By continuing to use this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more

Member postings for MattyB

Here is a list of all the postings MattyB has made in our forums. Click on a thread name to jump to the thread.

Thread: Droning on at the F1...
15/07/2019 11:45:59
Posted by Steve J on 15/07/2019 08:03:15:
Posted by Nigel R on 14/07/2019 23:25:54:

Alternatively, existing laws perfectly adequate to stop miscreants.

Indeed. People flew in restricted airspace, were detected and dealt with. Why do the police need extra powers?


We all know that, but that won't be how it is spun by the likes of Baroness Vere and the Daily Fail; they will use it as more "evidence" that greater regulation is required. After all, we already know from her evidence at the committee hearing last week that the DfT are seeking to go beyond the proposed EASA requirements on electronic conspicuity (either that or she is chronically misinformed of what those proposals require - you decide...!).

14/07/2019 23:02:16

Drones flown and seized from campsite within British GP exclusion zone.

Our friendly air minister must be rubbing her hands together with glee... face 8

Edited By MattyB on 14/07/2019 23:04:00

Thread: D****s - again!
01/07/2019 15:19:16

A link always helps...

Britain’s Next Air Disaster? Drones

"In the wake of the Gatwick drone crisis, high-risk specialist Aldo Kane investigates the threat drones pose to UK skies and tests the new technology we can use to keep ourselves safe."

Edited By MattyB on 01/07/2019 15:19:42

Thread: Is it now time for cyclists to wear an identifier and pay a tax?
21/06/2019 20:02:07

The good Doc seems awfully keen to hear/stir up others opinions on this topic, but strangely reticent about providing his own. Isn’t there is a word for that? sarcastic

Edited By MattyB on 21/06/2019 20:03:12

21/06/2019 13:08:17
Posted by Doc Marten on 21/06/2019 12:58:25:

I'm interested to hear the pros and cons, fors and against.

What is your rationale for suggesting this? "If RC modellers are having to undergo an ineffectual and expensive registration system, so should cyclists"? As someone who actively participates in both these activities I am confident to say that two wrongs don't make a right - what is being proposed in aeromodelling won't work, and neither would it in cycling.

The difference is in the lobbying power available - cycling is a big participant sport with plenty of big name, connected participants, and encouraging participation is key to the government achieving it's targets for decarbonisation. Do you really think they are going to criminalise cyclists at exactly the point they want to increase it's uptake and invest in new cycle infrastructure? Doesn't sound very likely to me...

Thread: Interesting reply from email to Richard Moriarty, CAA
12/06/2019 22:31:11
Posted by Jason-I on 12/06/2019 20:02:03:

The CAA might not be responsible for the scheme overall, however they have had a hand in the procurement of an overly expensive system from

They could at least answer the questions I have asked relating to the costs of the system.

The government have extensive policies around how IT services are procured; I highly doubt the CAA will have led the procurement of the system. It's much more liklely to be a systemic issue rather than a one time procurement gaffe.

12/06/2019 15:37:45
Posted by Steve J on 11/06/2019 20:21:07:

Four more questions from friendly MPs were answered today by the DfT. I'm not going to bother posting the answers as they are the same stuff that the DfT keep saying.

The friendly MPs are Richard Burden, Theresa Villiers and John Healey.


Yep, just the same old canned responses. It is indicative of the mess our parliamentary process is currently in that ministers can seemingly refuse to answer the question posed (be it from a member of the public or one of their peers), instead regurgiitating a stock answer unrelated to the question asked. Embarassing.

10/06/2019 13:21:04
Posted by john stones 1 on 07/06/2019 14:22:30:
Posted by MattyB on 07/06/2019 10:45:48:

What a sorry state of affairs.... [remainder of post deleted for brevity]

So, in summary.... angrycrying

Borrow your post Matty, not aimed at you.

Number 1.

Well I keep reading It's not about the money but the principle, so let's put the £16.50 to one side for now, add to that I don't have a crystal ball, so don't know 2010s fee.

