Peter Akemann’s attorney claims DJI’s geofencing feature failed, leading to his Mini 3 drone colliding with a firefighting aircraft. Akemann, who flew the drone far beyond visual line of sight during the LA fires, says he relied on the geofencing safeguard, which was not updated to reflect temporary flight restrictions. This incident highlights the importance of pilots taking responsibility and using tools like the B4UFLY app to ensure airspace compliance, rather than relying solely on geofencing.
Way to not take accountability.
Jules said:
Way to not take accountability.
He did plead guilty, so he’s taking some responsibility, but blaming the technology seems like an attempt to minimize his own role.
Jules said:
Way to not take accountability.
He did plead guilty, so he’s taking some responsibility, but blaming the technology seems like an attempt to minimize his own role.
Pleading guilty was a calculated move. It avoids more serious penalties while still allowing him to argue about the tech issues in court.
@Jony
Smart move to get a lawyer. The FAA could’ve thrown the book at him.
He sounds like someone blaming autopilot after driving into a wall while not paying attention.
Jody said:
He sounds like someone blaming autopilot after driving into a wall while not paying attention.
Exactly! He should’ve checked for TFRs. There are apps and guides for that. It’s basic drone operation knowledge. Flying near active firefighting efforts is just reckless.
@Whit
I’ve seen similar near misses out here in Arizona. It’s infuriating.
TFRs were never part of DJI’s FlySafe database, and it always reminded you to verify airspace restrictions yourself. He had to manually confirm that he’d done so before flying. This is why DJI removed geofencing—people assumed it was a fail-safe when it never really was.
@Lian
He got a deal to pay damages and do community service—about $65k and 125 hours.
Blaming the tools instead of taking responsibility.
The attorney’s just doing their job by defending their client, even if the argument is weak.
If he followed the basic training available, he should’ve known that the FlySafe map alone isn’t sufficient. Cross-checking with official sources is crucial.
Being the pilot in command means you’re responsible for the flight. No excuses.
I made a video on this. He violated basic drone rules, flew beyond line of sight, and ignored TFRs. The blame lies with the pilot, not the tech.
Blaming the tools is just laughable.
The proposed penalty is way too lenient. He should face real consequences.
As the pilot in command, the responsibility is all on him.
This level of negligence deserves serious consequences.
This is exactly why DJI moved away from geofencing. It’s easier for them to avoid liability.