Even the smallest damage can lead to significant cost if not properly addressed. This is especially true within the context of aircraft structural damage management, where a (seemingly) tiny crack can cost thousands of dollars down the line.

To alleviate this, aviation maintenance rely on continuous traceability, one of which is through the Dent & Buckle Chart as the control document for structural damage. 

What is Dent & Buckle Chart?

A Dent & Buckle Chart can go by other names depending on operator, such as Aircraft Structural Damage report, but nonetheless, it is essentially a structured record of aircraft structural damage. Often overlooked, yet critical, the DBC is more than just a record; it’s a control document that connects structural damage, compliance, and financial impact.

It typically captures:

• Type of damage (dent, buckle, tear, corrosion)

• Exact location and measurements

• Rectification actions and status

• References to supporting documents (WO, SRM, etc.)

• Mapping to aircraft structure (chart/grid system)

How DBC Findings turns into Repair/Monitor Decision

1. Inspection

Dent, buckle, tear, or Corrosion is found during A/C/D Checks or other inspections

2. Checking against SRM

DBC is updated. Findings checked against SRM to classify if is within allowable limit and what action, if any, is needed.

Aircraft Structural Repair Manual (SRM) is an OEM-issued technical document providing approved reference for structural limits and repair methods.

Damage would be considered based on several factors, such as the type of damage (dent, buckle, tear, etc), location on the aircraft (wings? aileron?), and the dimension of the damage itself. Size and type itself can’t serve as the main indicator as different parts of the aircraft may have different allowable limit and therefore trigger a different action plan.

After which, assuming the damage is listed in the SRM, it will then be classified as:

• ✅ Acceptable → Monitor only 

• ⚠️ Allowable → Minor repair or monitoring 

•  Not Allowable → Repair required 

In this scenario, after which the Engineering personnel will then use SRM as a reference to make decision to what the follow-up action would look like, from whether it needs temporary or permanent repair, if it needs to be done immediately or later on, to the exact work scope and manpower/tools requirement the task would need. 

This step is critical = wrong classification = compliance risk + cost escalation.

Importance of DBC during Redelivery Management: The Danger of Document Gaps

Now, let’s take a look at DBC within the context of aircraft redelivery. This topic is especially relevant now with the prevalency of older aircraft, where more lengthy years in service also meant more risks of wear and tear.

During redelivery, any structural damage becomes a cost and compliance consideration

Most common issue 👉 Missing or incomplete records

This happens when DBC is reviewed ahead of redelivery. Upon review, a record gap was identified. This could mean a missing WO, ARC, or an installed component’s Serviceable tag. As traceability cannot be confirmed, rework is required to rebuild traceability

This in turns could balooned the expected cost of an aircraft transition, create delays, and even trigger potential disputes (and fines) from the lessor. This, against a backdrop of long queues for MRO slot and extended TAT for material supplies, create significant risks.

This becomes even more complex for repairs outside SRM, where additional approvals are required: this includes 1) OEM / DOA repair approval;  2) Authority approval (e.g., DGCA Form 21-9); 3) Supporting STC / SB documentation 

With its importance, managing DBC also presents several challenges:

• Human error: Mistakes in measurement, classification, or data entry can lead to incorrect decisions.

• Continuous record updatesRequires coordination between maintenance, engineering, and flight crew to ensure damage is properly recorded

• Engineering considerationsRepair decisions must balance cost, time, and resources, as sometimes a “small dent” turns into a bigger structural finding.

Technological Shifts in Damage Recording and Inspection Methods

With the many challenges, some technological solutions are continue being offered to the market:

• Digital Dent & Buckle Chart Transition from paper-based records to digital platforms, allowing centralized access and more consistent updates. Some systems incorporate visual mapping (including 2D / 3D views) for clearer damage tracking.

• Drone and Tool-based Inspection tools: Use of high-resolution imaging tools and sensors (including drones in certain scenarios) to generate inspection and documentation.

• Digital Twin: Virtual representation of the aircraft, updated with operational and maintenance data. Primarily used for monitoring and analysis, with potential to support predictive maintenance.