PDA

View Full Version : Tiger down off Straddie


cdrcsg
16th Dec 2013, 02:54
CM reports two missing after a charter Tiger went into the water off Stradde. Very sad news, let's hope there is good news to follow.

DancingDog
16th Dec 2013, 03:23
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10152094252289711&set=a.303818149710.145703.83615599710&type=1&relevant_count=1

spinex
16th Dec 2013, 03:45
Doesn't look good, debris on the water and divers sent out. More photos on the link below;
Tiger Moth crash off Stradbroke Island (http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/photogallery/queensland/tiger-moth-crash-off-stradbroke-island-20131216-2zgr4.html?aggregate=&selectedImage=0)

RJM
16th Dec 2013, 10:16
TWO people are feared dead after a Tiger Moth plane crashed into the sea off Queensland's South Stradbroke Island.

The crash has left a trail of debris and fuel in the water and at least four choppers are searching for any signs of survivors. The plane crashed into the water about 300 metres off the island, at about 12.30pm (AEST) on Monday.

The two-seater plane is owned by Gold Coast-based operator Tiger Moth Joy Rides, which offers scenic flights and aerobatic flights including barrel rolls, loop the loops and other manoeuvres. Spokesman Jeff Stillman told AAP the company was still trying to work what had happened.

"We're not real good mate, look we don't have the information as yet, we don't really now what's going on," he told AAP.

"We're all very worried about all the occupants of the plane." Water police are also heading to the scene to assist the air search.

Photos from the crash scene show parts of the plane's wreckage, painted a vivid red, floating in the water.

Police divers are on their way to the crash site.

Newforest2
16th Dec 2013, 13:29
Here is VH-TSG, red and silver. Hoping for good news.

Tiger Moth Joy Rides, Gold Coast, Australia | Experience Oz - YouTube

DH164
16th Dec 2013, 22:59
The photo of the speed placard is chilling isnt it? Very sad.

onetrack
17th Dec 2013, 01:16
Last reported radio transmission from the pilot said was he was "carrying out aerobatics at 3500'."

Witnesses stated they saw the aircraft hit the water in an almost vertical high speed dive.

It looks like he might have tested and found the aircrafts aerobatic limits.

Pax is reported to be a French woman.

Harbour Dweller
17th Dec 2013, 01:37
Sadly, two bodies have just been recovered from the water by police divers.

RIP

nitpicker330
17th Dec 2013, 02:23
RIP.......:(

VH-XXX
17th Dec 2013, 03:02
Nice one onetrack. I'm thinking that you are trying to say something polite but the words didn't come out right?
Those that know the Tiger would know that a spin is pretty much survivable (water aside) so to go in vertically instantly leads one to believe something far worse has occurred. What a bloody tragedy, particularly for a commercial operator.

Old Fella
17th Dec 2013, 04:39
VH-XXX. It is a bloody tragedy regardless of the rating of the Pilot. Two lives lost is two lives lost. RIP

Jabawocky
17th Dec 2013, 05:23
Very sad.

I can only fear it is all from a 10c piece/iphone/<insert any loose item> and that is something that may never be found.

:sad:

VH-XXX
17th Dec 2013, 05:46
You're right Jabba. Old aircraft are also simple ones, which is why they have stood the test of time and it usually takes something out of the ordinary to take them take them out of action.

onetrack
17th Dec 2013, 07:50
VH-XXX - I'm sorry, I didn't mean to come across as unfeeling, and I don't have any more idea about what actually happened, than the next bloke.
I was merely presuming in-air break-up, due to aerobatics, but of course, it could have been any one of a dozen other things, from pilot incapacitation through to simple breakage or jamming of a vital control component.

However; and I don't think I'm alone in this view - I have serious reservations about the wisdom of practising aerobatics with paying pax on board, in an 80+ yr old wood, wire, and fabric aircraft.
Now, I now they undergo exceptionally thorough examinations for COA, but I guess the conservative side of me, tells me that if I want to go aerobatic, it's probably a lot wiser to do so, in a much later model and more durable metal airframe.

Unfortunately, despite the great love for Moths amongst pilots, the truth is, a substantial number of Moths have augered into hard ground or water after practising, or attempt to practise, aerobatics. Maybe a lot of these were pilot error, and maybe a lot weren't, either.
Maybe I'm affected by my earliest memory of aircraft being a Moth that augered in only a few miles from my home in the 1950's, after the pilot apparently tried practising the falling leaf manoeuvre. He didn't survive.

RatsoreA
17th Dec 2013, 08:11
Investigation: 200200377 - de Havilland Aircraft DH-82A, VH-AJG (http://atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2002/aair/aair200200377.aspx)

Really quite sad, but the moth has been known to fall out of the sky for reasons unknown (I know, just like any other plane ever made). That link above being very close to me, a mate of mine being the passenger in ajg.

Ramjet555
17th Dec 2013, 13:22
Newlywed pilot Jimmy Rae's last words before horrific Tiger Moth crash off South Stradbroke Island

JIMMY Rae grabbed the controls of his two-seater Tiger Moth and radioed back to base.
"Conducting aerobatics over 3500 feet," he said, preparing to thrill the French woman seated in front with a spinning view of sea and sky.
Then there was silence.
The four-cyclinder wooden plane had speared into the ocean, crashing about 400m off the coast of South Stradbroke Island.
http://resources2.news.com.au/images/2013/12/16/1226784/486574-025011ec-6646-11e3-879d-630c394bcc3d.jpg
Tiger moth pilot Jim Rae, pictured here with wife Alice on a previous trip, was killed when his Tiger Moth crashed on Monday. Picture: Facebook




HOW THE STORY BROKE YESTERDAY (http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/two-people-believed-dead-in-tiger-moth-joy-rides-plane-crash-off-south-stradbroke-island/story-fni0cx4q-1226784367462)
Alex James Rae, 26, had recently married and was about to embark on a new adventure with his wife Alice - the pair planning an outback move to a cattle station in the Northern Territory where they had both found work.
But last night emergency crews were working to retrieve his body and that of his passenger as the French woman's distraught partner helped police contact her family.
http://resources3.news.com.au/images/2013/12/16/1226784/485843-eadf9438-6645-11e3-879d-630c394bcc3d.jpg
Police search for the wreckage of the Tiger Moth. Picture: Fletcher Scott




It is understood surf life savers spotted the plane ditch into the ocean at 12.30pm, sparking a massive air and sea search.
Other pilots in the air at the time said they had no idea anything was amiss, having heard Mr Rae's voice over the radio announce he was about to perform aerial manoeuvres.
The wreckage of the Tiger Moth was spotted shortly after, having sunk 7m to the ocean floor.
http://resources1.news.com.au/images/2013/12/16/1226784/486701-15edb322-6618-11e3-bdad-d26236de09de.jpg
Debris from the wreckage is washed up on the beach. Picture: Adam Head




Over the next few hours, pieces of the plane, including part of the propeller and its ID badge, washed into the beach.
Mr Rae, from Labrador, was one of several pilots working for Gold Coast-based Tiger Moth Joy Rides.
"We're just devastated about what's happened," owner Geoff Stillman said. "We're a very small outfit and very tight-knit, so we are all shattered."
The young pilot and adventurer, who moved to Australia from the UK with the girl he'd known since school, was about to set off on his latest adventure at the end of January.
The couple had been getting ready to move to Helen Springs, a 10,000 square kilometre cattle station in the Northern Territory.
It was to be Mr Rae's second outback adventure after he spent 18 months flying Cessnas for S Kidman and Co out of a cattle property in Southwest Queensland.
CEO Greg Campbell said Mr Rae, like many other newly-qualified commercial pilots, had completed 1000 hours flying experience with them, taking staff members between the company's vast properties and mustering cattle.
"He was a really friendly, likeable young man who always fit in well," he said.
"The respect with which he was held within our organisation was such that we were only too willing to re-employ him and his wife as well.
"It's very sad.
"I can't imagine how his wife must be holding up."
The Tiger Moth was powered by a de Havilland Gipsy Major, a four-cylinder, air-cooled, incline engine used in a variety of light aircraft produced in the 1930s.
It is believed to be the first death from the Tiger Moth Joy Ride company since it began flying in 1978.
"This is not great for this time of the year," said one operator. "It is not great for the close-knit community either. When something like this happens we all feel it.
"Jimmy was a great pilot. He was just on the radio doing a standard call out ... just before the crash happened."
Sources told The Courier-Mail Tiger Moth Joy Rides is a responsible operation with an outstanding safety record stretching back more than 30 years.
The Australian Transport Safety Bureau will send a team to the site of the crash today, to begin their investigation.




No Cookies | thetelegraph.com.au (http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/newlywed-pilot-jimmy-raes-last-words-before-horrific-tiger-moth-crash-off-south-stradbroke-island/story-fni0cx12-1226784491415)

18-Wheeler
17th Dec 2013, 19:12
Terrible ..... :(
I remember that Tiger very well from when I flew at Cooly in the 80's. Old Bruce on the radio, "Cooly Tower this is Tango Sierra Gold for a Rrrrrromeo Four November".

Condolences to all.

aroa
17th Dec 2013, 23:31
One track has said it..." serious reservations about ..aerobatics with pax in an old aeroplane (etc)....and I would add...WITHOUT parachutes!!! in any type of aircraft wood or metal

Surely, as things can and do go wrong, what price a bit of cheap "insurance" and giving those on board at least another option.

In the States where the lawyers bite hard, for even just a joy flight in a Texan, they get you kitted up and briefed.

There has been the odd occasion where the wearing of didnt make a difference to the fatal outcome, but there are many more examples where a 'chute would have made a tragic outcome just an adrenalin rush.

see the video clip of the 2 Cessnas that had a midair 'ding'...ok full of parachutist passengers anyway but the pilot of the fiery broken one could depart as well.:ok: instead of having to ride it down...as have others
RIP those Tiger 2
my 2c

VH-XXX
18th Dec 2013, 02:25
I read in the media that a GoPro camera was in use. That is a video I would not want to watch. I hope and presume the footage will never go public but do realise that others could benefit from it.

Ultralights
18th Dec 2013, 03:12
I hope the media is correct this time, the Gopro footage will be of great use to investigators, and help with closure for a lot of people.

Captain Nomad
18th Dec 2013, 03:48
My Grandfather was an airframe rigger on Tiger Moths at Temora during the earlier war years. He doesn't have a lot of praise for them and honestly can't believe that they are still flying around the place.

I do not wish to disparage the operator or the victims of this accident but one does have to wonder about the wisdom of using ancient wood and wire flying machines in the commercial world of today... Having said that, I hate the thought of yet another restrictive rule being introduce to spoil legitimate fun and enjoyment of aviation. Unfortunately there are always risks involved in this business and someone, sometime inevitably pays the ultimate price...

My thoughts are with the families of those involved in this tragedy and I hope more definitive answers will be forthcoming compared to other recent historical aircraft crashes...

Ex FSO GRIFFO
18th Dec 2013, 04:16
To some here who 'seem to know better'.....

I am the proud owner and operator of a DH-82A Tiger Moth aircraft, which has a plate on the side stating
Date of Manufacture May 1942.

I can assure you all that the ONLY part of that aircraft made in 1942, is THAT plate.

The rest is quite 'modern' in manufacture and covering.....

A LOT like 'Grandad's favourite axe'....four new handles & three new heads...but....still 'Grandad's favourite axe'.....

I will await the outcome of this enquiry, as I have a few questions in my head as well.
e.g. The 'Vertical dive' at 'high speed'....If I take my hands off the control column in this situation, the aircraft simply recovers from the ensuing dive.

So, the 'GoPro' may well provide a clue.

'Tis a sad occasion.
Enough said.

Jabawocky
18th Dec 2013, 04:35
Well if this was in NSW the NSW Police Aviation investigator would have every diver scouring the sea floor looking for that go pro before it disappears for good. He has done this several times and with success.

If the Hemple accident is anything to go by I suggest we will not see it recovered. Lack of significant action quickly.

TBM-Legend
18th Dec 2013, 04:57
The Qld Police has recovered the GoPro according to Ch9 news...

arawa
18th Dec 2013, 05:31
Griffo, my Tiger is a complete rebuild same as yours, and the only original part is the pilots ( rear ) seat, but the rest was new via Challinor's.
and yes, mine is as yours..put into a dive and it will tend to recover on its own.

Have some of the online "experts" checked to see that there has been several AD's regarding wing spars and flying wires over the past few years, and that the Tigers you see flying around here in SE Qld, are very well maintained.
Just like G'pa's axe.

Jabba, hopefully they do raise it, as it may reveal something , but as you said its Qld and not NSW.

Maybe the Go-pro, if that rumour is correct, will reveal something, and if it does, I hope for the sake of the families , certain parts, for obvious reasons, are never made public domain.

Also just wonder with him being over the beach, did the lad collect a seagull or pelican on the wing strut ? but the witness didnt seem to suggest that it was in pieces coming down.
I do have another theory involving a stopped prop, and other Tiger pilots could guess what Im thinking.

But most important ,are thoughts to the families who have lost loved ones, especially this time of year.

Jabawocky
18th Dec 2013, 06:06
That is good news at least for investigative purposes.

