HomeToolkitExamples › Drone Roof Inspection Report Example

Drone Roof Inspection Report Example

Complete report, freeWritten from 01 Roof and building fabric inspection

This is a worked example, not a real survey. Every name, address and finding is invented. It exists to show how a completed report reads once the placeholders are filled in and the guidance notes are deleted. Compare it with 01 Roof and building fabric inspection to see what changed.

Roof and Building Fabric Inspection

Unit 4, Northgate Distribution Park

Report referenceAER-2026-114
ClientMs J. Halloran, Northgate Estates
SiteUnit 4, Northgate Distribution Park, Sofia 1528
Asset inspectedMain warehouse roof, approx. 2,400 m², profiled metal deck
Date of survey14 July 2026
Date of report16 July 2026
Surveyed byA. Petrov, operator BGR-OP-4471
StatusFinal

1. Executive summary

The warehouse roof was inspected by unmanned aircraft on 14 July 2026. The roof is in fair overall condition for its estimated 18 years and construction type. The deck itself is sound; the issues found are concentrated in the rainwater goods and at the north ridge.

7 findings were recorded: 1 S1, 2 S2, 3 S3, 0 S4, and 1 not assessable.

Matters requiring immediate attention
  • R-01 - Displaced ridge capping, north elevation. Two tiles are loose above the loading yard, one overhanging the eaves line. Ms Halloran was notified by telephone at 14:20 on the day of survey and the yard beneath was coned off the same afternoon.

Principal recommendation. Make the north ridge safe and re-bed the affected run before the autumn. In the same visit, clear the two blocked outlets - the ponding at the north-east corner is the most likely source of any future ingress.

Areas not assessed. The parapet gutter on the east elevation could not be seen from any safe flight position and is graded NA. It should be checked from a mobile platform when one is next on site.

2. Scope

This report covers a visual inspection by unmanned aircraft of all external roof surfaces, rainwater goods, parapets and roof-mounted plant.

Not within scope: internal inspection, subsurface or interstitial condition, structural adequacy, asbestos survey, electrical or mechanical testing, and drainage performance under load.

Commissioned by Northgate Estates for the purpose of informing the 2027 planned maintenance budget. Prepared for that client and that purpose.

3. Limitations

This survey is visual and non-intrusive. It records what was visible from the air, in the conditions on the day.

  • No physical testing. No coverings were lifted, no fixings tested, no moisture readings taken. Condition beneath the visible surface is not reported.
  • Structural condition is not assessed. The minor deflection noted at R-05 is an observation only and requires assessment by a structural engineer.
  • Concealed areas. The parapet gutter on the east elevation, and the deck beneath the two roof-mounted AHUs, could not be viewed adequately. Both are graded NA.
  • Conditions on the day. Overcast, 4 m/s south-westerly, dry, 24 °C. No rain in the preceding 48 hours, so standing water at the north-east corner indicates a drainage fault rather than recent weather.
  • A point in time. Roof condition changes. This report describes 14 July 2026 only.

4. Method and conditions

AircraftDJI Mavic 3 Enterprise, C2 class marking
Sensor20 MP visual
Operating categoryOpen, subcategory A2
Ground sample distanceapprox. 3 mm/px at survey height
Survey patternPerimeter orbit at 25 m, plus nadir grid at 30 m, 75% overlap
WeatherOvercast, 4 m/s SW, 24 °C, dry; no precipitation in previous 48 h
Time on site13:40 - 15:05

Airspace and permissions. The site lies outside any published UAS geographical zone. Zone status was checked against the Bulgarian CAA feed on 14 July 2026 before flight. Landowner permission for take-off and landing was held in writing.

Severity scale

Every finding carries one of the grades below. Grades describe observed condition and urgency - not cost, and not cause.

GradeMeaningSuggested response
S1Immediate. Active failure, or a condition presenting a safety risk to people or a risk of rapid consequential damage.Act now. Make safe pending repair.
S2Serious. Failure has occurred or is clearly imminent. Will worsen materially within one season if untreated.Repair within [30] days.
S3Moderate. Deterioration beyond expected wear, not yet causing failure.Next planned maintenance cycle.
S4Minor. Cosmetic, early-stage, or expected wear for the age and exposure of the asset.Monitor at next inspection.
NANot assessable. The area could not be surveyed adequately, or the observation cannot be graded from imagery alone.See Limitations. Further investigation required.

