- MozGlobal Engineering
- Inspection
- 5 min read
An inspection that produces a verdict without evidence is worth nothing when someone has to defend the decision six months later.
An integrity inspection has one purpose: to let somebody make a decision about whether an asset keeps operating, gets repaired, or comes out of service. A report that does not support that decision — with evidence, not adjectives — has not done its job, however thorough the fieldwork was.
Scope, stated plainly
The first thing the report must establish is what was examined and what was not. A pipeline inspection that covered accessible above-ground sections and could not reach three buried crossings is a perfectly legitimate piece of work. A report that omits to say so is not, because the reader will assume complete coverage.
- The sections and components inspected, identified unambiguously
- What could not be accessed, and why
- The methods used, so someone else could repeat the work
- The date, and the operating conditions at the time
Readings, not impressions
"Significant corrosion observed" tells the reader almost nothing. Wall thickness measured at a stated location, against the original specification, tells them whether they have a problem and how urgent it is. Where a measurement was taken, it belongs in the report with its location. Where a judgement was made by eye, the report should say that too — a visual assessment is useful, and it is not the same as a measurement.
Photographs matter, and they matter more when they are located. A photograph of corrosion is evidence; a photograph of corrosion at an identified support on an identified section is evidence somebody can act on.
The test of an inspection report is whether a competent engineer who was not there can reach the same conclusion from what is written.
Findings separated from recommendations
These are different things and mixing them causes trouble. A finding is what was observed. A recommendation is what the inspector thinks should be done about it. Keeping them apart lets the asset owner disagree with a recommendation without discarding the underlying observation — which is exactly what happens when priorities and budgets get argued over.
Urgency, stated as a decision the reader can act on
Recommendations without prioritisation get read once and filed. A report that distinguishes what needs intervention before the next operating cycle from what should be monitored and re-inspected gives the reader something they can plan around. If the inspector believes something requires attention before the asset returns to service, that has to be unmistakable — not the eleventh bullet in a list of twenty.
Something to compare against next time
A single inspection tells you the condition today. A series of inspections tells you the rate of deterioration, which is what actually drives replacement planning. That only works if measurements are taken at the same identified locations each time and recorded in a form that survives the departure of the person who took them.