Principles...Our hobbies at risk, our associations and clubs, choice is yours now, have a big tantrum and maybe do further damage to ourselves, or calm down and work together. My club and Associations are what I care about, add on the people who have a business interest and that's it for me, if I've to stump up money and jump through hoops to protect that, I will.

Number 2

I'll wait for them to give their twopenneth.

Number 3

Suspend flying looks to be adding enormous pressure on the club paying it's way, I don't have faith people will pay fees for no flying, I may be wrong but doubt it.

Number 4

Would have thought they'd already discussed.

No. 1 - I agree it's not about the money in the short term (i.e. 2020), but given the ridiculaous assumption that ~170k people will register I think we can be confident it can only go one way. The question is really how far and how fast. I personally think that (given the "greying" trending of traditional aeromodelling anyway) the imposition of a test and (say) £50 registration fee would be be enough to put off a pretty decent percentage of the existing members of the BMFA and SAA.

No. 2 - Agreed. I don't think we will see anything announced like that until the negotiations with the CAA have gone their full course, and even then it's pretty unlikely.

No. 3 - I agree suspending flying could have significant negative impct on clubs, and it probably isn't likely mass dissent would happen anyway based on only 6k of BMFA remembers responding to the consultation. Anyone who failed to register and continued flying with BMFA membership would certainly be a test case for the insurance company and courts should an accident occur.

No. 4 - Let's hope so, though I imagine it will be very difficult to win a case against the government based on the EASA proposals not being law yet and our comparatively meagre resources. We may all need to dip into our pockets to help if that's the case, but what effect might that itself have on BMFA membership? I do have sympathy for the national associations here, it is looking increasingly like they are negotiating with parties who have already decided what the outcome will be.

10/06/2019 13:00:33
Posted by Cuban8 on 08/06/2019 23:30:15:

Only another 99000 signatures or thereabouts to go! Signed it anyway. Shame about the typo in the petition.

Online petitions like that are a complete waste of time, especially when written as a badly worded rant like that. The petitions system is designed to give the perception of listening to the public, whilst in fact the politicians forge ahead with whatever they have decided anyway. Pointless!

10/06/2019 12:54:31

Just got a personal response to the email I sent to my MP just under 2 weeks ago; it was quite balanced and he has promised to write to the DfT, though I'm sure their reposne will be the standard stonewall we've seen many times...

"Dear Matthew,

Good point! The vast majority of drone owners are responsible, peaceful drone operators.

When technology reaches the market before adequate regulation for use, there are often urgent, sub-optimal policies put in place to ensure the public are guarded from unscrupulous or malignant operators and that users have guidelines to set the parameters for behaviour.

As much as I agree with you completely that a tax and unenforceable registration is not going to prevent premeditated malicious use, I imagine (though I am not sure) the CAA were attempting to introduce this as a code of conduct, serving as a safety mechanism. I will write to the Department to request a full response for you as they will be able to address the specifics of the registration and fee requirements.

Kind regards

Bim Afolami MP"

Edited By MattyB on 10/06/2019 12:55:15

07/06/2019 11:54:13

Posted by Nigel Heather on 07/06/2019 11:09:54:

Or if the associations or the clubs really want to oppose this they could elect to be operators. They could charge us nothing, or £5 or £10 or £16.50 - I would gladly give any of those amounts to the BMFA or the club.

The association/club could stipulate that that our aircraft must contain our pilots registration number, name and contact details as well as any operator code. And that in doing so we accept responsibility for any illegal use.

Your suggestion may indeed become the "least worst" one available to us come November, but based on my reading of the ANO I don't think the statement in bold italics holds water; it is pretty clear that it is the Operator who takes legal responsibility for the safe and lawful execution of the flight (read more about this in CAP 1763). Are the associations prepared to take that risk and potentially be prosecuted in a court of law alongside a member operating as a remote pilot who has broken the law?

