← Back to Squawk list
  • 47

Drone Pilot Sentenced to Jail and $156K Fine After DJI Mini 3 Collision With LA Firefighting Plane

Submitted
A California tech executive has been sentenced to jail and ordered to pay restitution after his DJI Mini 3 Pro drone collided with a vital firefighting aircraft battling Los Angeles’ January Palisades Fire. The crash forced the plane out of service at a critical moment in the firefight, underscoring the dangers of flying drones near emergency operations. (airguide.info) More...

Alan Winn
News junkiePromoterAltruistAnnouncerAutobiographer

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


mdurbanek
Michael Urbanek 23
Anyone who has flown a drone has lost contact with it occasionally. To put a drone in the air within a few miles of a fire is reckless and stupid. There is no excuse,
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
mikeosmers
Michael Osmers 11
Not to mention in a TFR (FlightAware Restricted) zone. Permanent revocation of his drone operators permit though not mentioned in the article would also be appropriate IMO.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
gordomoose
j h 2
The prison time & fine ensures he won't do it again, so there's no need to revoke his permit.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
TimDyck
Tim Dyck 3
No he needs to have his permit revoked, actually a lifetime ban would be a better ruling.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
joelwiley
joel wiley 3
Respectfully disagree
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
sparkie624
sparkie624 2
Prison and Fine are not enough.. Too many come out of Prison only to go back to there own ways...
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
sparkie624
sparkie624 2
I fly RC Aircraft, But I only fly at a Sanctioned RC Field, or if doing a special event that is Sanctioned and Controlled to keep safety at a Maximum. So far, I have only lost control of one of my planes and it was a Receiver Failure and could not get it back home. It was a Hard Decision, but I put it down hard and it was a total... No one was hurt or ever in Danger!
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
bbabis
bbabis 17
It certainly could have been much worse. He got off easy for his financial position.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
TimDyck
Tim Dyck 5
Yes the penalty should be based on the person’s means. This guy will not feel any hardship over this while the owners of the homes that aircraft could have saved have lost a lot of irreplaceable possessions.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
joelwiley
joel wiley 47
How about 150 DAYS of community service, wielding a McLeod chopping firebreaks with an inmate crew on the firelines. That might help give him perspective into the gravity of his error.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
XWingFighter8
George Lee 8
A Pulaski would be my choice for firebreaks.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
joelwiley
joel wiley 8
Agree, Pulaski a more efficient tool. That's why the McLeod.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
TimDyck
Tim Dyck 2
If your McLeod is the tool I am thinking about (“https://www.icsl.edu.gr/mcleod-fire-tool/”) then I agree. Having used them I can not only say they are exhausting but also dangerous in the hands of people who are not in good physical shape.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
sparkie624
sparkie624 10
No... That is way to nice... for these kind or people, we need to bring back the Chain Gangs... and with Real Chains and Ankle Bracelets!
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
jordanhubbard
Jordan Hubbard 14
The pilot is always ultimately responsible for the flight, no question, but I think we should have "additional seat-belts for stupid" in the drone software updates which also cause them to *refuse* to comply with a request to fly into a TFR. The drone has a GPS, and network connectivity through the control station, so why not just upload no fly zones into it? This could also include not allowing the drone to fly into restricted D/C/B airspaces. Seems like common sense to me?
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
sparkie624
sparkie624 5
I agree with you to an extent... Sometimes it is not the pilots fault, but rather a Fault of Maintenance... Sometimes shotty maintenance is done and bad things happen as a result! Some think they know better than the manuals... Also keep in mind... Sometimes the manuals have errors and that is why we have revisions... I found one fault many years ago in a 737 Manual. I submitted a report of what the problem was in the manual and a recommended revision. Boeing did take my request and made the requested revision. I am not sure if it saved any lives, but it didn't cost any either!
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
WhiteKnight77
WhiteKnight77 3
I can remember changing pages in many of NATOPs repair manuals for both the engines and rotors and related systems for CH-46s while in.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
WhiteKnight77
WhiteKnight77 3
From my understanding, newer drones are geofenced and cannot get within 5 miles of an airport or above 400'AGL. Commercial drones can, but the operator has to be in contact with ATC.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
ClydeSmoot
Robert Mack 3
I haven’t flown a drone in several months (I believe that’s about to change as I received a call this morning from a P.I. & Armed Security firm) but not long ago DJI removed the geo-fencing feature in a software update (never understood their reasoning). Yes, 400’ is the max altitude but I have operated within 2 1/4 miles videoing a murder scene in Class D Airspace with clearance through LAANC (was restricted to 100’ altitude). As for contact with ATC, it could have changed recently but there was emphasis to NOT contact ATC as the LAANC (if properly adhered to) kept everyone safe. But then, as one knows, there are always some who have no regard for regs which is, thus, a problem for all of us.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
sparkie624
sparkie624 2
It depends on your definition of Drones. If you are calling a Multi-Rotor a Drone where you lose track of it visually from the ground, then I agree, however, if you call an RC Plane controlled from the ground a Drone when it remains in visual sight of the operator, I would then Disagree. Referencing: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/drone
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
WhiteKnight77
WhiteKnight77 3
I do not include RC aircraft be it fixed or rotary wing, as a drone. I have seen some impressive RC aircraft via video over the years, and one I really would have liked to have seen fly was a model of the Spruce Goose that someone had on show during the base open house in 1981 or 84 (can't remember when exactly) at my last duty station of Tustin MCAS(H).
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
mrdot
LW P 12
Should have been a longer prison sentence and time serving on an inmate fire crew
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
MLSellers
Mildred Sellers 25
Not a strong enough sentence. He needs a few years not just days. These fools are going to cause a real bad disaster and they need to be made an example of.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
Jonhitch
Jon Hitchcock 8
Who says those that can afford a good attorney don’t get privilege?
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
TimDyck
Tim Dyck 4
Justice for money is the American way…
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
grumpyoldfart1945
M Meek 13
This individual got off too light. However, this case and its consequences should be widely publicized in the hope that it will cause others to think before they needlessly endanger lives and property.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
redcataviation
Sidney Smith 6
The $156k to this guy is akin to $150 to most. One of these clowns is going to bring down an airliner, then there will be hell to pay.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
WhiteKnight77
WhiteKnight77 6
The man got lucky with the judge taking his remorse into account. But, the part about the game his company developed as depicting realistic combat is laughable. Bunny hopping and hordes of enemy reinforcement (at least in the campaign) is not realistic.

