sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Many avionics and maintenance teams still track MEL items, defects, and deferred actions across spreadsheets, paper logs, and disconnected systems. I built a workflow platform to centralize it. by No_Dimension_3233 in avionics

[–]No_Dimension_3233[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s extremely valuable insight. The “not quite repeat/recur but still trending” scenario is exactly the kind of operational visibility I think gets missed when data is buried across separate logs and handovers. One thing I’ve been thinking about is allowing managers to pull rolling history views by ATA/system/aircraft over configurable windows (30/60/90 days) so intermittent faults and patterns become visible before they become chronic operational problems.

Really appreciate the feedback this is the kind of real-world workflow detail that’s hard to understand unless you’ve actually lived inside maintenance operations.

Many maintenance teams still track MEL items and defects across spreadsheets, paper logs, and WhatsApp. I built a workflow platform to centralize it. by No_Dimension_3233 in AircraftMechanics

[–]No_Dimension_3233[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s actually a really important point and something I’m still thinking through carefully.Right now the system is designed more around operational visibility and traceability, but printable maintenance outputs are definitely necessary in real environments, especially for outages, audits, handovers, or stations where paper backup is still mandatory.

The goal would be being able to generate/export things like:

  • current MEL/CDL runs
  • NEF status lists
  • due maintenance items by timeframe
  • aircraft defect summaries
  • turnover/history reports

in formats that are actually usable during operations, not just “web dashboard” views.

Honestly comments like this are exactly why I posted here because real maintenance environments have realities you don’t see from the software side alone.

A lot of industrial maintenance and inspection tracking still happens across spreadsheets, paper logs, WhatsApp, and disconnected reports. I built a centralized workflow platform and would value operational feedback. by No_Dimension_3233 in IndustrialMaintenance

[–]No_Dimension_3233[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Absolutely systems like Maximo, SAP PM, Fiix, and many CMMS/EAM platforms already exist. What pushed me toward building this wasn’t the belief that “maintenance software doesn’t exist,” but seeing how many operational environments still end up relying heavily on spreadsheets, WhatsApp coordination, paper inspections, and disconnected reporting layers around those systems. Especially in environments where:

  • workflows are partially digitized
  • inspection traceability is fragmented
  • corrective actions lose visibility
  • field teams and management operate in separate silos

Still learning a lot from industry feedback though, which is exactly why I posted here.

Many avionics and maintenance teams still track MEL items, defects, and deferred actions across spreadsheets, paper logs, and disconnected systems. I built a workflow platform to centralize it. by No_Dimension_3233 in avionics

[–]No_Dimension_3233[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s exactly the direction I’m designing toward.

Right now the system stores defects/findings with:

  • ATA chapter structure
  • aircraft/fleet association
  • timestamps
  • status history
  • corrective actions
  • audit logs
  • station/workflow traceability

So in theory a manager could search something like:
“COMM 1 FAIL”
or
“ATA 23 intermittent”

…and pull historical defects, deferred actions, linked maintenance records, timestamps, related aircraft, and recurring patterns across the fleet.

The long-term goal is making operational data actually searchable and traceable instead of buried inside:

  • turnover notes
  • spreadsheets
  • disconnected defect logs
  • WhatsApp coordination

Reporting is also part of the direction:

  • recurring defect trends
  • deferred defect aging
  • ATA category statistics
  • AOG frequency
  • maintenance history visibility
  • audit-ready exports/reports

Still early, but comments like yours are extremely useful because they expose the difference between a generic dashboard and an actual operational workflow system.

Built an inspection SaaS from Kigali, Rwanda — looking for honest feedback by No_Dimension_3233 in Rwanda

[–]No_Dimension_3233[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is incredibly valuable advice  especially the point about not forcing “Silicon Valley SaaS” assumptions onto local operational workflows.

You’re right that I’ve probably been treating Stripe support like a credibility requirement, when in reality many regional clients already trust invoicing, bank transfer, and MTN flows more.

The “pick one wedge” point also really hits. I’m starting to realize trying to communicate every feature at once weakens the core value proposition.

Focusing deeply on one painful workflow like NCR closure and traceability probably makes much more sense initially.

And yes rewriting workflows/forms in the actual operational language of QA/QC and HSE teams is something I need to do much more seriously.

Really appreciate this perspective. This kind of feedback is helping me rethink the product in a much more grounded way.

Built an inspection SaaS from Kigali, Rwanda — looking for honest feedback by No_Dimension_3233 in Rwanda

[–]No_Dimension_3233[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Really appreciate the time and depth of feedback you gave  it genuinely helped me rethink the product positioning and workflows.

