Most inspectors I know take the Part 107 pretty seriously—it's not just about legality, but liability too. If something goes sideways, insurance companies might deny coverage without proper licensing. Curious if anyone's actually seen a homeowner get dragged into legal trouble over this...?
I've wondered about this myself... I get the liability angle, but honestly, how often do homeowners actually end up in hot water over drone inspections? Seems like insurance companies might threaten denial, but do they really follow through? I mean, has anyone here personally seen or heard of a homeowner facing serious legal trouble because their inspector didn't have proper drone licensing? Feels like it might be more theoretical than practical, but hey, I'm open to being proven wrong.
Honestly, feels like insurance companies mostly use that as a scare tactic. I've never heard of anyone actually getting nailed for it. Probably one of those things that's technically possible but practically... meh. I'd worry more about the inspector knowing roofs than drone licenses.
Yeah, I get what you're saying about the drone license thing. Honestly, it feels like one of those checkbox items insurance companies toss in just to cover their bases or maybe intimidate folks a bit. I've had a couple inspections done myself, and the drone footage always looks super impressive—like something straight out of a sci-fi movie—but at the end of the day, it's the inspector's actual roofing knowledge that matters most.
Funny enough, I had an inspector once who showed up with all the fancy gear, drones buzzing around, tablets everywhere... but when I asked him about a specific flashing issue I'd noticed, he just kinda shrugged and said he'd have to "check the footage later." Like, seriously? You're standing right here, man. Just look up! So yeah, tech is cool and all, but it doesn't replace good old-fashioned know-how.
That said, I wouldn't completely dismiss the drone license thing either. Sure, I've never personally heard of anyone getting busted for it, but insurance companies can be weirdly picky when it suits them. If something ever did go sideways—like property damage or privacy complaints—I wouldn't put it past them to suddenly care a whole lot about whether the inspector had proper licensing. It's probably rare, but still something to keep in mind.
Bottom line though, you're right—practically speaking, it's probably not worth losing sleep over. I'd focus more on making sure the inspector actually knows roofs and isn't just some tech enthusiast playing with expensive toys.
Yeah, totally agree—drones are cool, but how much detail can you really catch from footage alone? I've seen inspectors miss obvious stuff because they're glued to screens. Maybe tech should complement experience, not replace it...right?