Maybe there was something learned after the yak. :sad:

601
18th Dec 2013, 06:48
My condolences to the family of those on board.

It will be interesting to see if the airframe is recovered by the ATSB or Qld Police and, if so, what ramifications would that have following the non-recovery of the Hempel Yak

roundsounds
18th Dec 2013, 07:24
Some observations:
- there has been no indication as to the cause of this terrible accident, so why speculate as to the cause? It just has potential to upset the family / friends of the deceased and feed the media machine.
- I would aerobat an aircraft with timber spars before one of any other material (timber doesn't fatigue)
- "rag and tube" aircraft are stripped back to bare bones periodically (when re-covered). This doesn't happen to other construction types.
- the DH 82A was never approved to do "flick manoeuvres", however I have seen more than one flight manual with the statement "flick manoeuvres are permitted" - an omission of the word "not" was made. I have observed a DH 82A performing flick manoeuvres and when brought to the attention of the operator was told to mind my own business. I don't believe the ASIR I submitted resulted in any action.

As suggested in pervious posts, the GoPro should shed some light on what happened. This won't help the families / friends of the deceased with their losses. However, it may help prevent a re-occurrence of a similar incident.

Ex FSO GRIFFO
18th Dec 2013, 09:40
Hi Mr 'arawa',

I could have said a lot more, but then I normally don't feed the 'ignorant trolls' who just sprout crap & like to see their name on the site.

I would think that EVERY DH-82A on the register has been 'rebuilt' - most of them more than once - and the 'old' problems of delaminating spars etc, are way behind us, one would hope!

Your suggestion is one of my thoughts also....

However, I'll leave all of that conjecture / speculation until more facts come to light.

And, if the go-pro is situated at the same site as in the 'Promo's', and intact, then there well might be an answer....

With respect,
Griffo

bankrunner
18th Dec 2013, 10:12
Well if this was in NSW the NSW Police Aviation investigator would have every diver scouring the sea floor looking for that go pro before it disappears for good. He has done this several times and with success.

NSW Police also have the best (computer) media forensics people in the country. If there's footage to be recovered from a submerged GoPro they'd also be the ones to do it :ok:

Jabawocky
18th Dec 2013, 10:28
Indeed you are right bankrunner. Makes me think you and I have a common friend ;)

Ultralights
18th Dec 2013, 11:26
Have to agree there, the NSW investigator knows his stuff.

Cactusjack
18th Dec 2013, 11:31
I heard that there was actually two GoPro's on the machine, with only one found thus far, and intact. The ATSB will use the footage if it is salvageable, but that will remain privvy to them and the Coroner, as far as viewing it goes. Anything beyond that is tantamount to walking over the graves of the dead.
I know this is an emotive topic, but under what I would call normal circumstances (circumstances that some bloggers on here are referring to), these machines are well loved, well cared for and very well maintained. I have lost count of the passenger trips I have taken in them all over the world, and I have no fear of the craft when it is in the hands of a capable pilot and it has been nurtured with the kind of TLC normally associated with said aircraft type.
I have seen Dash 8's and Metro 3's, still flying, in frightening and appalling condition. Give me a TM over them any day.

R.I.P

defizr
20th Dec 2013, 12:07
Just seen this.

GoPro video camera recovered by police from Tiger Moth crash site - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-12-18/police-recover-video-camera-from-crash-site/5165504)

DH164
21st Dec 2013, 01:17
there has been no indication as to the cause of this terrible accident, so why speculate as to the cause?

Because you have a Moth that has speared into the water leaving almost no tangible pieces in tact, and most importantly, because internet.

Hopefully the waterproof gopro box doors were used... I'm not sure if the footage could be recoverable otherwise?

bankrunner
21st Dec 2013, 02:14
I'm not sure if the footage could be recoverable otherwise?

While the card itself might be unusable due to salt water destroying the tracks on the circuit board inside, the chips themselves reside in sealed airtight packages. They have a pretty good chance of surviving at least a short time in the drink.

As long as the leads on the chips aren't too seriously damaged, if you were to transplant the chips (flash IC(s) + controller) onto a new board in a new card, you'd have a fair chance of recovering the footage.

DH164
21st Dec 2013, 02:20
Thats interesting, thanks.

peterc005
21st Dec 2013, 04:47
The Gopro camera would have used an SD or micro-SD card to store the video.

I've seen SD cards that were immersed in water for two months or have fallen off the wrists of sky divers come up good.

The basis answer is that the GoPro camera memory is probably good and able to be recovered.

There is no indication of what model of Gopro cameras were used. There may be additional information, such as GPS history, on the cards.

VH-XXX
21st Dec 2013, 07:47
GoPro's don't have GPS so no hope there. If it was in the standard waterproof holder it probably survived in tact.

Ultralights
21st Dec 2013, 08:40
its not about the camera surviving, which is unlikely, its about the SD card surviving, which has a very good chance, even under water for some time

Tomahawk38
23rd Dec 2013, 00:42
ATSB recovered the video from the gopro:


"The aircraft was fitted with two cameras associated with the conduct of joy flight activities. One of the cameras, a digital video camera, was recovered from the accident site, and the stored data was successfully downloaded. The video footage shows that, about 8 minutes after take-off, the aircraft commenced aerobatic manoeuvres. About 1 minute later during an aerobatic manoeuvre, the left wings failed."

Ex FSO GRIFFO
23rd Dec 2013, 00:50
Thankyou Mr T,

The remainder of the report here....
Investigation: AO-2013-226 - In-flight breakup involving de Havilland DH-82, Tiger Moth, VH-TSG, near South Stradbroke Island, Qld on 16 December 2013 (http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2013/aair/ao-2013-226.aspx)

mcoates
23rd Dec 2013, 01:04
Well... Their report is wrong for departure point Albatross Airfield, Qld has been gone for a long time.....

They were flying from Tiger Field.

Such a basic mistake in where the plane took off from doesn't give you much confidence that they can get the rest of the investigation right !

BEACH KING
23rd Dec 2013, 02:04
An inflight breakup :sad: Poor buggers.
The post by "One Track", that he copped flack for, seems to be pretty much on the money, be it "design limits" or "age fatigue limits"
You have to wonder if the ATSB would have had any clue as to the cause (final report) except for the GoPro footage.

Old Fella
23rd Dec 2013, 02:28
The ATSB report on a similar accident (ATSB investigation 199800648) is worth reading. One wonders just how many aircraft are being flown by pilots believing in the integrity of the structural maintenance which is not always the case.

JammedStab
23rd Dec 2013, 03:46
Having been involved with flying Tiger Moths for the last several years, it amazes me how many accidents there are on this type considering that there are really not that many flying.

That being said, structural issues have not been particularly frequent(that I have heard about) but my first thought when watching the video was that they really are doing some serious maneuvering.

But, I found this interesting quote from an earlier report link, "The aircraft was stressed to withstand maximum loads of approximately 7.5g (acceleration due to earth gravity). Information from the manufacturer indicated that even with the reinforcing doubler delaminated and ineffective, the aircraft was designed to withstand manoeuvre loads of about 5g."

That is a lot of G load. But as that report said, the old milk based glue can deteriorate. I would be hesitant to do aerobatics in any plane from that era with original glue like that as the 2002 crash had.

I am involved with another warbird that had old original milk glue in it and when torn apart, the glue was no longer what one would call airworthy.

Be cautious of some of these refurbished aircraft as well. I have seen two types including a Tiger Moth with modern glue used but discovered that the work done on the aircraft was shoddy and because of poor workmanship, the glued wood parts were not fully in contact with each other.

In the case of the C Tiger Moth, each walkway has several ribs underneath. The ribs should all be exactly level with each other so that when the plywood walkway is glued down on top of those ribs, full contact is made. There are techniques to ensure this which obviously were not done. With ribs not solidly in place, movement happened underneath both walkways leading to broken ribs and replacement required. Very expensive and it makes one wonder about the rest of the structure. This on what was a beautiful looking machine.

It can be very difficult to assess whether a rebuilt aircraft was rebuilt properly during an inspection which makes me hesitant to pull very many G.

rjtjrt
23rd Dec 2013, 04:06
JammedStab
Not trying to be too nosey, but are you referring to Tigers restored/rebuilt/maintained in Australia or overseas?
(Not that any country is immune to poor workmanship in some organisations.)
John

JammedStab
23rd Dec 2013, 04:15
Actually, I am referring to aircraft restoration in general. I have no experience with Australian restorations. But I would urge caution about this to people in any location.

Kharon
23rd Dec 2013, 04:39
ATSB - The video footage shows that, about 8 minutes after take-off, the aircraft commenced aerobatic manoeuvres. About 1 minute later during an aerobatic manoeuvre, the left wings failed."

The shocking, stark reality of that one sentence is heart rendering. Here's a decent young chap, qualified, competent, happy as the proverbial lark, going off to do what he loves best: aero's, in a Tiger. Then one of the two things any airman dreads, the spectre of uncontained fire and/ or structural failure appears.

The families and friends must be devastated and the best I have to offer is my poor, though most sincere condolences.

For the pilot and passenger I wish Godspeed, tailwinds and hope it's true that heaven is the biggest flying school ever; for someone needs to teach the new kids how manage those wings.

I was taught that time will never replace that which was lost, it does eventually ease the pain.

Selah.

Jabawocky
23rd Dec 2013, 09:03
Beachie……a golden egg you laid here.

You have to wonder if the ATSB would have had any clue as to the cause (final report) except for the GoPro footage.

The irony of it all, the one things CASA have gone to great lengths to stamp out as being illegal modifications has yielded the evidence.

I am not suggesting this tiger was fitted illegally, and to be frank, I could not care less, unless it was a GoPro mounting that initiated the failure point.

Flying Binghi
23rd Dec 2013, 10:00
Many aircraft have fully engineered and approved camera mounts.

VH-XXX
23rd Dec 2013, 10:10
Vic Police are fining motorcyclists that attach GoPro's to their helmets as they are altering the integrity of the helmet. It's not just CASA that's making life hard and generally the primary reason why they are used on motorcycles is around safety.

onetrack
23rd Dec 2013, 10:35
JammedStab - The likelihood of any original casein glue still being in any certified aircraft in Australia is virtually zilch. This casein glue problem was identified by the late 1940's, and many a (nowadays-fabulous-antique) aircraft was scrapped in the late 1940's and early 1950's, due to the horrendous cost of replacing all the casein glue.

The problem is that because the construction of the DH-82 comes from the era of coach-built cars, steam locomotives, and other now-obsolete construction techniques and trades, the many people who possessed the unique skills to repair and maintain these obsolete construction techniques, have passed on long ago - and large numbers never passed on their unique skills, and tricks and tips, to the younger tradespeople coming up through the ranks.

Yes, there are a few very good aircraft repair/maintenance/restoration people who still have these skills today - but they are very low in numbers, as compared to say 50 or 60 years ago, when every LAME had these skills.
The old LAME's had familiarity with these machines. They could walk into a hangar and point out the problem areas that no-one had even considered.

The paragraph, "repair and maintenance aspects", in the ATSB investigation 199800648 is very telling - that many aspects of the maintenance and repair of DH-82's are quite possibly deficient.
It's not likely that any LAME who has performed deficient maintenance or repair work on DH-82's is guilty of any poor quality workmanship - it's just that it's entirely possible a sizeable number of LAME's are lacking in the extensive requirements for well-rounded skills, familiarity, and knowledge about wood, wire, and fabric construction, that their grandfather LAME's possessed.

There are a much wider range of variables in a piece of timber, as compared to a piece of metal. Grain structure, origins of the tree, timber types, and climate variations, can all affect a piece of timber in ways that do not even come into the picture with a piece of metal.

In addition, because so many DH-82's are of such advanced age - their build, repair and maintenance history extends over 3 generations. As such, in our current society where items are obsolete after 20 yrs - and very few maintenance, repair or parts personnel knows anything about a model you mention, that is 35 yrs old or more ("geez, that was before I was born!") - then it becomes even more of a problem trying to determine just from a few concise records, exactly what was done with regard to repairs or maintenance, by an LAME who has possibly been dead for 20 or 25 years.

What I am getting at, is that with the advanced age of these great little machines, it surely behoves owners to treat them with the due respect according to their advanced age and construction style - and carrying out aerobatics with paying pax in 2013, has to carry a vastly increased risk, as compared to doing the same thing, 70 or 75 yrs ago.

Even if FSO Griffo's DH-82 has had every single component, apart from the makers nameplate, totally replaced with all-new components - a lot of DH-82's haven't had that luxury, and many repairs have no doubt been, "cost-constrained".

http://www.casa.gov.au/airworth/awb/02/011.pdf

greg47
23rd Dec 2013, 10:42
to think your conducting aerobatics in an 80 yr old aeroplane with, im sure ill be attacked ,2013 maintainance is an inditement on the nanny state. There would not be a engineer who is young who knows anything except to put in another module. Gone or almost gone are probably the best in the world on aluminium and making something or being allowed to. Im only 66 I saw that which is now gone. 26 now going mustering the guy has a problem. A loop is a very benighn manoeuvre but fall out of it to slow ,well. Being full of everthing except ability its a wing wrapper, if you want to play with these artifacts . It should never be allowed anyone silly enough to get in deserves what they got. I only have 26000 hrs

601
23rd Dec 2013, 10:47
We may need to think outside a failure in the airframe. It is not that long ago that a F111 was brought down by a pelican.