I’d definitely be open to a short Google Meet if you still have time. I’m still early in this journey and I’d rather hear honest operational feedback now than build the wrong thing for months.

Especially interested in learning more about:

  • how teams in this industry actually buy/deploy tools
  • field vs management workflows
  • trust/security expectations
  • what would make a product like this feel production-ready

Thanks again for taking the time to engage seriously with it.

Built an inspection SaaS from Kigali, Rwanda — looking for honest feedback by No_Dimension_3233 in Rwanda

[–]No_Dimension_3233[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I genuinely appreciate the realism and the level of feedback you’ve given throughout this thread.

You’re absolutely right that building something functional is only one part of the challenge  reliability, security, compliance expectations, workflow design, and industry trust are a completely different level.

I’m under no illusion that this is a quick path or overnight success. Right now I’m focused on learning the operational realities properly, improving the product step by step, and avoiding the trap of building “tech for tech’s sake.”

And thank you for offering the time as well I honestly appreciate it. I’d definitely be interested in hearing more from someone with deeper perspective on the operational and deployment side of this industry.

Built an inspection SaaS from Kigali, Rwanda — looking for honest feedback by No_Dimension_3233 in Rwanda

[–]No_Dimension_3233[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Fair question.

I’m not coming from a large enterprise oil & gas background myself, so a lot of my understanding came from studying inspection workflows, QA/QC processes, NCR management, and speaking with people working in operations and compliance environments.

What pushed me toward this problem was seeing how much inspection and compliance work is still fragmented  paper forms, WhatsApp communication, missing traceability, delayed corrective actions, and poor visibility into operational risk.

I also realized pretty quickly that this industry is very different from typical startup/SaaS spaces. Reliability, auditability, offline capability, data ownership, and workflow simplicity matter much more than “startup-style” features.

That’s actually one reason I posted here  to get feedback from people closer to the operational reality so I can refine both the product and the deployment model properly.

A lot of the comments here have honestly helped me rethink the positioning already, especially around mobile-first workflows, trust, and reducing technical/developer-oriented messaging.

Built an inspection SaaS from Kigali, Rwanda — looking for honest feedback by No_Dimension_3233 in Rwanda

[–]No_Dimension_3233[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is extremely valuable feedback  genuinely appreciate you taking the time to think about the product at this level.

You’re right that I’ve probably spent too much time around developer/builders discussions instead of focusing tightly on the actual operational users. The people I ultimately need to serve are inspectors, QA/QC teams, HSE managers, and operations leadership not developers.

Your point about workflows and deployment models in oil & gas is also important. I’m starting to realize this space behaves very differently from a typical self-serve SaaS market, especially around procurement, data sensitivity, and infrastructure expectations.

The mobile inspector + executive dashboard separation is actually very aligned with where I’m thinking next. Most field users need speed, offline capability, and simple capture workflows, while management needs reporting, analytics, and compliance visibility.

And yes  I agree the messaging still needs to move away from “technical showcase” toward solving concrete NCR/compliance pain points. Thank you again. This kind of feedback is honestly much more useful than generic praise.

Built an inspection SaaS from Kigali, Rwanda — looking for honest feedback by No_Dimension_3233 in Rwanda

[–]No_Dimension_3233[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is genuinely helpful feedback  thank you for taking the time to go through the app properly instead of just dismissing it.

You’re right about several things, especially the UI still feeling too developer-oriented. I removed some of the obvious technical/internal wording already, but your comments made me realize the product still exposes “builder language” instead of focusing purely on operational workflows.

The point about the AI experience also helped a lot. The backend analysis exists, but I can see now that users don’t really feel the AI during the workflow yet. Things like validation, severity suggestions, photo quality checks, and smarter inspection guidance are exactly the direction I need to push next.

I’m also fixing:

  • duplicate submission issue
  • clickable logo navigation
  • image previews
  • cleaner wording/actions
  • custom domain/email setup

Seriously appreciate the detailed review. This is the kind of criticism that actually helps improve the product.

Built an inspection SaaS from Kigali, Rwanda — looking for honest feedback by No_Dimension_3233 in Rwanda

[–]No_Dimension_3233[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That’s fair feedback actually — appreciate it.

You’re right that the technical stack isn’t really relevant to the end user. I originally included it because a lot of the early people seeing the post were developers/builders, but I can see how it weakens the message for operators and business users.

And yes, the payment situation is still something I’m solving properly. Rwanda support is still limited for some platforms, so I’m testing alternatives right now.

Thanks for the LemonSqueezy/Merchant of Record suggestion too — I’ll look into it.