5. Findings

5.1 North elevation

R-01 - Displaced ridge cappingS1
LocationNorth ridge, approx. 4 m east of the west gable
ObservationTwo ridge tiles displaced; mortar bedding failed over approx. 1.2 m. One tile overhangs the eaves line above the loading yard.
If untreatedFalling material into a trafficked area. Water ingress at ridge.
RecommendationMake safe immediately. Re-bed the affected run and inspect the remainder of the ridge line.
Action takenClient notified 14:20, 14 July. Yard coned off same day.
EvidenceAER-2026-114_R-01_north-ridge.jpg
R-02 - Blocked outletS2
LocationParapet gutter, north-east corner
ObservationOutlet obstructed by leaf litter and a displaced sealant strip. Standing water approx. 8 m upstream, with tide-marking on the gutter sole consistent with repeated ponding.
If untreatedPonding load; risk of ingress at the gutter lap.
RecommendationClear the outlet and review gutter maintenance frequency. No rain in 48 h, so this is a drainage fault, not weather.
EvidenceAER-2026-114_R-02_ne-gutter.jpg

5.2 South elevation

R-04 - Corrosion at fixing washersS3
LocationSouth slope, bays 12-19
ObservationSurface corrosion at approx. 30 fixing washers, concentrated along two purlin lines. No perforation visible; no staining on the underside visible from the eaves.
If untreatedProgressive loss of seal at the fixing, leading to point leaks.
RecommendationInclude in the next planned maintenance cycle. Replace washers on the affected lines rather than spot-treating.
EvidenceAER-2026-114_R-04_south-fixings.jpg

5.3 Areas not assessed

RefAreaWhySuggested next step
NA-01Parapet gutter, east elevationNot visible from any safe flight position - adjacent building at 3 mInspect from a mobile platform
NA-02Deck beneath AHU 1 and 2Obscured by plantInspect at next mechanical service

6. Defect schedule

RefLocationFindingGradeRecommended action
R-01North ridgeDisplaced ridge cappingS1Make safe immediately
R-02NE parapet gutterBlocked outletS2Clear; review frequency
R-03SW downpipeDetached bracketS2Re-fix within 30 days
R-04South slope, bays 12-19Corrosion at fixing washersS3Next cycle
R-05Bay 7Minor deflection between purlinsS3Engineer to assess
R-06West gableLifted flashing, approx. 0.6 mS3Next cycle
NA-01East parapet gutterNot assessableNAInspect from platform

Totals. S1 1 · S2 2 · S3 3 · S4 0 · NA 1

7. Recommended actions

  1. Immediate: R-01 - make the north ridge safe. Completed 14 July; permanent repair still outstanding.
  2. Within 30 days: R-02 and R-03 - clear the outlet and re-fix the downpipe bracket.
  3. Next maintenance cycle: R-04 and R-06.
  4. Further investigation: R-05 requires a structural engineer; NA-01 and NA-02 require physical access.

Costs are not included. This report records condition; pricing the repair work would compromise its independence.

Appendix A - Image index

ImageFindingDescription
AER-2026-114_R-01_north-ridge.jpgR-01North ridge, oblique, 15 m
AER-2026-114_R-02_ne-gutter.jpgR-02NE parapet gutter, nadir, 20 m
AER-2026-114_R-04_south-fixings.jpgR-04South slope, oblique, 12 m

Appendix B - Operator details

OperatorPetrov Aerial Surveys EOOD
UAS operator registrationBGR-OP-4471
Remote pilotA. Petrov - A2 certificate of competency
InsuranceLev Insurance, policy 88-2211-04, limit €2,000,000
Contacta.petrov@example.com · +359 2 000 0000

Prepared by Petrov Aerial Surveys EOOD. Visual aerial inspection only - see sections 2 and 3 for scope and limitations. EXAMPLE DOCUMENT.

When would I send this?

Two or three days after the flight, to whoever commissioned the survey - usually a building manager or managing agent working out next year's maintenance budget. It is the deliverable, not a progress update, so it should arrive complete and graded, ready to forward to a roofer for pricing. Anything urgent goes by phone on the day and is recorded in the report as such, the way R-01 is here: the report should never be the first the client hears of a safety issue.

Download as PDF