ForkTailedDrKiller
23rd Dec 2013, 10:52
I only have 26000 hrs

It took you that long to learn to write drivel?

Dr :8

aeromatt
23rd Dec 2013, 10:58
Vic Police are fining motorcyclists that attach GoPro's to their helmets as they are altering the integrity of the helmet. It's not just CASA that's making life hard and generally the primary reason why they are used on motorcycles is around safety.

WA police are attaching them to their own helmets to catch drivers texting. You have to admire the continuity in laws from state to state.

Ok, back on topic.

Jabawocky
23rd Dec 2013, 10:59
Many aircraft have fully engineered and approved camera mounts.

And your point is?

greg47
23rd Dec 2013, 11:00
ok sure you may be right but that's my input

onetrack
23rd Dec 2013, 11:07
It took you that long to learn to write drivel?

FTDK - Unfortunately, with 26000 hrs in his log, perhaps greg47 is writing his input from a nursing home, with greatly impaired sight and muscular control. Give him a break, he's probably a military veteran. :)

I can get the gist of what he wrote, even if the grammar, sentence structure and spelling is somewhat deficient.

Didn't we recently have, a highly experienced, current LAME on here, who suffered from serious dyslexia, and an equivalent level of writing ability to greg47? Now, that's something I'd be concerned about. :(

What greg47 is rightfully pointing out, is the decline in trade skills right across the board. In the old days, as a trade apprentice you got to watch the masters for the first 12 mths, while you swept floors and were allowed to undertake menial, but learning tasks, so you had good basic grounding.
After 5 years and often more, you were classed as "proficient" and given your trade papers - but you still had to do another 10 yrs on the job to become a master of your trade.

Nowadays, apprentices are an uncommon sight, every tradesperson "learns on the job", skill level requirements and instructional times are reduced; many tradesmen are relegated to "parts replacement" and little else.
Diagnostics are done by huge computerised diagnostic machines that talk to the computer in the machine - instead of by the learnt trade skills of the tradesman.
Add in the "nanny state" laws and requirements that reduce incentive and initiative, and we're a far cry from 50 or 60 yrs ago.

Jack Ranga
23rd Dec 2013, 11:34
The irony of it all, the one things CASA have gone to great lengths to stamp out as being illegal modifications has yielded the evidence.

Love it Jaba :D F@rkwits

dubbleyew eight
23rd Dec 2013, 11:39
On 16 December 2013, a de Havilland DH-82 (Tiger Moth) aircraft, registered VH-TSG, took-off from the operator’s airstrip at Pimpama, Queensland with a pilot and passenger on board.

Mcoates might like to re read that part of the report.

my question is simple. what broke????

gerry111
23rd Dec 2013, 14:20
I suppose to settle the doubt, we should be asking greg47 more about how / where and when his 26000 hours were logged...

dubbleyew eight
23rd Dec 2013, 15:09
if old experienced LAME's could do aeronautical calculations and be cognisant of loads in a structure then greg47's comment would be valid.
I suspect though that many LAME's could tell you whether a part had deteriorated from what a new one looked like but could not tell you the load in the structure or whether the part originally had adequate margins of strength.
a lot of guesswork is involved in maintenance.

the question remains. what broke?

JammedStab
23rd Dec 2013, 17:33
JammedStab - The likelihood of any original casein glue still being in any certified aircraft in Australia is virtually zilch. This casein glue problem was identified by the late 1940's, and many a (nowadays-fabulous-antique) aircraft was scrapped in the late 1940's and early 1950's, due to the horrendous cost of replacing all the casein glue.



Could be, but there were a couple of links to DH.82 accidents that mentioned that they still had the old glue. At least 10 years ago but there always seems to be a few around. Especially on this side of the world.

Kharon
23rd Dec 2013, 18:47
Reading some of the more reasoned posts got me curious (a curse). Apart from a couple of delightful hours, more years ago than I care to remember, I have no knowledge (zero) of Tiger operations – so indulge me here. I am curious as to the 'why' a wing 'broke', also which wing went first (top or t'uther).

For the sake of discussion, lets take a small risk and make some assumptions; (a) the aircraft was correctly maintained and 'in good order'; (b) the pilot was of 'average' competency, medically serviceable and could manage 'basic' aero's. The weather is a given. I believe we could almost ignore a bird strike as being a 'wing breaker'. So what else could possibly cause a sudden event??

Some will no doubt recognise their words in the quotes below; so my question – is it remotely possible that the deployment of leading edge slats, if unlocked could create enough additional load (twisting ?) on a 'weak' spot to create the break ?. Looking at the drawings creates a doubt, there's some pretty robust material to 'break' built in.

It is important to lock the automatic slats (leading edge flaps) during aerobatic manoeuvres

Put simply, Auto slots (slats) work by the center of pressure moving forward until there is a lifting force on the slats rather them being held in position by slipstream. I think the reason for locking them is mainly to prevent them being damaged, after all, if it deployed on the wing about to stall that would delay the stall and hence reduce the likeyhood of a spin - though not significantly.

The slats on the Tiger's top wing can be locked shut, and indeed some are permanently wired shut. They are usually locked for aeros, as at high AoA one slat might deploy before the other. Indeed that might have been a factor in this accident, if he let the AoA get too high in the loop and one slat deployed and the other didn't, round you go into spin-land (unless you counter it with instant forward elevator and appropriate rudder, an instinctive reaction for an experienced aeros pilot,

In a perfect world both slats deploy at exactly the same AoA and there is no delay in deployment. In the real world there will be a difference in the AoA that provoke deployment wing to wing, and then a delay (also variable wing to wing) from closed to open, which become significant in the sort of accelerated stall that happens if you pull back too hard while climbing steeply (loop entry). It's a flick really, so it all happens very quickly compared to a level stall.

Consider pulling up into a loop, pulling too hard near the top, and one slat pops out. Both wings were near the stall and flow breakaway was starting, but now the slatted wing fully recovers so there is a roll component towards the unslatted wing which increases the AoA of that (downgoing) wing by quite a lot and it fully stalls. Of course its slat will then deploy but by then, assuming the pilot keeps pulling as the speed continues to decay, the damage is done and the aeroplane has flicked into a spin.

That is precisely why they should be locked before aeros!

As a commercial Tiger Moth Pilot, I can tell you that the slats are a real pain. The cables used to operate them stretch over time, especially if one is doing a lot of aeros allowing the slats to 'float'. This stresses both the slat mechanism and the wing, leading to all manner of maintenance headaches. We remove the slats as a matter of routine whenever we are having wings rebuilt.

Thanks for replies so far. asw 28-866 - If the slat cables stretched over time and caused the "floating" you describe, this suggests routine maintenance of the cables was lacking - not faulty cables. Most components, if not serviced to manufacturer's specified time limits will inevitably cause problems down the line. While the IAS stalling speed difference may be negligable, the CAS stalling speed is what counts. There is no doubt the slats act as an effective stall warning device.

Removal of a component for reason of servicing costs can lead to undesirable results. In 1992, a Tiger Moth spun in during the execution of a simulated engine failure shortly after take off at 300 ft. One pilot was killed. The accident investigation board criticised the operator for locking the slats in the permanently closed position (to save the bother and costs of servicing). Litigation quickly followed.

The Board of Inquiry stated the accident might have been avoided if the slats had been operating as they served as an effective signal of stall warning and a slower stall speed.

Just asking - ???

DH164
23rd Dec 2013, 19:44
Why on earth have people bothered to retain slats on their Moths? Theyre just pain for no gain.

arawa
23rd Dec 2013, 21:52
Dh164,

your comment on slats are "pain for no gain" has me a bit perplexed.

just so we know, what is your total command experience on Dh82/a/c's ?

mine is a lowly 774.4 ,and last flew one 3 days ago, and I think they are very worthwhile, as they helped me during a forced landing into a rather small field a few years ago, to keep SA on speed.
but to be fair, yes, they should be checked locked for aero's, by doing the old HASEL checks....but a pain...never.

b/regards
Arawa

allthecoolnamesarego
24th Dec 2013, 00:53
Agree with Arawa,

The slats are a Fantastic aid to speed awareness. They are a visiual and audible sign as to the wings AoA.

I would never render my slats useless. They are there to help!

Stan van de Wiel
24th Dec 2013, 02:07
Having read most of the posts re this accident, I find it strange that no one has mentioned the integrity f the flying wires or should I say their attachment points.
My own experience is limited to~500 hrs on DH82 and Stampes, some 40 odd years ago but due one fortunate ground incident, a/c tied down securely overnight caught in a squall and ended up inverted on top of a Cessna. The rope was still secured to the a/c tiedown fitting but the bolt either 3/8" or lighter had corroded away out of sight holding on by one thread. On further examination most of the other similar fittings were also well corroded. Including the ends of the flying wires.
The interplane struts and their fittings must be the weakest points as most connect through a single bolt (from memory) the video will hopefully show the moment of disintegration.
My condolences to the families. SW.

Dora-9
24th Dec 2013, 04:42
your comment on slats are "pain for no gain" has me a bit perplexed.On a lighter note, also useful for outmaneuvering Chipmunks.

DH164
24th Dec 2013, 07:24
If you want to pull yourself over your xxx POINT FOUR! hours in a Moth thats fine by me. I haven't totalled mine but maybe 3 figures both in slats and without slats. So you maybe stall 2 knots less with slats, big whoop. They're just another unnecessary item to maintain.

They are a visiual and audible sign as to the wings AoA

I also need slats to tell me how much energy I've got over my wings.

mcoates
24th Dec 2013, 07:31
Mcoates might like to re read that part of the report.

888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888 888

They (ATSB) have changed the report and the general details, it originally said Albatros Airfield Coomera as their base and departure point!

I am glad the ATSB read PPRUNE and can be alerted to their errors.

VH-XXX
24th Dec 2013, 07:39
Funny you should mention the ATSB reading pprune because I can confirm at times that they do. Those of us that make bold comments about crashes and operator past history may find a nice message waiting in their inbox. My experience in this happening was around being able to offer photos for the report and also a rogue GPS experience that relevance to a recent fatal crash.

StallsandSpins
24th Dec 2013, 08:31
Stan My thoughts exactly... im no expert on anything but as far as i have seen the tiger moth is constructed with a tube steel fuselage with wood wings and tail surfaces. The wings are constructed using SINGLE piece wood spars routed into an I beam shape attached at the root and interplane struts with bolted metal fittings (steel?) and wood ribs glued to the spars.

A catastrophic wing failure such as this suggests to me that the failure occurred in either the spar, root attachment or interplane strut attachment. The slats themselves would probably fail long before the wing would and flicking into a spin as Kharon described would have been a fairly regular occurrence back in the days when the tiger was the back bone of flight training.

Also im wary of statements such as But, I found this interesting quote from an earlier report link, "The aircraft was stressed to withstand maximum loads of approximately 7.5g (acceleration due to earth gravity). Information from the manufacturer indicated that even with the reinforcing doubler delaminated and ineffective, the aircraft was designed to withstand manoeuvre loads of about 5g." i dont have my original tiger moth pilots notes or DH service manuals handy but im fairly certain it makes no mention of G limits (none of the other DH manuals i have do - indeed the leopard moth one i have in front of me doesn't even list a VNE). stress analysis of individual components may indicate load factors as high as 5 or 7.5 but this may be a case of applying modern ideas of structural analysis to older aircraft designs.

Although both wood and steel do not fatigue in the same way aluminium structures do any structure where you have joints consisting of different materials with different stiffnesses will suffer from a kind of fatigue particularly if they are subjected high loads. Im fairly certain the tiger was not designed with anything other than gentle loops rolls and spins in mind...
anyway this is a terrible tragedy and my sincerest condolences to those affected

arawa
24th Dec 2013, 08:34
lets see dh164,
a civil question was met with a sarcastic answer.
plus you say in your last line that you now NEED the slats .
I thought they were a pain ?

If I have to lower myself to your level, I will, but for just a second, but maybe the location from where you come from shows your flying style/skill...like chopping meat.

this forum was to try and work out possibly what happened ,and find any answers to the sad loss of two young lives.

That is what is most important, and Im sure the moderator will agree.

DH164
24th Dec 2013, 09:12
Arawa,

a civil question was met with a sarcastic answer.

How would you like me to respond to the dense question of "just so we know, what is your total command experience on Dh82/a/c's ?"

This is the internet, trying to waive your genitals around to attempt to give yourself some sort of credibility is laughable. I'll take the 'sarcasm' out of it. I don't see the benefit of slats because all they do is lower your stall speed by 2 knots at a maximum.

plus you say in your last line that you now NEED the slats .
I thought they were a pain ?

No, now that was sarcasm.

this forum was to try and work out possibly what happened ,and find any answers to the sad loss of two young lives.

But then the same old sods come out and say 'Oh my god hurr durr you cant speculate on the cause of the accident, just wait till the ATSB come out with their findings, have some respect for the victims and their faimiles'.

That is what is most important, and Im sure the moderator will agree.

