Blade Inspection Report: What It Should Include

Start with the decision the report must support

Before collecting images, agree whether the inspection supports baseline documentation, investigation of a known concern, a maintenance review or comparison with an earlier inspection. These objectives can require different views, location accuracy and review responsibilities.

Define the deliverables with the owner and responsible technical reviewer. Confirm the inspection procedure, asset-specific criteria and required approval route. A generic template should not invent repair thresholds or imply that an image alone authorizes continued operation.

DNV-ST-0376 provides principles and technical requirements for wind turbine rotor blades. Referencing a standard does not establish that a particular report or inspection robot conforms to it. The applicable edition, contractual requirements and inspection procedure still need project-specific review.

Use a practical report structure

The following is a proposed procurement and quality-check framework, rather than a mandatory standard template.

An executive summary should surface urgent escalations and unresolved limitations.

Keep four information layers separate

1. Original capture

Retain the original image or video and a stable identifier. Record its relationship to the turbine, blade and inspection session. Preserve enough context to understand the camera view, rather than supplying only a tightly cropped feature. Identify edited derivatives as derivatives.

2. Annotation and automated assistance

Store overlays, labels and candidate detections separately from originals. Record whether an annotation came from software or a person. Where available, retain the software or model version and processing settings needed to interpret the result. An automated confidence score should not become a structural severity grade by default.

3. Human interpretation

Record whether the reviewer accepted, rejected or could not resolve each candidate. Describe uncertainty explicitly. A visible line may require further examination before it can be classified as damage. Include the criteria used and the reviewer’s actual role; leave approval pending until it occurs.

4. Owner decision

Keep the engineering recommendation distinct from the owner’s authorized action. A recommendation to investigate is not a completed investigation. Add an action owner, due date where agreed, and closure evidence when the work finishes.

WindInspectTech’s sample inspection report illustrates this separation and provides blank planning fields. It contains no customer inspection results and does not establish compatibility with a particular export workflow.

Make locations and measurements reproducible

Define the coordinate convention before mobilization. State how blades are identified, where distances originate, which cavity is being described and how the inspected surface is named. Link each observation to both a context view and its detailed evidence where possible.

Distinguish estimated position from measured position. If a dimension is reported, include the method, unit and relevant uncertainty or limitations. Pixel dimensions alone do not establish physical defect size. When measurement is unavailable, describe the visible feature without inventing a length or depth.

For repeat inspections, record how the team matched the current location with the earlier observation. A changed viewing angle or lighting condition can change appearance without demonstrating physical growth.

Report coverage honestly

Coverage needs a denominator: planned area, defined surface, accessible cavity or agreed inspection path. Distance travelled is not automatically surface coverage. Neither an equipment specification nor a successful traversal proves that every required feature was visible. The full argument is in the guide tointernal blade inspection coverage.

Use separate statuses for:

• Inspected with evidence suitable for the agreed review
• Captured, but limited by visibility or image quality
• Accessible, but not inspected during this visit
• Inaccessible or outside the agreed scope

Explain obstructions, interrupted runs, missing location references and other exclusions. “No finding recorded” and “not inspected” must remain distinguishable. An exclusion should trace back to the access pack built before mobilisation; theaccess and compatibility checklist shows what that pack records.

The WIT-BR60 product page describes internal visual capture and a human-reviewed reporting workflow. Its documented coverage and timing statements are conditional product values, not proof of a specific project’s achieved coverage.

Apply a release checklist

Before issuing the report, check that:

• Every finding points to a retrievable original file
• Blade identifiers and coordinate conventions are consistent
• Annotated copies cannot be mistaken for originals
• Missing data and inaccessible areas are visible
• Classifications cite the agreed criteria
• Review and approval states reflect work actually completed
• Recommendations have a clear recipient and escalation route
• The owner can open the delivered files and retain them as agreed

Agree retention, access permissions and revision handling in advance. A corrected report should preserve the reason for the change and identify which version it replaces.