purchase inspection?

The conversation isn’t new. It’s been brewing for well over a year, quietly surfacing in hangar corners, conference panels, and late-night broker chats.
​

But this October, that slow burn reached the main stage, first at the International Aircraft Dealers Association Fall Member Meeting, and again the following day at NBAA-BACE, where three respected voices tackled it head-on: Zach Ungerleider (ACASS, formerly Honeywell), Delray Dobbins (Global Sales Director, Engine Assurance Program), and Jim Lewis (Senior Managing Director, jetAVIVA).

Their collective insight underscored a simple truth: sometimes the most dangerous thing you can do to an engine is look inside it too soon.

The Setup: The Out-of-Sequence Inspection

A pre-purchase inspection exists to confirm an aircraft’s condition; not to outpace the manufacturer’s maintenance plan.
​
Yet it’s common for a buyer, or their technical representative, to request a borescope inspection of the engines.

On paper, it sounds prudent. Engines are the heart of the airplane. But the issue isn’t whether to look, it’s when to look.

Every major OEM - Honeywell, Rolls-Royce, Pratt & Whitney, Williams, GE - defines specific inspection intervals for a reason. They’re built on decades of fleet data and designed to manage fatigue cycles, temperature exposure, and component life expectancy.

When a buyer requests a scope ahead of schedule, it becomes an out-of-sequence inspection.

​
The OEM may allow it, but almost always “at the seller’s risk.” And, that’s where the trouble begins.

When You Look Too Closely

Engines live under conditions few other machines could survive. Heat, pressure, and friction all take their toll, but within predictable limits.
​
Minor pitting, streaking, or even hairline cracking can be perfectly normal and within tolerance.
​
That’s why OEMs plan inspections at defined intervals: they know when to expect that wear has become significant.

But, once a camera identifies something that appears “beyond limits,” that engine is now officially not airworthy, even if it was performing flawlessly moments earlier.

Because the inspection was out of sequence, both the OEM and the program provider can (and often do) disclaim financial responsibility for any corrective work. That’s when the “peace-of-mind” inspection turns into a costly problem; one usually handed to the seller, in report and invoice.

An Example

Consider this:A Challenger 300 enters a pre-buy. Both engines are enrolled on MSP.

​
All data is clean with no exceedances, no vibration, no alerts.

The Buyer requests a full borescope “just to be safe.” Honeywell declines approval, and you are told that if one may be performed during a prebuy it’s now at the seller’s risk. The Seller allows the Buyer to proceed. During the scope, a small nick is found on a turbine blade. Engineering reviews the photos and declares it “beyond tolerance.”

In an instant, a serviceable aircraft becomes unairworthy.

​
MSP has the option to decline coverage since the finding arose outside a scheduled interval. The OEM stands by the determination. And, the Seller is now holding what could turn into a five or six-figure repair estimate for an issue that didn’t exist, until someone went looking for it.

The Philosophical Question

That example led to one of the most thought-provoking questions raised during the NBAA panel:

“If an engine runs within all parameters… no warnings, no vibration, no performance loss… was it airworthy before we scoped it? Or was it unairworthy all along, and we just hadn’t found out yet?”

Technically, the defect existed. But practically, that aircraft could have continued flying safely until its next scheduled event.
​
​

So the paradox becomes clear: by looking early, we sometimes create the very problem we were trying to prevent.

Were you forwarded the PrivateJetBS Newsletter?​ ​ Subscribe Here!

​

​

When Curiosity Disrupts the System

OEM inspection intervals are not arbitrary, they are systematic.

​
They balance safety, economics, and data-driven predictability across entire fleets. When someone scopes early, they disrupt that rhythm. They are pulling parts, labor, and supply-chain resources ahead of schedule and add noise to otherwise clean fleet data.

That’s why OEMs sometimes grant permission only “at risk.” It isn’t about legal distance, it’s about maintaining order in a global maintenance model that depends on timing.

The Industry’s Shift

Over the past year, this topic has evolved from a quiet debate into a near-consensus.

​
During the IADA Fall Member Meeting, brokers and technical directors reaffirmed that premature scoping creates unnecessary exposure. Coverage programs have responded accordingly, tightening language to clarify that out-of-sequence findings may not be eligible for reimbursement.

By Tuesday at NBAA, the message was consistent: The industry is moving away from full borescope inspections during pre-buys.

Delray Dobbins confirmed that Engine Assurance Program does not encourage out-of-sequence borescopes.
​
Zach Ungerleider explained that OEMs continue to discourage early borescopes.

​
And, Jim Lewis, representing the broker’s perspective, distilled the issue to its essence: “Just because we can, doesn’t mean we should.”

When you scope early, you’re taking on a liability that may never have existed until you created it.

Broker’s Standards: Knowing When to Look

This is where a Broker truly matters: Our role isn’t to greenlight every inspection, it’s to advise when curiosity becomes costly.

If a pre-purchase inspection introduces more risk than it removes, that’s not diligence, it’s disruption.

Before authorizing an early scope, every broker should ask:

• Is this required by the OEM?
  ​
• Is there a performance symptom?
  ​
• Has the program confirmed coverage if something is found?
  ​
  ​

If not, restraint may be the most professional choice you can make.

Closing Thoughts: Trust the Process. Not the Promises.

Scoping engines during a pre-buy isn’t inherently wrong... it’s situational.
​
​

But performing one out of sequence introduces risk that no amount of goodwill can undo.

OEMs... proceed at your risk.
​Programs reserve the right to deny coverage.
And when you find something, there’s no unseeing it.

That’s why the professionals who’ve lived this—Zach, Delray, and Jim among them—agree:
The smartest brokers aren’t the ones who look hardest. They’re the ones who know when to look and when to follow the guidance of those who built and work on the parts.

Because in this business, curiosity doesn’t just flounder deals sometimes, it can stop them in their tracks.

Trust the Process, Not the Promises.
​

Michael Barber PrivateJetBS Newsletter Managing Director & VP, Sales Operations at jetAVIVA​ Mobile, WhatsApp, & Signal: +1.919.475.8506 ​​​​

​

Want more industry insights? Subscribe to the PrivateJetBS newsletter for exclusive updates and expert tips on buying, selling, and owning private jets.