Edited By MattyB on 07/06/2019 12:09:44

07/06/2019 11:50:00
Posted by ken anderson. on 07/06/2019 10:58:05:

all respect matty to your thoughts, opinions and idea's....But who will organise any such actions? If you imagine it will be the people in charge of the various orginisations,i beg to differ,i cant imagine they would for one minute want to do some of the things you mention,and be held responsible.

talking about doing things is one thing, putting them into action is another...…. I don't think that the opinion of a couple of dozen people from RCME forum land will bother anyone one jot. sabre rattling is one thing....but putting it into action is another...….i'm banking on our rep's from the various organisations doing our negotiating...the best and only way(I think)………………....the outcome may/may not be what we all hope....time will tell...I think young Asher's thoughts on the matter will be nearest the mark....

Ken, I dont necessarily disagree - if I were the Associations I would be reluctant to take some of these measures too. However, if the negotiations fail to deliver any meaningful change to the DfT/CAA proposals then these will be the only options left, plus the one I forgot from Nigel et al where the asociations register as the operators. However I sincerely doubt that their lawyers or insurers will recommend they go that route based on the legal requirements that are required of that role - I would certainly not sit on any club committee that wanted to take on the role for it's members so I doubt the BMFA, FPVUK etc will want to do that for the thousands of their members either.

Edited By MattyB on 07/06/2019 12:05:40

07/06/2019 10:45:48

What a sorry state of affairs. Based on the summary of the conversation with Baroness Vere I cannot now see a way forward in the negotiations that will deliver a result that the memberships of the national associations are happy with. That leaves only the following options really...

  1. The Associations hold their noses and concede defeat, asking their members to register - Likely to result in huge drop in membership for them and increased rates of uninsured flying. Small numbers of members/ex-members refuse to register, but not at a scale that could force a rethink in the DfT. The registration fee creeps/leaps up over time and membership and participation drops to ever lower levels.
  2. The Associations dig in and tell their members not to register as operators, but continue flying - Doing so would make the associations and their members a target; a club site or two would probably be targeted by law enforcement in order to mount a test prosecution. The associations would need to consult with their insurers and legal counsel before going this route, and would need to support any members prosecuted. Potentially dangerous for all involved, but might force a rethink at the DfT over time, though I doubt it (primarily because this is nt really about safety; they are more interested in the jobs that go with making the UK a global SUAS leader and  freeing up the airspace for drone deliveries and the tax revenue that could go with them).
  3. The Associations dig in and tell their members not to register as operators, but to suspend flying - Less risky, but probably pointless. Yes we would be denying the government a source of revenue, but £2.8m is such small beer in political terms they may just consider it a price worth paying to reduce recreational use of the airspace below 1k feet. Could also cause a drop in membership of the associations similar to option 1.
  4. The Associations mount a proactive legal challenge (could be combined with options 2 or 3) - Costly and time consuming, but it may be the only route the government would take heed of. Not sure how likely a postive result is though; the EASA statements around making exceptions for those oeprating within the framework of established clubs are I believe only recommendations at this stage, not law. Financially risky, and probably not that likely to succeed (but that is a complete guess).

So, in summary.... angrycrying

Edited By MattyB on 07/06/2019 10:51:59

29/05/2019 17:39:35
Posted by Steve J on 29/05/2019 17:35:27:

That is the standard answer from the CAA. Martin started this topic with an extract from it.

Has anybody had anything that isn't basically the standard DfT or CAA response?


Nope, all I've had are stock responses, other than my MP who has not yet responded (wll no beyond his "I've got it" auto reply message).

Edited By MattyB on 29/05/2019 17:39:58

29/05/2019 17:37:07
Posted by Steve J on 29/05/2019 17:17:25:

Posted by MattyB on 29/05/2019 17:10:21:

Sound about right?

I had another look at the consultation response that the DfT published in January. There are a couple of pages in it in which they say all sorts of nice things about the modelling associations, but when it comes down to it, the only sentence in that section that seems to matter is "However, this must be achieved without imposing undue burden on the state and the taxpayer, whilst also being efficient and enforceable, without compromising the integrity of the policy.".


Indeed; it really is looking pretty gloomy at this point. The biggest problem is that (IMO) we are pretty much powerless to take action that will have a meaningful effect. Unfortunately there aren't enough of us to be an electoral concern to the authorities. Even boycotting is not that effective; sure they would "lose" the ~£2.8m if the 170k people (where did that number come from?) refuse to pay, what would it actually do? That kind of money gets lost through government inefficiency and failed initiatives on a daily basis anyway, and in the act of boycotting we'd have reduced recreational usage which I've long suspected is a goal they are trying to achieve.

