This is a really interesting discussion. I've been wondering myself about how much drone inspections can realistically replace traditional roof checks. From what I've seen, drones are great at pointing out the obvious stuff, like missing shingles or heavy debris build-up, as you mentioned:
"Drone footage is fantastic for spotting obvious issues like missing shingles, debris buildup, or major damage—stuff that's clearly visible from above."
But subtle problems are a different story entirely. I recently assisted on a job where the drone footage showed almost nothing out of place—roof looked pretty much perfect. Yet once we got up there and started checking around manually, we discovered some unexpected issues: a few shingles that seemed secure from above were actually loose enough to lift easily by hand, and the sealant around the chimney flashing had cracked in several spots. Those kinds of details just don't show clearly from aerial images alone.
It's not that drones aren't helpful—they definitely speed up the initial assessment and provide documentation that's easy to share with homeowners or insurance companies. But when it comes to pinpointing smaller vulnerabilities or assessing the structural integrity of decking beneath shingles, I don't see drones replacing manual inspections anytime soon.
One thing I'm curious about is whether improvements in image resolution or using thermal imaging technology might eventually bridge that gap somewhat? Thermal could potentially detect moisture penetration or insulation issues beneath the surface, which would be a big step forward. Has anyone here experimented with thermal drone inspections yet? I'm eager to hear how effective they are in practice compared to traditional methods.
Totally agree with your points, especially about drones missing subtle stuff. When we bought our house last year, the drone report was spotless—looked great on paper. But during the manual inspection, the inspector found soft spots in the decking that weren't visible at all from above.
"Thermal could potentially detect moisture penetration or insulation issues beneath the surface..."
That's an interesting thought though—thermal imaging might've caught that moisture issue early. I'd definitely be curious to see how effective thermal drones really are in practice.
We had a similar thing happen—drone shots looked perfect, but after a storm we noticed leaks. Got a thermal inspection done later and it pinpointed moisture buildup right away. Pretty impressive tech, but yeah...still wouldn't skip the hands-on inspection.
Drone and thermal tech is definitely useful, but honestly, nothing beats getting up there yourself or having someone physically check things out. I've seen thermal scans miss smaller issues like cracked flashing or loose shingles because there's no moisture buildup yet. By the time moisture shows up clearly on thermal imaging, damage might already be deeper than you'd want. Tech is great as a first step, but I'd never fully trust it alone...always pair it with a good old-fashioned hands-on look.
Couldn't agree more—tech is handy, but it's not foolproof. I've had drone inspections flag areas as "clear," only to climb up myself and find cracked sealant or nails popping up. Thermal imaging is great for spotting moisture, sure, but it won't catch those subtle issues that haven't caused leaks yet. And honestly, by the time moisture shows up clearly on thermal scans, you're already looking at repairs that could've been prevented with a quick hands-on check earlier.
One thing drones do really well though is giving you an overview of hard-to-reach spots or steep pitches. Saves a lot of hassle and risk climbing around unnecessarily. But yeah, nothing replaces actually getting your boots on the shingles and feeling things out yourself. Tech's a tool, not a replacement for experience and common sense...
