HomeToolkitExamples › Drone Chimney Inspection Report Example

Drone Chimney Inspection Report Example

Opening sections, freeWritten from 06 General asset inspection

This is a worked example, not a real survey. Every name, address and finding is invented. It shows how the template reads once the placeholders are filled in and the guidance notes are deleted.

Asset Inspection

Bellworth Mill chimney, Ruse

Report referenceAER-2026-241
ClientBellworth Mill Trust
SiteBellworth Mill, Ruse
Asset inspectedFree-standing brick chimney, approx. 34 m, octagonal, c. 1897
Reason for inspectionPre-works condition record ahead of grant application
Date of survey2 July 2026
Surveyed byA. Petrov, operator BGR-OP-4471

1. Executive summary

The chimney was inspected by unmanned aircraft on 2 July 2026. It is in fair to poor overall condition for its age and exposure. The structure appears stable, but the upper 6 m shows significant mortar loss and one displaced band.

9 findings were recorded: 1 S1, 2 S2, 4 S3, 1 S4, and 1 not assessable.

Principal recommendation. Secure or remove the displaced iron band at the 26 m level before the next high wind. It sits directly above a public footpath.

Areas not assessed. The internal flue was not inspected. The south-west face above 30 m was in deep shadow throughout the available window and is graded NA.

2. Scope

Visual inspection by unmanned aircraft of all four external faces of the chimney from base to cap, at a nominal stand-off of 8 m.

Not within scope: internal flue inspection, structural adequacy, materials testing, load assessment, compliance certification, cost of remedial works.

A worked finding, from later in the report

F-01 - Displaced iron bandS1
LocationNorth-east face, 26 m, second band below the cap
ObservationBand displaced approximately 40 mm from the brick face over roughly a quarter of its circumference. Corrosion product visible at the fixing. Brickwork beneath is spalled.
If untreatedFailure of the band, with material falling onto the footpath 26 m below.
RecommendationSecure or remove before the next period of high wind. Restrict access beneath in the interim.
Action takenTrust notified by telephone at 09:20 on the day of survey. Footpath closed the same morning.
EvidenceAER-2026-241_F-01_ne-band.jpg

The rest of this report

The sections below are in the full document, which ships as an editable .docx and a finished PDF inside the pack.

  • 3. Limitations
  • 4. Method and conditions
  • Severity scale
  • 5. Findings
  • 6. Defect schedule
  • 7. Recommended actions
  • Appendix A - Image index
  • Appendix B - Operator details
When would I send this?

To whoever has to decide whether to spend money on access - a building owner, a managing agent, or the structural engineer they have retained. This is usually the document that justifies a scaffold or avoids one, so it is read closely and sometimes adversarially. That is why the limitations section earns its place: be explicit that a visual aerial survey cannot report on flue integrity, or on anything it could not see, before someone assumes otherwise.