Brown nose that hard and it will soon become red.

dubbleyew eight
24th Dec 2013, 09:22
interesting mcoats isn't it :-)

the DH82 obviously wasn't designed to the loads of FAR23.
It was probably designed to one of the early english standards.
what were the loads requirements the DH82 was designed to?

fujii
24th Dec 2013, 09:48
Quote:

this forum was to try and work out possibly what happened ,and find any answers to the sad loss of two young lives.

That is what is most important, and Im sure the moderator will agree.



The ATSB is there to work out what happened. So far all I have seen in this forum are four pages of speculation.

Dora-9
24th Dec 2013, 10:04
DH164, without any respect I think you have a problem:

If you want to pull yourself over your xxx POINT FOUR! hours in a Moth thats fine by me.You were merely being asked what qualifications you had to make the statements you made, but what we get back is heavy sarcasm because Arawa clearly has a lot more Tiger Moth expertise/experience than you do.

Or are you embarrassed at the contradiction in your statements about the value of slats in your various postings.

Please take the time to re-read the last two paras of Arawas last post; I happen to agree with these and there's no way they deserve your petty, unhelpful and spiteful response.

Jabawocky
24th Dec 2013, 12:39
On a lighter note, also useful for outmaneuvering Chipmunks.

And Dora…..what on earth would you know about these :} :ok:

onetrack
24th Dec 2013, 13:13
The ATSB is there to work out what happened. So far all I have seen in this forum are four pages of speculation.
Well, that means we've only just got started, and we have another 50 pages of unbelievably wild, and wilder speculation, to go yet - until the ATSB final report appears, in perhaps 18 mths time. :)

Dora-9
24th Dec 2013, 18:36
Jaba:

And Dora…..what on earth would you know about theseWritten as the outmaneuveree!

Kharon
24th Dec 2013, 21:57
Got home only to discover been banished from the houseboat kitchen. I decided to use the time to try and learn a bit more about Tigers, the net is great, but there is a load of useless information to wade through; I expect the trick is knowing what to search for. Even so, it's a great tool. I found the following most instructive – DH82 (http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/DH82A%20Tiger%20Moth,%20G-ACDJ%2007-06.pdf)– and – Avilogs. Most DH 82 buffs will be all over it, but for a layman, they helped a great deal.

The geometry of the DH 82 flight load management is a testament to the KISS principal. I was fascinated with the amount of repair detail provided for the metal parts of the airframe, compared to the timber parts described in the -Avilogs (http://www.avialogs.com/en/aircraft/uk/dehavilland/dh-82tigermoth/tiger-moth-maintenance-and-repair-manual.html)- 1947 Maintenance and repair sections. It was also interesting to note the 'terminology' used, the term 'see' rather than 'check' for example.

SvW # 70 –"Including the ends of the flying wires.
The inter-plane struts and their fittings must be the weakest points as most connect through a single bolt (from memory)".

There's a good start – I wondered what level of redundancy there is; i.e. how much of the 'bracing' can be lost before a wing 'breaks'. With apologies to the 'wizards' it looks as though there are 6 bracing wires; 2 flying, 2 landing and 2 inter-plane (cross bracing). The 'flying wires' attached to 6 'hard' points, the cross bracing to four within the inter-plane struts. That's 10 hard points in all, here the mathematics get difficult (for me) it's not possible to determine the ratio of load between the 'lift' bracing and 'landing' bracing, but the manuals indicate a higher percentage on the lift side during flight (which makes sense). So, the puzzle is, if a 'weak' point fitting had let go what is the gross effect?. To loose one of a possible four cross brace fitting is within the realms of probability, but would that cause the wing to break. The loss of one of a possible six flying wire fittings would be a more serious matter (mathematically speaking). I expect the ATSB will, in due course, provide the right answers, if at all possible. Previous reports into Tiger accidents have been very good, the 1998 one - ATSB 199800648 (http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/1998/aair/aair199800648.aspx) - in particular. They were careful then to examine all the possibilities.

Cherry picked from ATSB 199800648, (simply to assist head scratching and muttering).

TMK was a single-bay biplane with a wood and metal structure covered by fabric. Metal, aerofoil shaped, flying and landing wires braced the wings. Wing slats were mounted on the outboard leading edge of the upper wings above the inter-plane strut attachment points. British Aerospace, the type certificate holder for the DH-82A, reported that this area underwent the greatest bending stresses when the wing was placed under aerodynamic load and, therefore, determined the ultimate load limit of the wing.

However, the slat-locking lever was found to be in the unlocked position. The investigation could not determine whether the slat-locking lever was unlocked during the aerobatics or became unlocked during the subsequent in flight break-up or ground impact. Both slats were bent upwards in a V-shape around the centre attachment. The outboard part of the right wing slat had additional deformation and contained a deep cut. The cut was consistent with the slat impacting either the right wing's flying or landing wires. Within the wreckage trail, the slats were found beyond the separated pieces of wing spar and internal structure.

The notion of a sudden load transfer combined with a loss of 'bracing' creating enough force to break a wing claimed to be within ::  7g to :: 5 g is intriguing.

Enough; time to mount my cunning plan to steal mince pies, cream and any loose choccy frogs the dogs didn't get. MC y'all.

JammedStab
24th Dec 2013, 22:04
Having read most of the posts re this accident, I find it strange that no one has mentioned the integrity f the flying wires or should I say their attachment points.


Good point on the wires themselves. Here is an airworthiness bulletin from CASA. A little bit of oil on the wires can prevent corrosion, especially if you are near salt water. I would think that oil or grease in the extensive threaded areas of these wires is a good idea. I believe that moly disulfide grease could be a preferred type.



http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/airworth/awb/02/012.pdf

"Several in-flight failures of stainless steel streamline wires have occurred with various de Havilland aircraft in recent years. Fracture of streamline wires reduces the structural integrity of an aircraft and may result in widespread structural failure."

Ex FSO GRIFFO
24th Dec 2013, 22:22
Well written Mr K,

However, there was much 'local' discussion at the time of the VH-TMK crash re the 'slats' induced problem, or the 'delamination' of the spar due to the 'casein' glue failure...

From the same report -
'Engineering analysis by British Aerospace determined that slats deploying during a looping manoeuvre would not cause a serviceable wing to fail.'

I'm sure that more than one of us has watched those slats 'working' at various speeds / attitudes / turns etc, and marvelled at their efficiency.

Cheers;)

LeadSled
24th Dec 2013, 23:40
the DH82 obviously wasn't designed to the loads of FAR23.
It was probably designed to one of the early english standards.
what were the loads requirements the DH82 was designed to?

Folks,
The DH82 ( and the Chipmunk) were both designed to RAF requirements, not civil standards.
Structurally, they were accepted "as is" for original civil certification (let's not argue about anti-spin strakes)
Tootle pip!!

DH164
25th Dec 2013, 00:34
"I'm sure that more than one of us has watched those slats 'working' at various speeds / attitudes / turns etc, and marvelled at their efficiency."

This.

fencehopper
25th Dec 2013, 01:40
I live near Luskingtyre where a lot of Tigers are flown and rebuilt. Not uncommon to have them doing aeros overhead the house and I attend "Lunch with the Tigers" regularly. Enjoy it immensely and hope this accident does not effect the good times everyone there enjoy.
Some interesting comments about how and possibly why but I can't help but think of the importance of the environment this Tiger had been operated in over it's working life.
Flown hard and only possibly maintained to a profit driven cost and not maybe the usual passion a Tiger receives and in an exceptionally SALTY atmosphere. Sure will be interesting to read the final report.


GoPro cameras mounted to helmets. As a skydiver I own one just like everyone else. Compromising helmet integrity? Not with the stick on mounts. I could understand maybe potential distraction. Seen several jumpers have incidents caused by being to distracted in their camera that's why we have minimum jump numbers to use one. As for police using them, why not? They can use mobile phones and txt legally so why not mount a camera on their helmet. Not surprised that insurance companies will want them mandatory for both driving and flying sooner or later. As usual CASA is the problem.
FH

Dora-9
25th Dec 2013, 06:16
( and the Chipmunk) were both designed to RAF requirements, not civil standards.
Structurally, they were accepted "as is" for original civil certification (let's not argue about anti-spin strakes)Leady,

Fair point regarding the DH.82, but the Chipmunk Mk.21 was built "ground-up" as a civil aircraft, and certified in the UK, from December 1950 to September 1951, as an aerobatic category aircraft.

Also, at the risk of nit-picking, in reality they're spin-recovery strakes. If they actually achieve anything is another issue!

mickjoebill
28th Dec 2013, 00:55
GoPro cameras mounted to helmets. As a skydiver I own one just like everyone else. Compromising helmet integrity? Not with the stick on mounts
Sure, but a glancing blow the mount will snap, albeit with a potential twist or snap motion to the wearers neck,
But if the impact to the helmet is at 90 degrees the mount, it translates all the energy to the 2sq cm small surface area of the mount. (assuming the impact is not with a pointy object)
Also there is the increased risk of the protrusion fouling cables and restricting emergency egress.
Whilst these circumstances are highly unlikely to occur we should move toward integrated and certificated mounts like those for night vision kit.

Apart from heavy cameras used by skydivers, I don't know of any cases where helmet mounted cameras have adversely affected the wearer.
I developed the first ever TV "hat cam" in 1985, they have come a long way since then!

Mickjoebill

onetrack
28th Dec 2013, 02:00
IMO, the attachment of Go-Pro mounts will probably feature a lot lower in investigators sights, than the investigation of the circumstances regarding previous accidents to the aircraft, and how the repairs to those previous accidents were carried out.
I understand that VH-TSG has had a chequered history and cannot be positively identified as to its true provenance.
Who knows what has actually happened to this aircraft, as regards repair from many decades ago, if it's true provenance cannot be identified?
It appears that VH-TSG could also have been used for ag spraying, with possible resultant chemical spray effect on airframe components being added to the investigators list.

VH-TSG (http://www.edcoatescollection.com/ac1/austmz/VH-TSG.html)

I believe VH-TSG was also involved in an accident as recently as 12 yrs ago. I cannot find any ATSB report relating to that incident, but no doubt, available repair records from any incidents involving VH-TSG will be scrutinised.
One would trust that the potential for the vastly increased likelihood of corrosion in metal components that are buried in wood - when used in a humid coastal environment, such as TSG was being operated in - was also understood by the owner/operator.

dubbleyew eight
28th Dec 2013, 02:53
a 30 year history of being aerobatted as often as 3 times a day wont come into it of course. it will be some mysterious metallurgical fault.

...much to the misery of all the other owners with totally different usage histories.

Kharon
30th Dec 2013, 18:39
Interesting post One track, the links make for interesting reading, Cheers.

One Track# 92 "[the] investigation of the circumstances regarding previous accidents to the aircraft, and how the repairs to those previous accidents were carried out.

Did a little scratching about, nothing serious just enough to get a better handle on the subject and there appears to be many more tales (across the fleet) of first class repairs and careful restoration than anecdotes of 'dodgy' repairs. The only ugly story was one where 'Bog' (motor body filler) was used to hold together a critical, deeply hidden timber repair; but even in that case the bodge job had withstood the test of time and was discovered the rectified by 'honest' diligent maintenance folk.

Re - TSG.
It was registered to Robbys Aircraft Co of Parafield on 4 October 1957 with the c/n DHC78.

One of the more 'interesting' tales is related to 'boxed' ex factory spare parts being used to construct a whole aircraft, which when you think about it is not such a bad thing. I expect there would be some 'legal' issues to cause irritation, but the aircraft from an operational perspective at least would literally be brand new, out of the box.

There was some shuffling of aggie Tiger ownership at the time because DCA required each agricultural spraying/top dressing company to retire a third of their D.H.82s each year running up to 1966 - so some ag companies bought dismantled Tigers just to increase their fleet size on paper, so that they could keep their operational Tigers in service to the end. It is possible that Trojan's registered this machine just for that purpose.

I also had some tales of 'retired' ag aircraft finding their way back into service, but there is no evidence to support the 45 year old tale.

One Track# 92 "One would trust that the potential for the vastly increased likelihood of corrosion in metal components that are buried in wood - when used in a humid coastal environment, such as TSG was being operated in - was also understood by the owner/operator.

Interesting sidebar to this element; it seems that before 'new age' materials were used, the 'old' fabric needed to be peeled off and replaced every few years, as part of this process the timber could be thoroughly inspected. I'm told the modern fabric lasts much, much longer than Irish linen which precludes the more frequent 'involuntary' inspections.

Can anyone provide an update on how much of the aircraft was recovered ?, must be a hellish job trying to find all the pieces; Murphy's law being as it is.

W8 #93 "...much to the misery of all the other owners with totally different usage histories."

It's the way of the world, you know the old joke – "but shag one bloody sheep..etc.."

dubbleyew eight
31st Dec 2013, 08:12
one of my Austers was used for crop spraying for about a year.
far from causing lots of hidden corrosion issues it was actually the making of the old girl.
when they gave up on ag spraying with the old girl the lame stripped back the entire underside, sorted it out and put new fabric on.
when I came to bead blast the entire airframe about 10 years ago there was not one skerrick of corrosion on the underside tubes of the aircraft.

crop dusting around Colleambally in about 1965-8
redone about 1968
beadblasted and found to have zero corrosion 2000

so dont write off a tiggy that has been used for ag spraying. it may not have harmed it at all.

