Nothing replaces getting up there and checking things yourself, even if it’s a hassle.
Couldn’t agree more. Last winter, I got one of those “ultra-detailed” drone reports for my uncle’s old cape-style place. Looked impressive—thermal scans, moisture readings, the works. But a week later, after a couple nights of heavy wind and sideways rain, I noticed a faint musty smell in the attic. Turns out, a single shingle near the ridge had cracked, and water was sneaking in right at the nail line. The report missed it completely. If I hadn’t crawled up there and poked around, we probably wouldn’t have caught it until the ceiling stains showed up.
I get the appeal of new tech and all those gadgets, but sometimes I wonder if they just make it easier to overlook the basics. Maybe it’s just habit, but I always trust my own eyes and nose more than a PDF with color codes.
It can be a pain, especially with steep pitches or when the weather’s bad, but I’d rather deal with some sore legs than a full-blown leak. Plus, you notice little things—like loose flashing or clogged valleys—that a camera just can’t pick up. Guess I’m a bit old-school about it.
It’s funny, too—my neighbor swears by those inspection apps, but he’s had to patch his soffits twice this year because they didn’t flag the rot. Sometimes, you just gotta get your hands dirty.
I always trust my own eyes and nose more than a PDF with color codes.
Same here. I tried one of those drone inspections last fall, thinking it’d save me some money and hassle. Looked great on paper, but it didn’t catch a couple of popped nails on the back slope. Ended up crawling up there myself after a storm and found them before they turned into leaks. For what those reports cost, I’d rather just buy a decent ladder and check things myself. Sometimes the old-fashioned way is just more reliable, especially when you’re watching every dollar.
I get the appeal of all the tech—my inspection report had more colors and arrows than a weather map, but it still left me scratching my head. I mean, it flagged “thermal anomalies” on the south side, but when I actually got up there (after psyching myself up for the ladder), it was just some old leaves and a bit of moss. No leaks, no missing shingles. The PDF made it sound like my roof was about to take flight.
I’m new to all this, so I figured high-tech meant more accuracy. Turns out, you can’t beat just looking at things yourself—at least for the basics. I probably spent more time trying to interpret their “action items” than it would’ve taken to just walk around with a flashlight and a pair of binoculars. Not saying drones are useless, but for stuff like loose nails or minor flashing issues? They’re not magic.
It’s funny, because my neighbor swears by these reports—he’s got solar panels and says the drone caught a cracked panel he never would’ve seen. Maybe it depends on what you’re looking for? For me, I’d rather risk a little dust and do my own check before shelling out for another sci-fi PDF.
Also, those ladders aren’t cheap either...but at least you get some exercise out of it.
I had a similar experience with my first inspection—got a 30-page PDF full of infrared images and “potential moisture intrusion” alerts. When I checked it out myself (as much as I could without risking my neck), it was just some damp spots from last week’s rain, nothing major. I get that the tech can spot stuff we might miss, but sometimes it feels like overkill for basic asphalt shingles. Maybe if you’ve got a flat roof or solar panels, it’s worth it, but for me, crawling around with a flashlight felt more straightforward...and less anxiety-inducing.
That’s pretty much how my first “high-tech” inspection went too—pages of thermal scans and arrows pointing at what turned out to be a couple soggy spots where the downspout splashed up. I get why they do it, especially for big commercial roofs or if you’ve got weird leaks that only show up after a storm. But for a regular pitched shingle roof, sometimes I wonder if the old-fashioned way is just as good. Did your inspector explain any of the images to you, or was it just a data dump? I’m always curious how much of that stuff is useful versus just covering their bases.