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."

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

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 !

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.

In-Flight Breakup
 

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

Beachie……a golden egg you laid here.

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.

Many aircraft have fully engineered and approved camera mounts.

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.

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
 

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

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.

It took you that long to learn to write drivel?

Dr :8

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.

And your point is?

ok sure you may be right but that's my input

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.