In recent years I have found my involvement in cycling increasing significantly and my RC flying dropping off year by year. It looks that is only going to continue in future. I didn't choose well though; cycling seems to be significantly more expensive than RC!

Edited By MattyB on 29/05/2019 17:42:25

29/05/2019 17:10:21
Posted by conrad taggart on 28/05/2019 15:22:42:

Just had this sent to me today from the "Drones team" within the Department for Transport. Still sounds if they believe their hair brain scheme is efficient and enforceable, and they appear to rule out any mass enrollment / exemptions for members of the various flying associations ...

"Thank you for your email of 9 May 2019 about the proposed registration scheme for drone users. I am responding to you as a member of the Drones Team at the Department for Transport. I appreciate your concerns. I would like to reassure you that I do support your hobby and recognise the strong safety culture fostered by the majority of model aircraft flyers and clubs.

The drone registration scheme is a top priority for the Government. It is just one measure in a package to address the safety and security challenges unmanned aircraft pose and will help enforcement agencies to tackle the misuse of such aircraft, alongside further Police powers to be introduced in the forthcoming Drones Bill.
Registration and testing are also European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) requirements as part of the forthcoming regulation on the operation of unmanned aircrafts (UAs) in the EU. The new Minister for Aviation is keen to ensure that all our key partners in the aviation industry that may be impacted by new policy or regulations are consulted. As well as the consultation my Department carried out in 2018 on a range of measures including registration, the Civil Aviation Authority’s (CAA) consultation on its charging regime for the drone registration scheme is important in shaping the development of the registration system charging structure.
Notwithstanding that, the principle that the Government set out in our January consultation response still stands. Any alternative approach for model flyers must be achieved without imposing undue burden on the state and the taxpayer, whilst also being efficient and enforceable, without compromising the integrity of the policy. A blanket exemption from registration and competency tests or having the associations register their members into the registration system, as suggested in many of the consultation responses submitted by model fliers, will not meet these criteria.
I understand that, prior to its charging consultation, the CAA has engaged with a broad range of users, including a significant number of model flyers (both at association level and individuals) during the user requirement phase and that model flyers will be involved in subsequent phases of development. The Minister has recently written to Dave Phipps, Chief Executive of the BMFA, to address some of your concerns and to suggest that he meets with the CAA for a demonstration of the system, which is in its development phase. She has also offered to meet him to discuss the BMFA’s concerns and how they can work together to make sure we retain and strengthen the UK’s strong aviation safety record.
I hope that this goes some way to addressing your concerns.
Yours sincerely
The Drones Team Department for Transport"

So in other words "Thanks for responding but we're only having this consultation so we can say we've had it; the solution already proposed will be delivered as planned, and you'll be paying for it even though there is no value proposition to you". Sound about right? angry 2


Edited By MattyB on 29/05/2019 17:37:54

Thread: CAA registration consulation
13/05/2019 18:08:18
Posted by Philip Lewis 3 on 10/05/2019 16:17:05:
Posted by Steve J on 10/05/2019 15:44:58:
Posted by Philip Lewis 3 on 10/05/2019 15:38:29:
Where can I read this

The ANO (CAP 1763) and the consultation response that the DfT published in January.

In simple terms: do you want your number on all the club's models? and do you want to be responsible for everybody in the club doing the test?


PS It is discussed in the video on the previous page at around 22:00.

Can't see anything in there that would put me off allowing people to fly under my registration, prove to me that you've passed the test, you are insured under the BMFA or equivalent.

Also it doesn't actually state that the "Operator" must own the drone just that the operator is responsible for it.

Read more carefully - this has all been discussed before in this thread, you would have to be mad to take responsibility for all the models owned by your fellow club members...

Posted by MattyB on 02/05/2019 23:03:11:

Posted by Steve J on 02/05/2019 14:55:22:
Posted by Dickw on 02/05/2019 14:46:20:

Not sure how that would be possible without the "operator" being present on site.

