Visual inspection is a common method of quality control, data acquisition and data analysis. Visual inspection, used in facility maintenance, means the inspection of equipment and structures using any or all of the raw human senses, such as sight, hearing, touch and smell, and/or any non-specialized inspection equipment. Inspections requiring ultrasonic, x-ray, infrared, etc. equipment are not typically considered visual inspections, as these inspection methodologies require specialized equipment, training, and certification.

In the context of visual inspections, IVT (Technological Visual Inspection) and IVP (Pedestrian Visual Inspection) differ mainly in the tools and methods used.[1]​.

IVT is characterized by the use of advanced technologies, such as drones, specialized cameras and sensors, to perform inspections remotely or automated, allowing broader, faster and safer coverage of difficult-to-access areas. On the other hand, IVP is carried out manually, in which inspectors physically walk through the area to make direct observations with portable cameras.

Since drones are technological tools that allow inspection from the air and collection of data with minimal direct intervention from an operator on the ground, they are exclusively aligned with IVT. Its use transcends the traditional capabilities of pedestrian visual inspection and is part of the modernization and modernization that defines the Technologized Visual Inspection.

Likewise, the industry has adapted the endoscopes used in medicine for its own needs. These devices are called industrial endoscopes or borescopes), flexoscopes or video endoscopes. With them you can observe the inside of machines, motors, ducts, cavities or weapons without having to dismantle them.

A study of visual inspection of small integrated circuits found that the modal duration of trained inspectors' ocular fixations was approximately 200 em. The most accurate inspectors made the fewest eye fixations and were the fastest. When the same chip was evaluated more than once by an individual inspector, the consistency of judgment was very high, while the consistency between inspectors was somewhat lower. Variation by a factor of six in inspection speed led to a variation of less than a factor of two in inspection accuracy. Visual inspection had a false positive rate of 2% and a false negative rate of 23%.[2]​.