CHAIRMAN
31st Dec 2013, 20:38
An extremely unfortunate accident. I know all posters here feel for the pilot and passenger involved - a very sad departure of very young lives.
Thanks to ATSB for a quick prelim report gained from the go pro evidence. Let's hope that evidence can be expanded on as soon as possible to give us an understanding of the cause of the structural failure of the wing.
As a tiger owner and friend of many other owners I can say unequivocally that we maintain our machines to what we believe is the highest standard. We accept that these are old machines and that expert knowledge is required to maintain them - that knowledge does still exist and as far as I know we all access that pool.
That such a robust, albeit old, aircraft can fail in this fashion is a concern. That there has been only 2 structural failures in the past 40 or so years, although somewhat comforting, does not lessen that concern.
Then again, many spam cans have also failed unexpectedly.
I am sure that all DH 82 owners are on double the lookout during future maintenance until the ultimate cause of this structural failure is determined.

Kharon
1st Jan 2014, 03:33
W8 # 95 "so dont write off a tiggy that has been used for ag spraying. it may not have harmed it at all."

No offence meant; I only was curious about why DCA felt the need to retire apparently serviceable airframes from agricultural operations; seemed a strange thing to me. As you say, repairs and rectification would return the aircraft to service, no permanent harm done. Reading back through the old 1947 manual there are 'fixes' for just about every metal part, so even if the dreaded corrosion had taken hold, it seems that it could be very quickly and painlessly sorted.

I agree with Chairman though, there is a deep pool of expert knowledge available - world wide, it's impressive to find such dedication and freely available knowledge on tap to doting owners. I'd risk a choccy frog and bet that the canny 'Tiger' wizards have some ideas on what happened and are only waiting on hard data to confirm them. Lets hope the ATSB manages to do this sad event justice. HNY all.

currawong
1st Jan 2014, 06:59
No DH 82 permitted to do aerial agricultural work after December 31 1965 due to their high accident rate and availability of more modern aircraft.

JammedStab
3rd Jan 2014, 11:43
I understand that VH-TSG has had a chequered history and cannot be positively identified as to its true provenance.
Who knows what has actually happened to this aircraft, as regards repair from many decades ago, if it's true provenance cannot be identified?
It appears that VH-TSG could also have been used for ag spraying, with possible resultant chemical spray effect on airframe components being added to the investigators list.


Based on the information available for the Tiger Moth I fly, I tell people that the only part of the aircraft that I can guarantee is original is the dataplate. Who knows what happened in the old days prior to its initial restoration which was by a spotty operator with several Moths.

I remember visiting a Tiger Moth restorer and among his many items were several dataplates, all future Tiger Moths if an appropriate fuselage can be found.

Kharon
3rd Jan 2014, 20:16
"In 1940 I could at least fly as far as Glasgow in most of my aircraft, but not now! It makes me furious when I see the Mosquito. I turn green and yellow with envy.

The British, who can afford aluminium better than we can, knock together a beautiful wooden aircraft that every piano factory over there is building, and they give it a speed which they have now increased yet again. What do you make of that?

There is nothing the British do not have. They have the geniuses and we have the nincompoops. After the war is over I'm going to buy a British radio set - then at least I'll own something that has always worked." Hermann Göring, January 1943.

Given that the same 'piano factory' designed and built the 'Tiger', which has, despite some 'operational abuse' survived the test of time. Given that the inherent simplicity and 'toughness' of the design made it 'easy' to repair. Given that 'in the old days' the engineers were, by nature, no less interested in doing the 'right thing'. I am left wondering: allowing for the passage of time, the different operator interests, multiple inspections and 'rebuild' phases of the 'modern' Tiger, could even the most slip shod workmanship of the past affect today's tiger, in such a dramatic manner?

The Grandfathers axe argument has real merit.

StallsandSpins
4th Jan 2014, 11:00
Kharon,
thanks for posting those links to the tiger moth manuals interesting reading!

Quote:
SvW # 70 –"Including the ends of the flying wires.
The inter-plane struts and their fittings must be the weakest points as most connect through a single bolt (from memory)".
There's a good start – I wondered what level of redundancy there is; i.e. how much of the 'bracing' can be lost before a wing 'breaks'. With apologies to the 'wizards' it looks as though there are 6 bracing wires; 2 flying, 2 landing and 2 inter-plane (cross bracing). The 'flying wires' attached to 6 'hard' points, the cross bracing to four within the inter-plane struts. That's 10 hard points in all, here the mathematics get difficult (for me) it's not possible to determine the ratio of load between the 'lift' bracing and 'landing' bracing, but the manuals indicate a higher percentage on the lift side during flight (which makes sense). So, the puzzle is, if a 'weak' point fitting had let go what is the gross effect?. To loose one of a possible four cross brace fitting is within the realms of probability, but would that cause the wing to break. The loss of one of a possible six flying wire fittings would be a more serious matter (mathematically speaking). I expect the ATSB will, in due course, provide the right answers, if at all possible. Previous reports into Tiger accidents have been very good, the 1998 one - ATSB 199800648 - in particular. They were careful then to examine all the possibilities.


You must assume that there is no redundancy with the flying wires. They weren't in the habit of adding an extra flying wire here or there for good luck even though it might appear like that in some of these older types.

this quote from section 1 page 1 of the tiger manual you linked to

"in normal flight flying loads are taken by two cables on each side forming a triangle between the upper ends of the interplane struts and fittings on the lower longerons at the front spar of the bottom plane. "

i.e the flying loads are taken by wires that connect the top of the interplane struts to the root of the bottom wing. So essentially they act in much the same way struts on a Cessna 172 do and they are most likely just as critical to the structural integrity of the wing as they are on a Cessna 172.

The Tiger Moth is a solid safe and time proven design. But it is a product of a very different era. "No worries she's built like brick sh*t house mate" is indicative of a potentially dangerous misconception many people have about these machines. it's not built like a brick sh*t house it's built like a light aircraft. It was the 82 aircraft design produced by DH in a 25 - 30 year period. They learnt structural design by trial and error, lots of static testing and a few dead test pilots. by 1935 they could produce safe and efficient structures that were comparable to the all metal cessnas that came along 15 years later (and are the backbone of GA to this day).

im skeptical of statements such as this I found this interesting quote from an earlier report link, "The aircraft was stressed to withstand maximum loads of approximately 7.5g (acceleration due to earth gravity). Information from the manufacturer indicated that even with the reinforcing doubler delaminated and ineffective, the aircraft was designed to withstand manoeuvre loads of about 5g." where did this come from?

The tiger is a safe aircraft but it shure as hell is no pitts special. Unless british aerospace produce an original stress report stating this or their own analysis which suggests this (which i doubt they have) you cannot accept this. Anyway British Aerospace no longer holds the type certificate for DH moth types. DH technical support does.

JammedStab
4th Jan 2014, 12:57
Unless british aerospace produce an original stress report stating this or their own analysis which suggests this (which i doubt they have) you cannot accept this. Anyway British Aerospace no longer holds the type certificate for DH moth types. DH technical support does.

I'm not sure about the ATSB, but sometimes, a safety board will provide information to the public(if asked) about certain details. Perhaps they would be willing to send out the information provided by the manufacturer if asked. Could be interesting.

dubbleyew eight
4th Jan 2014, 13:08
gods do you guys misunderstand things.

when a tiggie is flying the wing loads are borne by the flying wires alone.
the other wires actually go slack in flight.

two wires in parallel and one fails results in a sudden doubling of the load in the remaining wire which often fails it as well.

there is really no redundancy. if they work you live. if they fail the aircraft crashes and more than likely you die.

struts and flying wires are really the most important structural components on an aircraft.

JammedStab
4th Jan 2014, 22:00
god do you guys misunderstand things.

when a tiggie is flying the wing loads are borne by the flying wires alone.
the other wires actually go slack in flight.

two wires in parallel and one fails results in a sudden doubling of the load in the remaining wire which often fails it as well.

there is really no redundancy. if they work you live. if they fail the aircraft crashes and more than likely you die.

struts and flying wires are really the most important structural components on an aircraft.

That is what I would have thought. On the ground while sitting, landing wires are holding the wings from collapsing. In normal flight with all the lift being created under positive g, the flying wires are now doing the most work and under tension. I guess in turbulence, the landing wires come back into play(along with probably all the wires and struts). As stated earlier, the flying and landing wires are attached to fittings which are on the fuselage where the spars attach.

Then there are the incidence wires which I guess prevent twisting movements and also the unseen bracing wires between the forward and aft spars on each wing(or is it mainplane)to prevent fore and aft movement between struts.

And there are I believe four metal compression struts between the forward and aft spars in each wing keeping the proper spacing of spars and therefore shape of the wing.

And then there are the interplane struts which when sitting on the ground have the lower wing(which is supported by the landing wires) holding up the upper wing and while in flight(with the flying wires now providing the support for the upper wing) keeping the lower wing from moving up into the upper wing.

And then there is a double set of bracing wires forming the usual X-shape in front of the pilot. They are an excellent reference for staying straight for touchdown by aligning them. But I suspect the real reason for them being there is to help prevent rotational movement of the whole wing box structure as a complete unit.

Subject to any welcome corrections of course.

Dora-9
5th Jan 2014, 01:08
Maybe this will clarify things? A very relevant article appeared in the December 2013 issue of Rag & Tube, the magazine of the Antique Aeroplane Association of Australia. It was written by Mark Miller, Chief Engineer of de Havilland Support Ltd in the UK - from personal experience he's a good guy, friendly and very helpful. I would also argue that he knows about as much as there is to know about de Havilland designs. He's also very "hands on", having restored a truly immaculate DH.84 dragon.

The main thrust of the article is DHSL's concern about the amount of erroneous information floating around about dH designs, and that people may well take short cuts not being fully aware of the implications. In general the Tiger Moth features primarily here, although the Chipmunk gets a few mentions too...

It was written before the VH-TSG accident, and contains this gem:

"And the Tiger Moth, did you know, actually falls short of contemporary strength requirements for the Aerobatic Category! It was accepted at +5g/-3g (with 50% in hand before ultimate failure) only on the premise that there is limited scope to impose exceedances on such a high drag and low speed airframe."

There is also a discussion on biplane load paths:

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a144/Blithering/img232_zps3628803b.jpg (http://s10.photobucket.com/user/Blithering/media/img232_zps3628803b.jpg.html)

JammedStab
5th Jan 2014, 01:52
So DHSL is saying 5g as well with a 50% margin.

peterc005
5th Jan 2014, 03:10
Wonder if the Tiger Moth was operating as Airwork/Charter or under the Warbird regulations?

I've seen a few Tigers with what appeared to be rotten vertical outer timber struts. Looking at the diagram above this vertical strut seems to be more critical than I thought.

Might be time to retire these old planes from carrying members of the public.

Frank Arouet
5th Jan 2014, 04:37
But for those with an interest in things old but new, I found this link most entertaining.


Home - Flight School - More Abou (http://www.waggabiketyres.com/HISTORY.htm)

Ex FSO GRIFFO
5th Jan 2014, 04:44
Just WHY do you say so, Mr P005??

I have had the spars in my top wings inspected recently, as part of a '15 year inspection plan', including the use of a borescope to inspect the holes drilled thru for the 'slats' activation rods, and they look like brand new still!

The spars were painted with a two pack marine standard varnish on original installation, in Dec 1998, and they are certified by my LAME 'as good as new still'.

Those 'rotten' vertical interplane wooden struts are made from the finest spruce money can buy - don't ask how I know that - and I keep them sanded and varnished with the same two pack marine stuff.

They may LOOK a bit 'untidy' in between coatings due to weather affected 'flaky' varnish, but once that is sanded off and inspected, you might be suprised.....

And, yes, mine does carry members of the public....a bit more often this Summer I hope...

Cheerrsss:}

Frank Arouet
5th Jan 2014, 06:41
Don't encourage him. He's not qualified to tell a rotten strut from a new one.


It might be time to retire "old" peter. Doesn't know whether he's pulling or pushing. In unison, he's a 336 "Mixmaster". The gear knob confuses him on the 337.

Dora-9
5th Jan 2014, 06:48
Might be time to retire these old planes from carrying members of the public. P005, I'm entirely with Griffo here, maybe you should settle down a bit? This is the steamroller-to-crack-a-walnut approach so beloved of CASA, what you're saying would effectively put a lot of decent and conscientious operators out of business, through no fault of their own.

Check the ATSB website - 15 incidents/accidents involving Tiger Moths in the last 43 years, with three involving an in-flight break-up (VH-TSG that we're talking about, VH-AJG on 16.2.2002 and VH-TMK on 28.2.1998) - of all of these VH-TSG is the ONLY commercial fatality in all of that period. Famously of little comfort to the victims, but the statistic surely speaks for itself.

Wouldn't it be better to await the investigation? Was the cause specific to VH-TSG, perhaps involving it's operational and maintenance history, or was it a generic "fault" involving all DH-82's? Even in the latter case and there isn't a simple (structural) rectification, there are far less dramatic precautions that could be taken, rather than an outright ban...

