Blade inspection findings

Blade inspection findings is a workflow: Aevy reads your blade campaigns and writes one defect per damage against the turbine and the blade it sits on. The result is a single register you filter and work, and a second campaign updates it rather than starting another spreadsheet beside it.

When to switch this on

When you hold blade campaigns and want one register out of them: a first campaign to work from, a repeat campaign to compare against the last, or several farms whose reports arrive in different shapes. Ask your Aevy contact to switch it on and name the assets.

From a report to the register

One pass per report. The dashed return is what makes it a register rather than a pile: the campaign you run in four years lands on the same findings.

Aevy reads one entry per distinct damage, so a report listing forty rows produces forty, not one summary per turbine. Each carries what the inspector wrote: the damage and where it sits on the blade, how far along the blade in metres, the category the report gave it, the damage ID, the repair instruction where there is one, and the access method, whether that was drone, rope, ground based, or a lift or crawler inside the blade. A blade the report calls healthy produces nothing, so the register holds defects rather than confirmations.

Set it up

Step	What happens	Who
1 Systems	The turbines exist as records on the asset. A report naming T4 in its own wording resolves to one of them, which is what makes the answer per turbine.	Aevy
2 Components	The blades exist under each turbine, so a defect files against blade A rather than against the site.	Aevy
3 Documents	The campaign reaches Aevy, by sync from your source. Repair reports too: they are what close defects out.	You
4 Switch on	Aevy turns the workflow on for the assets you named, and it reads everything already on file.	Aevy
5 Review	The proposed defects wait under Suggestions. Accepting writes them. Accept all takes a whole report in one decision.	You

Steps 1 and 2 are your asset set up properly rather than anything blade specific, and they are done once. From step 5 the register is live, and later campaigns rejoin at step 3.

Decide before it runs

Step 4 is a conversation, and two answers shape everything the workflow produces. Both are set once and changed later by asking.

Decision	What it changes	Where portfolios land
The bar	Which damage categories are worth a finding. A campaign grades everything it sees, and the low categories are photographs of a blade doing its job. Raising them all buries the ones that need a rope team.	Commonly the categories that carry a repair deadline, with the cosmetic ones left in the report. Set it lower for a blade fleet you are worried about.
The start date	How far back Aevy reads. Everything on file rebuilds the history, including damages that have since been repaired. A date reads only what arrived after it.	A date, often the start of the current year, when the older campaigns are on paper or the repairs since are not documented. Everything, when you want the full picture of what grew.

Neither is permanent. Starting from a date and backfilling later works, and it is the safer order: you see what the workflow produces on a small set before it reads ten years of campaigns.

Note on the bar

The bar decides what becomes a finding, not what Aevy reads. A defect below it stays in the report and stays findable, so raising the bar loses you nothing except rows in the register.

Read the register

Accepted defects are findings, so they sit on the Findings page and on the asset’s Findings tab with everything else open on the site. Three cuts do most of the work:

1. Group by system. The register per turbine, each heading counting the defects on it. This is the view that says which turbine is worst.
2. Filter by component. Narrow to blades, or to one blade, and the rest of the site’s open work drops away. See filtering.
3. Sort by severity. The finding carries Aevy’s own severity, from Low to Urgent, while the category the inspector assigned stays in the finding’s own words alongside the damage ID.

Each finding links back to the report it was read from, so the photograph and the row behind a defect are one click away when somebody asks what a repair is for. Closing one follows the normal finding path: assign it, work it, resolve it against the repair report.

The register is structured rather than a pile of documents, which means you can ask it questions directly. Squirrel reads the same per blade records, so “which blades have moved up a category since the last campaign” or “count the leading edge damage per turbine” comes back as an answer instead of a reading exercise. That is usually how a repair campaign gets scoped.

When the next campaign lands

This is the part a spreadsheet cannot do. Aevy treats a proposed defect as one it already holds when four things agree: the same turbine, the same blade, the same kind of damage, and a position within 1.5 metres along the blade of the one on file. Matching on position with a tolerance rather than on the damage ID is deliberate, because the ID is the inspection provider’s and changes between campaigns while the crack does not.

Agreement means the new report updates what you hold. Disagreement means a genuinely new defect, and you get it as a new proposal. So a campaign four years after the first tells you what grew, what is new, and what the repairs closed, rather than handing you a second register to reconcile by hand.

All four have to be present for the match. Where a report is too vague to place a damage on a blade at a position, Aevy proposes it as new rather than guessing, which leaves you an extra row to dismiss instead of quietly merging two different defects into one.

Limits

The register is only as good as the campaign behind it. A turbine nobody flew is absent rather than clean, and the workflow reports what the paperwork says rather than inspecting anything itself.

Aevy keeps the category the report used rather than restating every provider on one scale. Two providers grading the same damage differently stay as they were written, so compare within a campaign before comparing across them.

What’s next

• Workflows: the other four, and what each needs before it runs.
• Findings: the record every accepted defect becomes, and how you work it.
• Suggestions: the review queue in step 5, in full.
• Systems and components: the turbines and blades the register files against.