I disagree. Have a look at the examples in the consultation response that was published in January.


I just refreshed my memory on that one - interesting stuff...

Operator: person or organisation who has management of the small drone but may not be directly controlling the flight. There is no requirement for the operator to be present during the small drone flight but their responsibilities are listed here:

• The operator must not permit their small drone to be flown at a height of more than 400ft above the surface, unless the permission of the CAA has been obtained;
• The operator must not permit their small drone to be flown within 1km of a protected aerodrome unless the required permissions have been obtained;
• As of 30th November
2019, the small drone operator must not permit their small drone to be flown unless the remote pilot of the aircraft has been issued with an acknowledgement of competency which is valid for that flight. To obtain the acknowledgement of competency, remote pilots will have to pass an online test;
• As of 30th November 2019, the operator of a drone between 250g-20kg in mass will be required to register themselves before permitting any of their small drones to be flown.”

So yes, technically the operator does not need to be present. However I would argue that does not make it a wise decision for clubs to have one individual sign up as the single registrant taking responsibility for every model owned and flown by club members anywhere in the UK. If one of them does something stupid/loans it to someone who has not passed the test I would not personally want to be called to give evidence or (worst case) prosecuted alongside them for failure to supervise the remote pilot in question.

Edited By MattyB on 13/05/2019 18:10:00

06/05/2019 19:21:20
Posted by Martin McIntosh on 06/05/2019 15:07:36:

Worth reading that FT article about the AMA opposition. I just googled the heading.

Yep, not quite sure why that navigated the paywall successfully but that worked for me too...


...but doesn’t seem to work direct! Hey ho. Just google it!

Edited By MattyB on 06/05/2019 19:29:01

03/05/2019 16:24:40
Posted by Martin Dilly 1 on 03/05/2019 14:50:52:

I do hope that all the people who have made 521 posts on this topic have already taken the time to a) respond to the drone consultation **LINK**b) written to their MP, c) written to the Minister for Aviation, and, d) written to the CAA . The link here (UK Model Flyers - Call to action) covers the points to make.

That’s a lot more important than preaching to the more or less converted on this forum.

We are all well aware of what the BMFA has asked it's members to do, Martin, but it is the choice of every individual whether they choose to do so. Pithy comments suggesting posters here should not be engaging on this forum until they have written their letters are unlikely to endear those deciding whether they feel it is worth their effort to respond.

Edited By MattyB on 03/05/2019 16:41:57

03/05/2019 14:27:08
Posted by Steve J on 03/05/2019 13:50:23:

Posted by MattyB on 03/05/2019 13:37:24:

there is no point fighting registration itself, that boat sailed in 2018

I would say that it sailed with the Riga Declaration back in 2015 smiley.

I am not quite as pessimistic as you, but agree with most of your post. The only thing that we can do at the moment is to get the government to legislate a u-space funding model in the long awaited Drone Bill that means that recreational SUA operators/remote pilots only pay a nominal fee (e.g. £5 / 3 years).


Agreed, though based on the way this has been done (with no direct engagement of our national bodies to shape the solution) I find it hard to be optimisitc that such a pragmatic soluiton will be arrived at.

PS - Another good source of information on the government's long term goals can be found in their 2017 consultation "Unlocking the UK's High Tech Economy: Consultation on the Safe Use of Drones in the UK" - there was lots about the drive to deliver economc benefits from drones in that consultation.

Edited By MattyB on 03/05/2019 14:30:40

Magazine Locator

Want the latest issue of RCM&E? Use our magazine locator link to find your nearest stockist!

Find RCM&E! 

Latest Forum Posts
Support Our Partners
Gliders Distribution
Wings & Wheels 2019
Motion RC
electricwingman 2017
Pepe Aircraft
Advertise With Us
Latest "For Sale" Ads
Does your club have a safety officer?
Q: Does your club have a safety officer, or is the emphasis on individual members to each be their own safety officer?

 Yes we have a SO
 No, it's down to everyone

Latest Reviews
Digital Back Issues

RCM&E Digital Back Issues

Contact us

Contact us