No hysterics and punishing innocent parties please, let's await the facts.

Ex FSO GRIFFO
5th Jan 2014, 06:56
Hi Mr 'D',

Re 'No hysterics and punishing innocent parties please, let's await the facts.'

Hear Hear..!!!

:ok:

By George
5th Jan 2014, 08:50
I flew with Mark Miller (and his father) at Duxford in their restored DH89 Rapide, painted up in WWII colours of Scottish Airways (G-AGJG). They very kindly offered me a jolly when I was exploring the hangars during one of my many visits during layovers. We slowly rattled about the English countryside checking out a couple of disused airfields. Very enjoyable afternoon followed by a cup of tea in the canteen. The aeroplane was immaculate, looked brand new. As an Aeronautical Engineer/pilot and total 'DH enthusiast' I was astounded by his wealth of knowledge in all things de Havilland.
Shame such expertise is not part of this investigation. (Maybe it should be).

peterc005
5th Jan 2014, 09:31
Dora-9 - 15 incidents and 3 in flight failures is a lot considering how many Tigers were flying during that period of time.

The reason Tigers are still flying is the "grand father" clauses in the certification. I can't imagine they's get a Type Certificate these days.

The performance of these planes is marginal, and there is not a lot of room for error flying two-up on a hot day.

Jack Ranga
5th Jan 2014, 09:41
Why do you lot entertain this fool. You'll be right Griffo :ok:

Ex FSO GRIFFO
5th Jan 2014, 10:19
Re 'and there is not a lot of room for error flying two-up on a hot day.'

Hence the skills required laddie, ....'tis all about the skills.....

"Tis often said its easy to fly a 'Tiger', but rather difficult to fly it 'well".....

Amen.
Thanks JR..:ok:
And Mr 'D'..:p

Jabawocky
5th Jan 2014, 12:47
http://www.beechtalk.com/forums/images/smilies/rofl02.gif http://www.beechtalk.com/forums/images/smilies/rofl02.gif http://www.beechtalk.com/forums/images/smilies/rofl02.gif




Ranga.......you done it again :ok::ok::ok:

http://www.beechtalk.com/forums/images/smilies/rofl02.gif

Scion
5th Jan 2014, 18:28
I Agree with you By GEorge,

but the CASA money men may not be able to afford to bring out an expert from DH Support.

I do not think they contacted DH Support during the Dragon investigation the results of which have just been published.

Regarding that investigation I did not think that the Dragon had a cross feed from both tanks.

Kharon
5th Jan 2014, 19:16
Sensible informative stuff much appreciated, there's fair bit to chew on. Just thinking out loud; Scion mentions bringing a wizards wizard in to have a look-see and the costs involved. Couple of points, we waste that sort of money everyday on taxi's and lunches and expenses, so in the great scheme of things, why not wisely spend a few more bucks. These aircraft are used commercially, BUT if the ATSB only come up with yet another of their widely published, world infamous, version of a half arsed job and another (gods forbid), similar tragedy occurs, then the money not spent will morph into a little more than just a few heads in various buckets.

Anyway – still on the Tigers trail I went looking for the original RAF specification against which DH built the beast. No luck in detail, but Wikipedia was by far the most interesting and informative. The links are below.

BAM Specs-1920. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Air_Ministry_specifications#1920-1929) BAM Specs-Gen. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Air_Ministry_specifications)

Dora 9 thanks for the article it confirms my 'coaster' calculations of 'how' the thing works, it's really very clever and proven reliable over (anyone's guess) how many tiger hours have been logged over the decades of service, in different climates both operational and meteorological. There is no case for restricting today's operations, but there is a real need to prevent knee jerk reactions and idiot calls to remove the wee beasty from service.

Dora-9
5th Jan 2014, 20:57
There is no case for restricting today's operations, but there is a real need to prevent knee jerk reactions and idiot calls to remove the wee beasty from service.P005, have you got this yet?

Dora-9 - 15 incidents and 3 in flight failures is a lot considering how many Tigers were flying during that period of time.
Do your own research, why don't you? You read the ATSB reports - VERY few of the 15 incidents and/or accidents on the ATSB site are specific to the Tiger - most, a missed call in a busy CTAF, a taxying accident, some stupid low level manoeuvrings, an engine failure on take off, to name just four, could have occurred in any type and had nothing to do characteristics of the DH-82.

And then we have this brainless gem from you:

The performance of these planes is marginal, and there is not a lot of room for error flying two-up on a hot day. So, how much Tiger Moth experience do you actually have to make this truly amazing statement? Would you not consider that there are many other aircraft around with similar weight to power ratios? Should we ground all aircraft not achieving a certain ratio?

And what, pray, do you think that "low performance" had to do with the Stradbroke Island accident? Or are you simply on an anti old aeroplanes vendetta?

Jack, Frank, Griffo - I apologize, I should never have responded and given this character oxygen in the first place.

By George! You had me worried about my aircraft recognition skills - on my last visit to Duxford (2013), Mike was the very proud owner of a DH-84 Dragon (I looked again, it really was a Dragon). Maybe the Rapide you went in was his from earlier?

peterc005
5th Jan 2014, 21:11
There are a few reasons I have safety concerns about Tiger Moths being used to carry members of the public:

1) fuel tank above an open cockpit, also any overflow from the fuel tank is likely to spill into the cockpit.

2) lack of brakes in the original design.

3) lack of an electrical system in the original design.

4) most Tigers seem to have had upgrades for brakes, engine and avionics, but this seems to have been done on an adhoc rather than systematic manner that I suspect was never envisaged when the original Type Certificate was issued.

5) marginal performance, that appears to rely on pilot skill rather than systematic design.

6) my opinion is that the near-perfect airline safety record in Australia gives the public a perception that flying is systematically safe and that they would be surprised that aircraft owners are relying of 70 year old certifications to fly their vintage planes today.

7) accident history.

My opinion is that maybe it's time to move vintage aircraft like Tiger Moths off the Normal/Airwork/Charter register and into Limited or even Experimental.

Jenna Talia
5th Jan 2014, 21:35
Fark me :ugh::ugh::ugh:

rjtjrt
5th Jan 2014, 21:38
For chrissake ignore him!
Just don't rise to the bait.
Don't answer, don't comment on his posts.
If we ignore him he will go away.

Dora-9
5th Jan 2014, 22:36
rjtjrt:

An oxygen thief of biblical proportions, I'd say! P005? Who?

LewC
5th Jan 2014, 22:51
Bear in mind it's school holidays and kiddies with short attention spans quickly become bored.He's sure to piss off any time now.The age shown,"48" is inaccurate in that the "+" between the 4 and the 8 is missing.

rjtjrt
5th Jan 2014, 23:04
Any info on how much of the aircraft they have been able to recover?

Kharon
5th Jan 2014, 23:11
I had intended to provide some general, informal research data on 'in flight break ups', but the demon clock has won the race, no matter; it will keep for another lazy day. I did however find this offering from Bruce Landsberg – Safety Pilot - AOPA (USA). What the article shows me is that where there is a defined, or even a suspected problem with an aircraft type, serious people are all over it. My point is, had the venerable Tiger ever, in it's long career exhibited any serious structural or design flaws, these flaws would, many decades ago been discovered, eradicated or rectified.

FTIW, the 2010 article from AOPA is worth a read, even if just for a sane, balanced, reasoned approach to an identified problem.

Feb1, 2010 – by Bruce Landsberg (http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/All-News/2010/February/1/Safety-Pilot-(2).aspx).

In-flight breakups are extremely rare in all models of aircraft when they are operated inside the approved flight envelope. Outside the design limits anything can be broken and no one is surprised. When an airframe breaks unexpectedly, that’s a nasty situation for all concerned. Obviously, the aircraft occupants get the worst outcome, as do their families. The manufacturer, the FAA, and the NTSB have to analyze what happened and determine how to fix it, quickly. Finally, general aviation gets a black eye from negative publicity that portrays our aircraft as flimsy deathtraps, which we know is not the case.

An unusual situation has developed involving a light sport aircraft, the Zenith Aircraft Company Zodiac CH 601 XL. LSAs are lighter and less expensive than most FAA-certificated aircraft, and kitbuilt LSAs may be registered as Experimental (E-LSA) like any other homebuilt or kit aircraft. Under Experimental rules the builder is free to construct anything he’s brave enough to fly in, although the FAA does issue an Experimental airworthiness certificate. Factory-produced versions (S-LSA) must conform to ASTM international standards. Manufacturer compliance is based on the honor system and the aircraft are not FAA certificated or inspected.

The CH 601 XL has been under scrutiny by foreign authorities, the NTSB, and the FAA since it began to experience in-flight breakups in the winter of 2006; there have been nine fatal accidents to date. Four accidents occurred outside the United States, and only limited information about them is currently available. Two of the aircraft were S-LSAs, and the others were kitbuilt E-LSAs. The FAA issued a special airworthiness information bulletin (SAIB CE10-08) for the S-LSAs in November 2009; at the same time, the manufacturer issued a grounding safety alert pending modifications. The FAA also stopped issuing new airworthiness certificates for experimental CH 601 XLs.

The AOPA Air Safety Foundation has been watching LSA safety carefully. The overall record of S-LSA aircraft appears similar to that of FAA-certificated aircraft used in local flight operations: the usual takeoff and landing accidents, a few maneuvering mishaps, very few weather entanglements, and not many mechanical or structural problems. So when this Zodiac began to experience repetitive airframe problems, we were surprised. At press time there had been only one other S-LSA in-flight breakup that did not result from spatial disorientation or apparent overstressing of the airframe. There are no systemic break-up problems within the LSA category as a group.

djpil
7th Jan 2014, 01:19
..... 15 incidents and 3 in flight failures is a lot considering how many Tigers were flying during that period of time.My opinion is that one in-flight failure is too many however my thumb-up method of safety assessment gives the Tiger as good a rating as I give to Airtourers, for example, and I used to say that you can't get into too much trouble in an Airtourer.

The reason Tigers are still flying is the "grand father" clauses in the certification.The "grandfather" clause relates to manufacturing not flying. Airplanes that were certified once upon a time and manufactured per a production certificate are subsequently under continuous airworthiness control by the type certificate holder and the regulator.

I can't imagine they's get a Type Certificate these days.Nope, they wouldn't and neither would just about every airplane flying today because they were designed and certified to the requirements of the day not the additional requirements resulting in the current airworthiness standards. For example, most model Airtourers were certified to the old Australian ANO 101.1, a lot different than FAR 23 even back in the early 60s. The T-6 was certified to a version of FAR 23 in the late 60's which is a long way short of the current FAR 23. Even then, the T-6 was exempted from FAR 23 requirements related to longitudinal trim, emergency exit and static pressure. So, the USA would not have certified it back then. A member of the general public might be worried about CASA accepting the certification of a foreign aeroplane which did not meet safety requirements of the day.

1) fuel tank above an open cockpit, also any overflow from the fuel tank is likely to spill into the cockpit.Don't sit there while it is being refuelled.

2) lack of brakes in the original design.
3) lack of an electrical system in the original design.
4) most Tigers seem to have had upgrades for brakes, engine and avionics, but this seems to have been done on an adhoc rather than systematic manner that I suspect was never envisaged when the original Type Certificate was issued.Don't need brakes with a tailskid. Don't need an electrical system - some FAR 23 certified airplanes can still be bought from the factory without an electrical system (safer maybe - no electrics there to fail). The advantage of a certified aeroplane is the requirement for modifications to be approved by the airworthiness authority.


5) marginal performance, that appears to rely on pilot skill rather than systematic design.Much better climb performance than an Airtourer 100 in my experience.

6) my opinion is that the near-perfect airline safety record in Australia gives the public a perception that flying is systematically safe and that they would be surprised that aircraft owners are relying of 70 year old certifications to fly their vintage planes today.They would be surprised otherwise. The continued airworthiness control works for all certified types although I admit to having a good look at rivets before I enter the door on a jet transport and, yesterday, on a long flight in a biplane, too much time to think about stuff that I might've taken a closer look at in the daily inspection.

7) accident history.No data? Compare with Airtourers, for example?

My opinion is that maybe it's time to move vintage aircraft like Tiger Moths off the Normal/Airwork/Charter register and into Limited or even Experimental.People may chose to do that to escape the CASA requirements and oversight.

Haven't seen you around recently, Peter, I guess that you still fly at that country strip north of Geelong? Do you still fly that old aeroplane which does not comply with airworthiness safety requirements which were mandated by the USA FAA over 40 years ago? Incidentally, I know of one which does take members of the public for aerobatic rides.

peterc005
7th Jan 2014, 01:47
@djpil - Grounded, waiting for a prop overhaul and upgraded fuel gauge at present. The plane has been spending a bit of time over at Point Cook with Junior. Should be flying again in two weeks, but it seems like whenever I visit the hangar to go flying that Junior is out and about burning up my Avgas.

Yes, your comments about Airtourers are remembered and have proven to be accurate.

I've never heard of an Airtourer breaking up in flight. They only seem to have premature landings when people mismanage the fuel.

Yes, I think statistics would give the best insight into Tiger Moth safety.

