..... 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.