Treyarch co-founder pleads guilty to drone collision with firefighting plane during LA wildfires

[Skye Jacobs]

Facepalm: Gaming executive Peter T. Akemann has pleaded guilty to a serious aviation incident that occurred during the recent Los Angeles wildfires. Akemann, co-founder of the Call of Duty studio Treyarch and former president of Skydance Interactive, admitted striking a firefighting plane with a drone, an act that could have had catastrophic consequences.

On January 9, Akemann flew his DJI Mini 3 Pro drone into restricted airspace over the Palisades Fire in Los Angeles. The drone collided with a "Super Scooper" water-dumping plane, causing significant damage to its left wing. The impact caused a 3-inch-by-6-inch hole, forcing the aircraft to be grounded for repairs.

According to the plea agreement, Akemann launched his drone from a parking structure near the Third Street Promenade in Santa Monica, California. He flew the drone at least 2,500 meters away from its launch point, far beyond the legal limit of visual line of sight. At the time, the Federal Aviation Administration had implemented temporary flight restrictions prohibiting drone operations near the Southern California wildfires.

Facing potential jail time, Akemann agreed to a plea deal that includes 150 hours of community service focused on Southern California's wildfire relief efforts. He will also pay a $65,000 fine to cover the cost of repairing the damaged firefighting plane.

"Flying drones during times of emergency poses an extreme threat to personnel trying to help people and compromises the overall ability of police and fire to conduct operations," U.S. Attorney Joseph McNally, one of the prosecutors on the case, said. McNally warned that individuals who fly drones under such conditions will face arrest and prosecution.

Akemann established his name in the gaming community as a co-founder of Treyarch, a studio known for its work on the Call of Duty franchise and Spider-Man games. However, he parted ways with Treyarch more than two decades ago. More recently, Akemann held the position of president and chief technologist at Skydance Interactive. Reports indicate that he recently left this role, though the exact timing and circumstances of his departure remain unclear.

Through his attorneys, Akemann expressed deep remorse for his actions.

Akemann's legal team also hinted at potential mitigating factors, specifically mentioning his reliance on the DJI drone's geofencing safeguard feature and its alleged failure in this instance.

DJI's geofencing system was designed to prevent drones from entering restricted airspace. Interestingly, this incident occurred just days before DJI announced significant changes to its geofencing system. On January 13, DJI updated its GEO system, effectively removing the automatic restriction of drone flights in previously designated no-fly zones. Instead, the system now only provides warnings to operators, placing the responsibility for compliance entirely on the drone pilot.

Permalink to story:

Treyarch co-founder pleads guilty to drone collision with firefighting plane during LA wildfires

 

[The Talking Tech]

"Days later, the drone manufacturer changed its geofencing system to put compliance entirely on the drone pilot."

Such a scumbag move.

 

[ScottSoapbox]

"Days later, the drone manufacturer changed its geofencing system to put compliance entirely on the drone pilot."

Such a scumbag move.

Why would making the person flying the drone responsible for where they fly the drone be "scummy"?

 

[ScottSoapbox]

At least this guy had to pay for the repairs and not the local taxpayers.

 

[kiwigraeme]

Why would making the person flying the drone responsible for where they fly the drone be "scummy"?

Because certain areas should always be fenced off eg airports . You don't want to trust the next big media creator to get never seen shots of planes taking off . You may trust these people I don't

People who need to fly in geo-fenced areas already have licenses and ways to get this removed

Why should be control sale of acids, explosives and other dangerous stuff. We should all have freedom and trust people

Ie most serious commercial drone operators probably want these in place to protect rep and yes get a pay back for licensing/training etc

Plus we have silly tourists who will not learn local regs and rules

 

[ScottSoapbox]

Because certain areas should always be fenced off eg airports . You don't want to trust the next big media creator to get never seen shots of planes taking off . You may trust these people I don't

People who need to fly in geo-fenced areas already have licenses and ways to get this removed

Why should be control sale of acids, explosives and other dangerous stuff. We should all have freedom and trust people

Ie most serious commercial drone operators probably want these in place to protect rep and yes get a pay back for licensing/training etc

Plus we have silly tourists who will not learn local regs and rules

You are conflating multiple issues.

1) This wasn't an airport it was a temporary "no fly" zone that are more difficult for companies to keep up with for geofencing purposes.
2) This guy was flying a drone that required a license (otherwise it wouldn't have been big enough to damage a plane)
3) It's not the "acids, explosives, and other dangerous stuff" companies job to follow around their customers to ensure they are using these things correctly. So thanks for proving my point for me.
4) "Ignorance of the law is no excuse" is a legal principle you should look up.

Applying your logic next our cars should enforce the speed limit for us, because people and silly tourists can't be trusted and then blame the car company when drivers speed or have a wreck, because it's "scummy" to not expect the company (and not the person breaking the law) to prevent this from happening.

 

[kiwigraeme]

You are conflating multiple issues.

1) This wasn't an airport it was a temporary "no fly" zone that are more difficult for companies to keep up with for geofencing purposes.
2) This guy was flying a drone that required a license (otherwise it wouldn't have been big enough to damage a plane)
3) It's not the "acids, explosives, and other dangerous stuff" companies job to follow around their customers to ensure they are using these things correctly. So thanks for proving my point for me.
4) "Ignorance of the law is no excuse" is a legal principle you should look up.