There appears to be about 200 DH82 and DH82A planes on the register. I'm trying to get the accident history, but no luck yet and I may need to manually compile it.

My theory is that aviation engineering, science and technology had a major leap forward due to WW11 and that planes designed after 1945 are inherently safer in general.

VH-XXX
7th Jan 2014, 02:00
Peter, what are your thoughts on un-qualified mechanics working on their factory built aircraft? Surely that isn't safe? When you ground all Tigers, will you include certified aircraft that have been worked on by their owners?

;)

Frank Arouet
7th Jan 2014, 02:44
It could be worse. Low level aerobatics at night in a Victa and running out off fuel at the top of a slow loop by a bloke called ASPRO. (weak dope). Give me a Tiger any day, they have two wings. They must be safer. You don't have to remove anything in them to fit a non TSO'd GPS and you can afford to have one in the back and one in the front. Also twice as safe obviously. Not sure if the GPS is legal for NVFR though.


My hammer has a wooden handle, it's about 20 years old and has had some punishment. Same design as the one Noah built the ARK with.


I must replace it with an aluminum one. (someone should put an AD out on this).


I have a lead center punch, but that's a different story.

mickjoebill
8th Jan 2014, 13:02
Quote:
GoPro cameras mounted to helmets. As a skydiver I own one just like everyone else. Compromising helmet integrity? Not with the stick on mounts

To follow up, this question of integrity will be explored and answered in due course as it has just been revealed that Michael Schumaker was wearing a helmet cam and it was reported earlier that his helmet fractured. Not sure if he was wearing a custom made helmet with an integrated camera.

Mickjoebill

Fantome
16th Jan 2014, 11:51
No Cookies | The Courier-Mail (http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/dennis-toulis-tells-of-the-heartache-after-his-partner-taissia-umenc-died-in-a-tiger-moth-crash-off-the-gold-coast/story-fnihsrf2-1226802738693)


From today's Courier Mail.

bankrunner
18th Jan 2014, 11:56
There are a few reasons I have safety concerns about Tiger Moths being used to carry members of the public:

1) fuel tank above an open cockpit, also any overflow from the fuel tank is likely to spill into the cockpit.

I'm not one to believe Tigers are inherently unsafe, but I know of one incident in a Tiger where this was a factor.

While refuelling the aircraft, a small amount of fuel had spilled onto the front seat. The fuel soaks into the front passenger's pants some time into the flight, and when he eventually feels the associated burning sensation around his groin he starts screaming that the aircraft is on fire.

In response, the pilot made a forced landing in a paddock. Both persons on board walked away, and there was no fire, but the aircraft suffered substantial damage.

Kharon
18th Jan 2014, 19:36
Fuel spill. This happens, this is known to happen and is a well documented with 'advice', precautions, rules and procedures. The situation described above begs three questions (a) was the pilot made aware; or, (b) was the pilot not made aware and (c) is it sensible to put the cockpit cover on during re-fuel operations?

a) Pilot not made aware – this, standing alone is as serious as it gets. On 'hard' open surfaces the fuel will evaporate, but in nooks, crannies and soft furnishings, it tends to hang around a bit longer. Sure, 'size' matters but some would say any amount fuel floating about in a cockpit is a risk worthy of some consideration.

Irrespective, would not a non aware pilot question what was 'aflame', passing strange that a cockpit seat self immolates, even stranger no smell, smoke or flames, even stranger that the passenger is still calmly sitting strapped in with flames leaping about his arse. Then our pilot opts for a neck or nothing landing in the nearest available paddock. Curiouser and curiouser.

b) Pilot aware – Ok, so Bloggs decides that an egg cup of fuel, on a seat is 'something nothing'. Not even worth worrying about the damage to the upholstery, or that the passengers will be parked in a puddle of petrol.

Irrespective, an aware pilot would probably understand the nature of the passengers discomfort and concerns; no doubt wishing, most devoutly, that the small amount of time required to throw a jacket, towel or glad bag over the seat would have been well spent; even if just to prevent being sued for marinating sensitive anatomical areas. No fire there sir, but - you're nuts are now raisins.

From little acorns, mighty oak trees grow; from a simple routine fuel spill to accident. Fuel spills are preventable, covering the tiger's cockpit is not rocket science, reporting and acting are easily do-able. The rest – I'll leave to your fertile imaginations.

But was the Tiger to blame?–Statistically speaking, I'll bet a cold beer that was the first prang ever caused by pickled eggs.....:D

Ex FSO GRIFFO
19th Jan 2014, 06:18
Re "But was the Tiger to blame?–Statistically speaking, I'll bet a cold beer that was the first prang ever caused by pickled eggs..... "

Well said Mr K....Well Said....

Cheers:ok:

Kharon
19th Jan 2014, 19:24
Cheers and HNY at ya Griffo. The development of 'safety case' thinking promoted by the nanny state brainwashing system leaves me wondering WTF sometimes. Fingers crossed for a swift, concise appraisal of why the Straddie Tiger went down.

Fantome
19th Jan 2014, 22:22
Noted yesterday late that the Tiger field at Jacobs Well is deathly quiet.
All locked up. No signs of life. Hope GS can get the business
up and running again before too long. When the hurly burly's done. When the battle's lost and won.

Re- hot seats. Ann Welch in her brilliant 'Accidents Happen' recounts being in a 3 glider X-country tow in Jugoslavia. Three gliders behind three PO2s.
They were flying close together because the Jugoslav pilots enjoyed flying in close formation. (Their aeroplanes were smaller than the gliders). Shortly after take-off the middle glider, piloted by a Swiss, started to fly in a most erratic manner. This was unexpected because he was known to be a most competent pilot.Ann and the third glider pilot, on either side of the Swiss, watched the performance warily, ready to release if the collision risk became too high.

The Swiss fellow's glider continued to be flown as if the man were inebriated.
Arriving overhead their destination,the Swiss released, opened his airbrakes and went rapidly down, while the others released and stayed up in the evening sunshine as long as they could.

What had happened was that shortly after take-off the Swiss pilot had decided to have a smoke (permitted in fuelless gliders), but his box of non-safety matches had burst into flames and not surprisingly he had dropped them. The ball of fire disappeared out of reach under his plywood seat where the control cables lay.
Thoroughly alarmed in his wooden glider the pilot wondered whether to release and land in the unsafe looking country below, jump out by parachute before this too caught alight, or try somehow to extinguish the fire.

He kept feeling the base of the control column to see if it was getting warm, and wriggling about in his seat to extinguish any hot spots his parachute might be acquiring. During one of these body shifts both bottom seat harness straps came free, charred right through. None of this improved his formation flying capability.

Becoming desperate, he suddenly remembered that he had a bag of plums in his pocket. Laboriously he wrung out the meagre juice from each plum above where he hoped its dribbles would do most good. Not any too soon did the welcoming home airfield appear, with the Swiss pilot losing no time at all in getting back to terra firma.

It turned out that for the last minutes of his flight, there had, in fact, been no problem. The fire had burnt through the bottom of the fuselage and fallen out.
The Jugoslavs thought it was hilarious.

desmotronic
24th Feb 2014, 05:03
Investigation: AO-2013-226 - In-flight break-up involving de Havilland DH82A Tiger Moth, VH-TSG, 300m east of South Stradbroke Island, Queensland on 16 December 2013 (http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2013/aair/ao-2013-226.aspx)

Left wings/tie rod failure during aerobatics according to the report.

Ex FSO GRIFFO
24th Feb 2014, 06:13
For those who are not able to access the link.....

Update - dated 24 Feb 2014.

"The ATSB has released its preliminary investigation report into the
In-flight break-up involving de Havilland DH82A Tiger Moth, VH-TSG, 300m east of South Stradbroke Island, Qld on 16 December 2013

A de Havilland DH82A (Tiger Moth) aircraft, registered VH-TSG, took off from the operator’s airstrip at Pimpama, Queensland with a pilot and passenger on board. The purpose of the flight was to conduct a commercial joy flight in the Gold Coast area. At about 1224, 1 minute after the pilot commenced aerobatics, the left wings failed and the aircraft descended steeply; impacting the water about 300m from the eastern shoreline of South Stradbroke island. The aircraft was destroyed and the two occupants were fatally injured.

Preliminary examination indicated that both of the aircraft’s fuselage lateral tie rods, which join the lower wings to the fuselage, had fractured at areas of significant, pre-existing fatigue cracking in the threaded section near the join with the left wing. These tie rods, part number JRA-776-1, were manufactured under an Australian Parts Manufacturing Approval.

The ATSB has not, at this preliminary stage of its investigation, determined whether the failure of the fuselage lateral tie rods, or another mode of wing structural failure, was the initiator of the left wing separations. However, this Preliminary Report includes a safety issue that advises of the JRA-776-1 tie rod fatigue cracking and includes a Safety Advisory Notice to Tiger Moth operators about this safety issue.

Wally Mk2
24th Feb 2014, 07:33
Don't 4get man designed the machine so there's always an element of failure just like man himself.


Wmk2

onetrack
24th Feb 2014, 12:31
"Faaaaaarrk!", said the crows, as Graham Kennedy was known to say .. HTH would you pick up minute fractures in the threaded section of tie rods - apart from magnafluxing?? :eek:

Sounds like there's a possibility someone might have specified an incorrect steel specification for the replacement tie rods? :(

The only way threaded sections fracture in this manner, is if;

1. The steel used does not have adequate tensile strength ..
2. The steel used is too brittle and does not have adequate elongation abilities under load stress ..
3. The steel used is affected too readily by minute amounts of corrosive attack, thus creating a reduction in cross-section thickness (and surprisingly to many, high tensile steels corrode much more readily than low-grade steels).

H37869A - Fuselage Joint "H" Tie Rod (http://www.store.dhsupport.com/tiger-moth-tie-rod.html)

There's also a major difference between hot-rolled threads and threads cut on a lathe. Hot-rolled threads are inherently stronger, because the grain in the steel follows the thread form - whereas a lathe cuts the grain, and thereby weakens the grain structure.

JammedStab
4th Mar 2014, 01:14
Sounds like there's a possibility someone might have specified an incorrect steel specification for the replacement tie rods? :(

The only way threaded sections fracture in this manner, is if;

1. The steel used does not have adequate tensile strength ..
2. The steel used is too brittle and does not have adequate elongation abilities under load stress ..
3. The steel used is affected too readily by minute amounts of corrosive attack, thus creating a reduction in cross-section thickness (and surprisingly to many, high tensile steels corrode much more readily than low-grade steels).

H37869A - Fuselage Joint "H" Tie Rod (http://www.store.dhsupport.com/tiger-moth-tie-rod.html)

There's also a major difference between hot-rolled threads and threads cut on a lathe. Hot-rolled threads are inherently stronger, because the grain in the steel follows the thread form - whereas a lathe cuts the grain, and thereby weakens the grain structure.

It is interesting for me to come across this today in Stuart Mackay's Tiger Moth book:

One Cowley built Tiger Moth did come under scrutiny in the late summer of 1941 when operating with 17 EFTS Peterborough. In the rear seat, the pupil heard a loud crack and watched bemused as the starboard lower wing detached from its root end pickup on the lower longeron. The instructor only realized his pupil had bailed out when he saw the descending parachute, at which point the aircraft broke up and he too abandoned what had become a spinning fuselage, which devoid of all wings, landed on a house in Peterborough town alongside the engine which had already buried itself in the garden.

Flying at 17 EFTS was suspended for two days while the fuselage tie rods of the entire fleet were examined in detail partly by engineers wielding magnets. There was some suspicion that during assembly or later maintenance, tie rods manufactured from Dural instead of high tensile steel had been installed or substituted and the whiff of sabotage as much as carelessness in quality control was prevalent, although the engineering staff was never advised of the outcome.

Kharon
4th Mar 2014, 19:35
So, a probable cause is established with OT and JS providing plausible, possible reasons. Good work, what's next? Will it now get complicated, does 'steel' and manufacturing need to be analysed, followed by a paperwork check to see if any 'suspect' parts are fitted and replaced if they are identified. Or will it involve the whole fleet in a health check?

Liked the bit in JS post where young Bloggs just bails out, bugger this for a game of soldiers says he; wonder how many beers that cost him. Good bit of kit the parachute, even if uncomfortable sit on.

Andy_RR
4th Mar 2014, 22:19
Well, for further engineering analysis there is always John Fall's beautiful CAD model (https://grabcad.com/library/de-havilland-tiger-moth-dh82a) of the 'Moth.

https://d2t1xqejof9utc.cloudfront.net/screenshots/pics/a6e03afc2238ad51fed90bd89b1883e2/large.jpg

Jack Ranga
5th Mar 2014, 01:06
Whoa!! Can you post more of those please? :D

Sorry, in my haste, I didn't even see that link :E

rjtjrt
19th Mar 2014, 03:00
CASA Proposed AD

DH 82 (Tiger Moth) Series Aeroplanes
PAD/DH 82/17 - Lateral Fuselage Tie Rods - Removal and Replacement

http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/airworth/airwd/adfiles/under/dh82/pad%20dh%2082-017.pdf

I can't open it. Site too busy!

