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)!

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:

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?

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.

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.