When purchasing a business jet, experience matters—but so does flexibility. Aircraft buyers and advisors often rely on past lessons to make decisions, but statements like “always do this” or “never do that” can lead to costly oversights.
Take the case of a first-time jet buyer who insisted on avoiding any aircraft with high-time engines. He was told, “You should never buy an aircraft with engines close to overhaul.”
On paper, it made sense. But in reality, he walked away from a meticulously maintained jet with a fully funded engine program—one that could have saved him significant costs in the long run. By the time he realized the mistake, another buyer had already closed the deal.
Rigid decision-making and listening to absolute statements can lead to pitfalls during the purchasing process. For example, one of the most debated aspects of a pre-purchase process is the necessity of a borescope inspection. Let’s dig in deeper.
The Role of Borescope Inspections in Due Diligence
Aircraft sellers and engine OEMs often argue that a borescope is unnecessary. They point to existing engine maintenance programs and past service history as sufficient assurance of engine health. However, buyers may take a different view, understanding that even engines with well-documented maintenance can conceal hidden issues.
While a borescope inspection can be instrumental in identifying internal engine problems before finalizing a purchase, its necessity depends on several factors. For starters, buyers must consider engine program coverage, financial risk exposure and aircraft history to determine whether skipping this pre-purchase inspection could lead to unforeseen costs.
The debate often centers on whether a borescope is redundant for engines covered by existing maintenance programs. However, skipping this step can lead to costly surprises if program exclusions or wear-related findings shift financial responsibility to the buyer.
A well-informed buyer must carefully weigh the risks of an undetected defect against the assurances provided by sellers and OEMs. Ensuring that the final decision aligns with long-term investment goals is crucial.
Borescopes: The Cost-Saving Benefits of Pre-purchase Inspections
Borescope inspections provide a detailed internal view of an engine’s components, revealing damage that might not be detectable through external checks or performance monitoring.
Cracked turbine blades, hot section corrosion and excessive carbon buildup are just a few of the potential issues that a borescope can uncover. These problems, if left undiscovered, can lead to costly repairs or even catastrophic engine failure.
Risk exposure plays a significant role in determining whether a borescope inspection is necessary. If an aircraft is enrolled in a high-quality engine program that covers borescope findings without exclusions, the financial risk of an undetected issue is significantly reduced.
However, if an engine program excludes wear-and-tear findings or the aircraft is operated under a pay-as-you-go maintenance model, skipping a borescope inspection could expose the buyer to unexpected repair costs that could reach hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Aircraft history also impacts the necessity of a borescope inspection. An aircraft with extensive maintenance records, consistent utilization, and no history of foreign object damage (FOD) may present a lower risk. Conversely, an aircraft with a history of infrequent use, extended storage, or operation in harsh environments may be more susceptible to internal engine deterioration, making a borescope inspection critical.
While new or low-time engines may seem like lower-risk candidates for bypassing a borescope, manufacturing defects, improper maintenance, or even transportation-related damage can still pose hidden threats. Buyers who assume a borescope is never necessary for newer engines may find themselves facing unexpected issues down the line.
Other Always and Never Statements in the Purchase Process
Always Buy the Lowest-Time Aircraft Available?
Think again. Lower flight hours can indicate less wear, but prolonged inactivity can lead to fuel system degradation, corrosion, and seal deterioration. Instead of focusing solely on hours, buyers should consider maintenance history, storage conditions and overall care.
Never Buy an Aircraft Without a Test Flight?
This is not always true. While test flights provide valuable insight into an aircraft’s performance, they’re not always possible. Some aircraft may be grounded due to maintenance or storage. If a test flight isn’t feasible, alternative methods such as logbook reviews, maintenance records and operational ground checks can provide essential insights.
Never Buy an Aircraft with Damage History?
It depends. Avoiding aircraft with damage history outright can lead buyers to overlook valuable opportunities. While severe structural damage can be a red flag, many aircraft have undergone high-quality repairs that make them just as safe and reliable as their undamaged counterparts. Buyers should carefully review the nature of the damage, the quality of repairs and compliance with manufacturer and regulatory standards.
Always Choose an Aircraft on an Engine Program?
Not necessarily. Engine programs can provide cost predictability, but not all are created equal. Some exclude wear-and-tear items, meaning unexpected costs could still fall on the buyer. Additionally, while engine programs may seem like a safety net, they do not always cover issues found during a borescope inspection. Some programs shift financial responsibility for certain findings to the owner, which can result in significant out-of-pocket expenses.
Buyers should carefully analyze the specific terms of coverage and compare them to projected maintenance expenses. A program that appears comprehensive at first glance may contain exclusions that leave the buyer vulnerable.
Understanding these nuances is important in assessing risk exposure and determining whether additional due diligence, such as a borescope inspection, is necessary.
Balance the Absolutes with Expert Judgment
The aviation industry thrives on precision, but when it comes to pre-purchase inspections, rigid absolutes can lead to false expectations.
Instead of relying on blanket “always” and “never” statements, buyers should adopt a case-by-case approach guided by expert advice.
Buyers should evaluate borescope inspections, logbook reviews, test flights and thorough assessments based on the aircraft, its history and intended use.
The key takeaway? Aviation transactions require a nuanced approach. Instead of relying on absolutes, successful buyers focus on context, expert insight and data-driven decisions.
After all, the goal isn’t just to acquire an aircraft but to do so with full confidence in its safety, reliability and long-term value. In business jet acquisitions, flexibility isn’t just a strategy—it’s a competitive advantage.
About the Author
As Senior Sales Director at The Jet Agent, Jon Gilbert, C.M., makes buying and selling jet planes seamless. A Citation and Phenom expert and trusted advisor, his aviation career spans over 20 years.
March 12, 2025 – This article for AirMail Focus originally appeared on GlobalAir.com.