Will other drone users learn a lesson? Hard to say, but more jail time, as well as the fine, for the next one will grab more attention. If it were to involve any deaths, then one should face capital charges.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
ace1deuce
Greg Costeens 3
"California tech executive" = Prima facia evidence justifying imposition of aggravating circumstances to be used in sentencing
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
robertwgoetz
Robert Goetz 3
Mr. Akemann should be beyond thankful that his error in judgement caused any loss of life. Lessons learned.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
Geldridge
Gary Eldridge 5
This man, in his professional position and with his resources, could be a great advocate for drone safety using his unfortunate experience and lessons learned. He should be allowed to capitalize on this through public speaking and/or media to educate others.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
TimDyck
Tim Dyck 2
That’s a great idea but he should not be allowed to make money off it. It should have been court supervised redress at his expense.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
sparkie624
sparkie624 2
Give me a Break: "14 days in federal prison, followed by 30 days of home detention, and must pay roughly $156,000 in restitution" - We need to get serious with these people.. Home Detention for 30 Days.... How about an Eye for an Eye (Blind him in 1 Eye), Plus 14 Years of Hard Labor Followed by 30 Years in Solitary Confinement. I have no respect for these people... Take him for a Boat Ride across an Ocean and hand him over to Jaws!
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
SorenTwin
SorenTwin 2
Call of Duty has drones as well, used to destroy ground targets.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
WhiteKnight77
WhiteKnight77 2
The original Call of Duty was set in WWII and had no drones. I don't even know if the later versions still had bunny hopping since playing the first one was enough.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
robertwgoetz
Robert Goetz 2
…didn’t cause…
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
briansfreeman
Brian Freeman 3
Wonder if he'll get frequent flyer miles paying that 156k with his credit card. How ironic would that be...
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report

Login

Forgot password?
Don't have an account? Register now (free) for customized features, flight alerts, and more!
Join FlightAware