Drone pilot to plead guilty in collision that grounded aircraft fighting Palisades fire

A man who was piloting a drone that collided with a firefighting aircraft working on the Palisades fire has agreed to plead guilty to a misdemeanor, pay a fine and complete community service, federal prosecutors said Friday.

Peter Tripp Akemann, 56, of Culver City was charged with unsafe operation of an unmanned aircraft. He could still face up to a year in federal prison, prosecutors said.

The drone, which authorities say was flying in restricted airspace on Jan. 9, put a fist-sized hole in the left wing of a Super Scooper — a massive fixed-wing plane that can drop large amounts of water onto a fire. The collision knocked the plane out of commission for about five days and destroyed the drone.

“Like a lot of individuals, he was curious about what was happening in that area,” acting U.S. Atty. Joseph T. McNally said on Friday. “The problem with that... is with the amount of firefighting planes you have in that area dropping so they can get water in the Pacific Ocean it interferes with those operations. It’s not the time to fly drones anytime that we have these emergencies in Southern California.”

As part of the plea agreement, Akemann agreed to pay full restitution to the government of Quebec, Canada, which supplied the plane, and the company that repaired the plane. It cost at least $65,169 to fix the aircraft, prosecutors said.

Akemann also agreed to complete 150 hours of community service in support of wildfire relief efforts.

Attorneys Glen T. Jonas and Vicki Podberesky, who are representing Akemann, said in a statement that their client is “deeply sorry for the mistake he made.”

“He accepts responsibility for his grave error in judgment, and is cooperating with the government in effort to make amends,” the attorneys wrote.

Akemann appeared in court in downtown Los Angeles on Friday afternoon and was released on a $15,000 bond.

A Super Scooper drops water on a hillside as the Palisades fire rages on Jan. 7.

(Brian van der Brug / Los Angeles Times)

In the plea agreement, Akemann admitted to launching a DJI Mini 3 Pro unmanned aircraft from the top floor of a parking structure at the Third Street Promenade in Santa Monica and flying it toward Pacific Palisades to observe the damage caused by the fire. He flew the drone about 1.5 miles before losing sight of it.

Prosecutors said the drone then collided with the Super Scooper carrying two crewmembers. McNally said in an interview that authorities suspect the impact occurred over the ocean where planes often pick up water during firefighting missions.

Maintenance crews located “drone wreckage” in parts of the plane and used that material to help identify the owner of the drone, McNally said.

Akemann’s attorneys said their client was relying on the DJI Drone’s geofencing safeguard feature, which they allege failed to work. The feature, which has been on DJI drones for more than 10 years, was created as a safety mechanism to prevent consumer drone operators from unintentionally flying in restricted airspace.

On Jan. 13 — four days after the crash in Los Angeles — the company announced it was dropping geofence restrictions on most of its consumer and enterprise drone products in the United States. Representatives for DJI could not immediately be reached for comment on Friday.

The wind-driven Palisades fire raged for days in Pacific Palisades and surrounding communities, burning 23,400 acres, killing 12 people and destroying more than 6,800 properties, according to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection.

Temporary flight restrictions were put in place across portions of Southern California as the firestorms tore through Los Angeles County. Those restrictions mean that all aircraft not involved in wildfire suppression operations have to get permission to enter the airspace. Officials said no permission had been given at the time the drone collided with the plane.

FBI Assistant Director Akil Davis said there is no evidence that the drone was intentionally flown into the aircraft, but it’s an inherent risk when piloting one in a restricted area.

“Going forward, we’re going to be dealing with more drones, and the likelihood of a disastrous result will increase,” Davis said.

Drones flying in the fire zone were a persistent problem as firefighters battled the Palisades fire. Aerial footage of the devastation wrought by the blaze went viral on social media, but was frequently criticized by officials and others who said the drones that captured the images were jeopardizing the fire fight.

The collision — and the flouting of the flight restriction by others — prompted the Federal Aviation Administration to issue a stern warning against flying drones near wildfires.

“It’s a federal crime, punishable by up to 12 months in prison, to interfere with firefighting efforts on public lands,” the FAA said. “Additionally, the FAA can impose a civil penalty of up to $75,000 against any drone pilot who interferes with wildfire suppression, law enforcement or emergency response operations” during a temporary flight restriction.

Drones flying in wildfire zones has been an issue for the FAA and fire officials for at least a decade.

In 2019, the U.S. Forest Service reported there were at least 20 unauthorized drone flights over or near wildfires in seven states, including California. Flights resulted in aerial firefighting operations being temporarily shut down nine times that year, according to the forest service.

“As this case demonstrates, we will track down drone operators who violate the law and interfere with the critical work of our first responders,” McNally said.

Meanwhile, officials are continuing to probe the cause of the Palisades fire.

The U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has spent weeks scouring a hiking trail and hillside where they suspect the fire started, breaking it down into a grid. They have examined 250 leads, obtained 90 hours of relevant video and conducted 50 interviews.

From the beginning, there has been speculation an 8-acre blaze that fire officials thought they had put out on Jan. 1 in the same area reignited and spread because of intense winds, or a new fire was somehow sparked nearby that morning.

But sources said this week no conclusion had been made.

Times staff writers Terry Castleman and Grace Toohey contributed to this report.