The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions The place for students, instructors and charter guys in Oz, NZ and the rest of Oceania.

Tiger down off Straddie

Old 5th Jan 2014, 21:35
  #121 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Down there
Posts: 287
Fark me
Jenna Talia is offline  
Old 5th Jan 2014, 21:38
  #122 (permalink)  
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 844
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.
rjtjrt is offline  
Old 5th Jan 2014, 22:36
  #123 (permalink)  
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: SE Qld, Australia
Age: 73
Posts: 936

An oxygen thief of biblical proportions, I'd say! P005? Who?
Dora-9 is offline  
Old 5th Jan 2014, 22:51
  #124 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: over the rainbow
Posts: 93
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.
LewC is offline  
Old 5th Jan 2014, 23:04
  #125 (permalink)  
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 844
Any info on how much of the aircraft they have been able to recover?
rjtjrt is offline  
Old 5th Jan 2014, 23:11
  #126 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
Time – beat me.

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.

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.

Last edited by Kharon; 5th Jan 2014 at 23:22. Reason: more haste etc.
Kharon is offline  
Old 7th Jan 2014, 01:19
  #127 (permalink)  
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 1,031
..... 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.
djpil is offline  
Old 7th Jan 2014, 01:47
  #128 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: YMMB
Age: 54
Posts: 697
@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.
peterc005 is offline  
Old 7th Jan 2014, 02:00
  #129 (permalink)  
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,882
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?

VH-XXX is offline  
Old 7th Jan 2014, 02:44
  #130 (permalink)  
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
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.

Last edited by Frank Arouet; 7th Jan 2014 at 02:45. Reason: aluminim.. um. bloody yank spell checker. Have it your way then.
Frank Arouet is offline  
Old 8th Jan 2014, 13:02
  #131 (permalink)  
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: UK/OZ
Posts: 1,676
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 is offline  
Old 16th Jan 2014, 11:51
  #132 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 60
No Cookies | The Courier-Mail

From today's Courier Mail.
Fantome is offline  
Old 18th Jan 2014, 11:56
  #133 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 302
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.
bankrunner is offline  
Old 18th Jan 2014, 19:36
  #134 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
Did the Tiger do it? - A Sunday mystery.

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.....

Last edited by Kharon; 18th Jan 2014 at 19:46. Reason: Poor Bloggs, he cops some, don't he though.
Kharon is offline  
Old 19th Jan 2014, 06:18
  #135 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Up The 116E, Stbd Turn at 32S...:-)
Age: 77
Posts: 2,705
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....

Ex FSO GRIFFO is online now  
Old 19th Jan 2014, 19:24
  #136 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
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.
Kharon is offline  
Old 19th Jan 2014, 22:22
  #137 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 60
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.
Fantome is offline  
Old 24th Feb 2014, 05:03
  #138 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: planet earth
Posts: 414
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

Left wings/tie rod failure during aerobatics according to the report.
desmotronic is offline  
Old 24th Feb 2014, 06:13
  #139 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Up The 116E, Stbd Turn at 32S...:-)
Age: 77
Posts: 2,705
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.

Last edited by Ex FSO GRIFFO; 24th Feb 2014 at 06:37.
Ex FSO GRIFFO is online now  
Old 24th Feb 2014, 12:31
  #140 (permalink)  
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Perth - Western Australia
Age: 70
Posts: 1,803
"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??

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

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.
onetrack is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.