Applying your logic next our cars should enforce the speed limit for us, because people and silly tourists can't be trusted and then blame the car company when drivers speed or have a wreck, because it's "scummy" to not expect the company (and not the person breaking the law) to prevent this from happening.

cheers for reply - actually took time to read article this time

ignorance of the law - is blah blah to me - given how many govt depts and cops don't even know the law and can have qualified immunity. ie laws are so complex , so many gray areas, open to different interpretations and wrt to say drones - areas would be always changing and my be updated on one resource and not another

Point is article says the provider dropped geofencing days before, so how effective is the warning system is in big is it ongoing etc

Much easier for such a major player to collate or have info sent to it by airspace controllers nationwide

only big drones can hurt planes - citation needed - that Korean accident involve bird strike I believe

You are naive to think all explosive, big drones , guns are used only by licensed people. So automatic geofence is better with licensed override

Again my point - too many of these people doing silly stuff - Think we have read quite a few stories now of drone operators flying in such situations . Yes would be hard to be upto the minute . But given YT allows BS takedowns . How hard for an honesty system from civil defense ect to request no fly zone for x time.
Their own drones wouldn't be affected with appropriate bypass

Also ignorance of the law - is quite different from civil vs criminal wrt to wilful intent, ie the seriousness of the charge and punishment

Again our opinions are moot, would be more interesting what the Drone industry/operators think.
personally I would like a hard boundary to protect myself and my liability, So if I need to circumvent it, I will do so knowing 100%

Plus I'm not just arguing for USA but worldwide -as checks and balances are harder in some countries

anyway we are going to disagree - But I think a big difference from hobbyist vs commercial drone operator, naively believing hobbyist will keep abreast of the rules is interesting , given average american has low education and reading/comprehension skills going by published reports - average is 6 grade reading level ?? soon to get worse in red states with abolition of federal education dept

 

[p51d007]

I've been flying these things for YEARS. And although both of my DJI drones had geofence, I never bothered them for that purpose.
When you operate a motor vehicle, it is YOUR responsibility to drive in authorized places.
When you operate a fixed wing or rotor wing aircraft, it is YOUR responsibility to fly in authorized airspace.
When you are hiking, it is YOUR responsibility to only hike is authorized places.

The same should be with UAV(drones).
Before I launch, I check the Air Aware app to ensure I'm in an FAA authorized airspace.
I check the flight radar 24 app, to make sure there are no aircraft in the area (lots of medical helicopters in my neck of the woods).
There have been a hand full of times I've wanted to fly in restricted airspace. No problem. Request
a LAANC unlock code which will authorize flying in a restricted area for a specific amount of time and restricted altitude.
Flying these UAV's SHOULD always be on the operator, not any "geo" fence.

 

[ScottSoapbox]

cheers for reply - actually took time to read article this time

ignorance of the law - is blah blah to me - given how many govt depts and cops don't even know the law and can have qualified immunity. ie laws are so complex , so many gray areas, open to different interpretations and wrt to say drones - areas would be always changing and my be updated on one resource and not another

Point is article says the provider dropped geofencing days before, so how effective is the warning system is in big is it ongoing etc

Much easier for such a major player to collate or have info sent to it by airspace controllers nationwide

only big drones can hurt planes - citation needed - that Korean accident involve bird strike I believe

You are naive to think all explosive, big drones , guns are used only by licensed people. So automatic geofence is better with licensed override

Again my point - too many of these people doing silly stuff - Think we have read quite a few stories now of drone operators flying in such situations . Yes would be hard to be upto the minute . But given YT allows BS takedowns . How hard for an honesty system from civil defense ect to request no fly zone for x time.
Their own drones wouldn't be affected with appropriate bypass

Also ignorance of the law - is quite different from civil vs criminal wrt to wilful intent, ie the seriousness of the charge and punishment

Again our opinions are moot, would be more interesting what the Drone industry/operators think.
personally I would like a hard boundary to protect myself and my liability, So if I need to circumvent it, I will do so knowing 100%

Plus I'm not just arguing for USA but worldwide -as checks and balances are harder in some countries

anyway we are going to disagree - But I think a big difference from hobbyist vs commercial drone operator, naively believing hobbyist will keep abreast of the rules is interesting , given average american has low education and reading/comprehension skills going by published reports - average is 6 grade reading level ?? soon to get worse in red states with abolition of federal education dept

I am 100% with you on qualified immunity. If cops can't keep up with the law we have too many laws. (which we do)

It's not that only big drones hurt planes, it's that only tiny drones <250grams don't require a license. (Most people don't get licenses anyway but that's another topic)

My point wasn't that only licensed people use dangerous things like explosives, it was that the companies aren't responsible for what people do (other than reasonable precautions in the sale of said products) nor should they be.

The difference with the focus on personal responsibility is that it doesn't require the successful and continuous coordination of major companies and government agencies to succeed. If you want smaller government and true freedom, we have to hold people responsible for their actions not add layers of laws and bureaucracy to try and protect them from themselves.

 

[Volleyball Face]

Yikes! I've been to those parking structures next to the Third Street Promenade in Santa Monica, California, they are way too far away from Pacific Palisades' active fire area. Just flying north from the furthest northern parking structure towards the border of Santa Monica and Pacific Palisades is way too far for a drone, there's no way a drone pilot can see their drone from those two cities' border, let alone flying higher up into the mountain where the fire was raging. There are much closer staging areas to choose from and launch a drone, if you are willing to break the law and ruining the hobby for the rest of us.