Edit
URL fixed.
It applies to DH60, DH82, and DH83

CHAIRMAN
19th Mar 2014, 12:56
Sounds fair enough to me. Really the only thing CASA could do in the circumstances.
Most of the rods in the fleet are almost at their calendar time limit anyway - although almost all would be nowhere near the hour limit.
Bit of a shame given the number of Tigers here and in NZ, that there is no approved local manufacturer for the rods and nuts on the list.
Another $120,000 lost by Aussie manufacturing (400 rods/nuts at say $300/rod) at a rough (hopeful) guess.

Mandator
21st Mar 2014, 14:49
The UK CAA has just issued an Emergency AD:

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/20140321UKADG20140001E.pdf

jamsquat
21st Mar 2014, 19:52
As the UK CAA has now issued this AD, and the UK is the 'country of origin' of the tiger, does that make the CASA PAD obsolete? As in compliance with the CAA AD would now be mandatory?

Ex FSO GRIFFO
21st Jan 2016, 01:18
ATSB Report released -


DH-82A VH-TSG, Near South Stradbroke Is, Dec 16 2013.

https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications...-2013-226.aspx

Duck Pilot
21st Jan 2016, 06:50
Very good ATSB report. Images of the wing breaking up in flight are pretty scary from a pilots perspective considering the terrible outcome.

Commercial aerobatic operations in an aeroplane built in 1939?

Cloudee
21st Jan 2016, 07:30
"Commercial aerobatic operations in an aeroplane built in 1939?"


Lots of questions about the maintenance records on this Tiger.

peterc005
21st Jan 2016, 07:37
"Commercial aerobatic operations in an aeroplane built in 1939?"

Very relevant observation. Tiger Moth adventure flights seem to have been involved in a disproportionate number of fatal accidents in recent years.

As was mentioned above, it is unlikely they were designed to be used for commercial aerobatic operations some 75 years later.

Maybe it's time to stop using the "Limited" category as a loop hole for these types of operations and retire Tiger Moths to Private use only.

Cloudee
21st Jan 2016, 07:50
Really? I can only think of two in recent years. Both from the same airfield. Tiger Moths don't need to be in the limited category to conduct commercial flights. A well maintained Tiger is as safe as most out there.

spinex
21st Jan 2016, 08:10
Local media covering themselves in glory - once again:ugh:. Note the headline vs the content and the ATSB report; of course Joe Public doesn't read further than the headline so the matter gets filed under pilot error in the public's minds.
No Cookies | Gold Coast Bulletin (http://www.goldcoastbulletin.com.au/news/gold-coast/pilots-role-in-fatal-tiger-moth-crash-on-the-gold-coast-in-2012/news-story/5cd11acd78c33ba4e758b7c52cf9b17c)

Ex FSO GRIFFO
22nd Jan 2016, 22:53
Well, here we go - again!

Stupid ill-informed statements made by both who made them above......
Do you both honestly think that all Tiger Moth aircraft were built in 1939 or whatever, WITHOUT some replacement of parts in the meantime..?????

As the owner and operator of a Tiger Moth aircraft 'built in 1942', I can assure you both that the ONLY part of this particular aircraft 'made in 1942' is the little brass plate saying so.......

During its 'life', ALL other components of the aircraft - like mainplanes, for example - have ALL been replaced more than a 'few' times - thanks to the Croydon Aircraft Company in NZ who manufactures excellent mainplanes to the original specifications or better.
Following this accident, I had to replace the lateral tie rods - again - they were 'done' about 18 months or so prior, as part of 'preventative' maintenance.
But they have now been 'done' again.

Due to the very nature of these and similar aircraft, I would wager 'London to a brick' that they are maintained by responsible owners to a very high standard as we acknowledge that we are only the 'custodians' of these historic aircraft, and that we will 'pass them on' when we 'pass on'.....

Back to your flight sims.....

No Cheers, Nope None at all!!:}:}

KRviator
23rd Jan 2016, 03:03
Well, here we go - again!

Stupid ill-informed statements made by both who made them above......
Do you both honestly think that all Tiger Moth aircraft were built in 1939 or whatever, WITHOUT some replacement of parts in the meantime..?????No one is saying that, but, have a read through the report and tell us if you can determine when various components were replaced, and, when replaced, how old was the replacement? As the owner and operator of a Tiger Moth aircraft 'built in 1942', I can assure you both that the ONLY part of this particular aircraft 'made in 1942' is the little brass plate saying so.......

During its 'life', ALL other components of the aircraft - like mainplanes, for example - have ALL been replaced more than a 'few' times - thanks to the Croydon Aircraft Company in NZ who manufactures excellent mainplanes to the original specifications or better.And in a few decades time, I should be able to say the same about my RV-9, but the fact remains, maintenance for this particular Tiger Moth was woefully lacking, or, at the very least, tracking & recording of said maintenance was.

The wings fitted to the Tiger came from VH-ASB, with all but the lower left being continuously fitted from '86-2005 (no records available prior to '86), but -ASB's lower left wing - the one that ultimately failed mind you - was replaced with one of unknown origin and unknown vintage in 2001, with no record as to why. Those wings were them overhauled and fitted to -TSG in 2006, and from then on, had no mandatory inspection for over 1200 flight hours / 7 years - and this in an aircraft that is used for commercial aerobatics..... Following this accident, I had to replace the lateral tie rods - again - they were 'done' about 18 months or so prior, as part of 'preventative' maintenance.
But they have now been 'done' again. Knowing they don't fully engage in the lower wing attachment fittings, would you really be happy keeping them installed "just because" they had been replaced 18 months earlier? Assuming they were replaced with the same APMA-supplied parts, that is. Due to the very nature of these and similar aircraft, I would wager 'London to a brick' that they are maintained by responsible owners to a very high standard as we acknowledge that we are only the 'custodians' of these historic aircraft, and that we will 'pass them on' when we 'pass on'.....Clearly not, as we've had a structural failure in flight that killed two people. That a mandatory wing inspection was ignored for 7 years is indicative of that. That there are no records of -ASB's wings before 1986 is indicative of that. That -TSG did not even have a data plate is indicative of that. How did the LAME even know what aircraft he was signing off on, other than the rego stickers? See here: Furthermore, a review of the logbooks for VH-TSG and VH-ASB indicated that both aircraft had a history of numerous parts and components being transferred between multiple aircraft and being supplied with little or no documentation. A good report, but a damning indictment of the maintenance practices, and one can only hope it is not representative of the rest of the fleet. Flying a Tiger is on my bucket list, but after reading that report, I'll be happy to leave the bucket just a little bit empty!

Ex FSO GRIFFO
23rd Jan 2016, 07:04
Thankyou for your comments Mr K,
but I did say 'responsible' owners etc etc.

And the comments made were described as being, generally against all (?) '1939' aircraft....

1. - "Commercial aerobatic operations in an aeroplane built in 1939? "
and,
2. - "Very relevant observation. Tiger Moth adventure flights seem to have been involved in a disproportionate number of fatal accidents in recent years.
As was mentioned above, it is unlikely they were designed to be used for commercial aerobatic operations some 75 years later.
Maybe it's time to stop using the "Limited" category as a loop hole for these types of operations and retire Tiger Moths to Private use only.
21st Jan 2016 16:30"

The biggest expense of owning a vintage aircraft like the Tiger Moth, is 'preventative maintenance'. There would be NO 'original' Tiger wings around these as the water based glues used in those days would have all failed by now, and the mainplanes would have been replaced.

This is only but ONE of the many items requiring attention as time goes by.
Nothing on the airframe is even close to being '75 years old'.....except ME!!

You are welcome to fly in this machine if ever you come to WA, it is excellently maintained by a well known LAME.

Cheers:ok:

onetrack
23rd Jan 2016, 07:07
It's disheartening to see that a supposedly highly qualified engineer signed off on the manufacture of replacement tie rods, without going through all the engineering modifications/accident history associated with the design.

It's also disturbing to see that an authorised and reputedly competent engineering company, producing replacement aviation components, apparently took it upon themselves to replace the specified high-tensile carbon steel rod, with stainless steel rod of lower tensile strength and of variable specification, for the manufacture of the replacement tie rods.

It is even more disturbing that the threads installed on the replacement rods showed a wide variety of finish quality, with some threads appearing to be hand cut. Even some of the lathe-finished threads were of dubious finish.

In a high stress component such as the tie rods, surface finish is critical to prevent the initiation and propagation of cracking.
The fact that the tie rods in the accident aircraft were cracked through up to 60% of their thickness - and that this cracking was never found - is dreadfully disturbing, and virtually complete and utter negligence.

I can understand the engineering company suggesting a change to stainless steel because some previous tie rods produced, that had been in use, showed signs of serious corrosion.
However, to change the steel type without any reference to any aviation authority, and gaining official approval, shows a poor understanding of aviation engineering and processes - and even poorer supervision and quality control processes.

This accident shows up a pretty cavalier approach on the part of numerous personnel involved in the ownership, repair, and operating of this aircraft, towards maintenance, towards aviation replacements engineering, and towards record-keeping.

It does not reflect at all well on anyone associated with overseeing the Moth repair, the maintenance, the modifications, the quality control, and the adherence to strict and well-defined aviation principles, in a number of areas - and I personally feel the lawyers are bound to have a field day here, such are the major deficiencies discovered in the investigation.

It behoves anyone operating an aircraft well beyond its original projected lifespan, to ensure that engineering modification information and accident history is complete, up-to date, and properly recorded - and that maintenance and repair is of the highest level, to ensure any chance of disaster is reduced to the bare minimum.

To be additionally carrying out aerobatics in an aircraft well beyond any projected lifespan - and carrying members of the public as well - means that the requirements listed in the paragraph above must be above reproach.
The investigation has revealed such major shortfalls in the operation of the accident aircraft, that one could only properly describe it as a "cowboy outfit".

IFEZ
23rd Jan 2016, 07:36
Great post KRviator. I read the report, which I thought (for once) was pretty comprehensive and well put together. I'm a bit like you. Always wanted to do some tiger time but unfortunately after reading that report I have serious reservations. How can we be sure that the parts that have been put into these old birds are as good they should be..?
With all due respect to ExFSOGriffo, who is obviously fully confident in the maintenance done on his aircraft, how is anyone, including in this case the unfortunate pilot and passenger of TSG, to know what standard their aircraft has been maintained to. We all assume (or hope?) that the aircraft we climb into are airworthy in every way. To hear that that this aircraft had poorly manufactured and ill fitting parts which ultimately led to its demise, sent shivers up my spine.

I know that in reality this can affect any era aircraft, but I think I'll stay out of tigers for the time being (unless Griffo wants to take me up)!

Ex FSO GRIFFO
23rd Jan 2016, 13:35
Perhaps I should also have mentioned the number of flights I and many others have taken in 'God Forbid'....1940 or thereabouts DC-3's.......

There are still quite a 'few' around......including a couple of 'nice' ones across the 'ditch'.....

Cheers :ok:

Penny Washers
23rd Jan 2016, 14:06
IFEZ is quite right – we all depend upon our maintenance outfits to an extent which we seldom appreciate, possibly because the safety record is generally very good.

But our maintenance outfits depend upon their parts suppliers (if parts are available at all.)
And the parts suppliers depend upon the manufacturers of the parts, who need meaningful design documentation to work from.
And the manufacturers depend upon their raw material suppliers who have to supply metals to the required specifications.
And on their heat treatment people.
And on the electroplaters and the NDT specialists.
And so on. They all have to operate proper inspection processes and certify the results.

That is before you start altering the basic design by bringing in substitute materials with different tensile strengths, notch sensitivities, fatigue characteristics and maybe different manufacturing techniques.

So CASA should have been monitoring all this to make sure it was being done properly, but instead seem to have abandoned their supervisory role for reasons which were no doubt good ones so far as they were concerned.

This does not just apply to old aircraft with a long (and probably very safe) history. The ATSB Report mentions over 1000 other parts made by this same company for other aircraft, some of them in the Commercial Air Transport category. Are we going to see a general recall of all these parts for inspection? Who wants to fly in a VH reg. Embraer EMB 120 or a Fokker F28 right now?

asdf84000
23rd Jan 2016, 19:03
So CASA should have been monitoring all this to make sure it was being done properly, but instead seem to have abandoned their supervisory role for reasons which were no doubt good ones so far as they were concerned.

Implying liability on CASA for every aviation outcome is why the regulations read like they do now, and why there is inconsistency in decisions and reluctance to provide straight answers by inspectors.

Sunfish
23rd Jan 2016, 20:49
ASDF, you are taking the "but…for" argument to extremes. CASA is not liable for all aviation outcomes.

CASA is there to ensure that the respective systems within aviation organisations ensure that there are not bad outcomes.

This is why the harassment of Dominic James was such a travesty of justice. CASA should have focussed on exactly why James encountered the situation he found himself in in the first place….that line of enquiry found multiple systemic failures in James employer organisation, Airservices and Met.

However it was too hard politically to go after those organisations, so James became the scapegoat.

CASa need to be asking themselves how the heck could a maintenance organisation think that undersize bolts and a time expired tie rod be good enough for an aerobatic aircraft being used to the limits of its performance?

By the way, I predict that the CASA response to this report will be the banning of aerobatic joy flights in Tiger Moths.