"Sure, it's a hassle lugging around something that feels like a medieval jousting weapon, but at least you're not stuck waiting for batteries to recharge or worrying about crashing into someone's chimney."
Haha, "medieval jousting weapon"—that's spot-on. I've been there too, wrestling with drones on windy days. They're fantastic tools when everything aligns perfectly, but reality rarely cooperates. Last year I had a similar experience inspecting some steeply pitched roofs in a densely wooded area. The drone kept losing GPS lock and drifting dangerously close to branches...talk about nerve-wracking.
Eventually, I just went back to the pole camera. Sure, it's cumbersome and feels outdated compared to the sleek drone tech, but there's something reassuring about direct physical control. You know exactly what you're getting—no sudden gusts turning your inspection into an expensive crash scenario.
Still, drones have their place—especially for large commercial properties or inaccessible areas—but for everyday reliability and simplicity, it's hard to beat the trusty pole method. Glad I'm not alone in thinking this way.
Totally get what you're saying about the drones—when they're good, they're amazing, but when they're bad...yikes. I haven't had one crash into a chimney yet (knock on wood), but I've definitely had some close calls with trees and power lines. And yeah, that GPS drift is no joke. Ever had your drone suddenly decide it's going to do its own thing mid-inspection? Not fun.
The pole camera might feel old-school, but there's something reassuring about knowing exactly where your equipment is at all times. Plus, no battery anxiety. Do you find yourself using the drone less and less for residential jobs these days? I've been noticing that myself, especially in tighter neighborhoods or areas with lots of overhead obstructions. Guess sometimes the simpler solution really is the better one...
As a homeowner who's had both drone and pole inspections done, I gotta say the drone thing feels a bit gimmicky sometimes. Sure, the images look cool, but when the inspector spent half the time wrestling with GPS drift and battery swaps, I started wondering if I was paying extra just for the sci-fi factor. The pole camera guy was in and out quick, no fuss, and I felt more confident in the results. Fancy tech is great, but simpler usually means fewer headaches...and lower bills.
Interesting perspective—I've mostly seen drone inspections praised for reaching tricky spots, but I can totally see how the tech could end up being more trouble than it's worth sometimes. Did you notice any difference in the detail or accuracy of the reports between the drone and pole inspections? Curious if the extra hassle of drones actually translated into better info, or if it's mostly just flashy presentation...
"Curious if the extra hassle of drones actually translated into better info, or if it's mostly just flashy presentation..."
Honestly, drones can give you some pretty impressive detail—especially for steep roofs or tricky angles—but I've found pole inspections often deliver equally solid info without the tech headaches. Sometimes simpler really is better...and cheaper too.
