Eddy current testing vs visual inspection — is it worth the effort?

Our team has relied heavily on visual inspection for years, mostly because it’s simple and cheap. Recently, though, we had a few failures that were not visible to the naked eye, and management is pushing for more advanced inspection methods. Eddy current testing came up, but some colleagues argue it’s overkill and too complex for daily use.For those who transitioned from visual inspection, was the learning curve and investment actually worth it in the end?

 

I’ve been exactly in that situation. Visual inspection is fine until it suddenly isn’t — and that’s usually when defects become costly. Eddy current testing definitely has a learning curve, but it’s not as intimidating as it seems. Once operators understand how signals react to cracks, conductivity changes, and geometry, interpretation becomes quite intuitive.The biggest benefit for us was catching issues early, before they became visible or caused failures. That alone justified the effort. We used this resource during onboarding because it explains the method in a very practical way, without unnecessary complexity: https://teqto.pro/flaw-detectors/eddy-current After a few months, nobody wanted to go back to visual inspection alone.

 

That sounds convincing, thanks for sharing your experience!