The captain reported that at flight planned optimum cruise altitude the aircraft failed to meet expected cruise performance. When the aircraft arrived at Perth a re-weigh of the payload was requested. The re-weigh showed that the payload was approximately 3500 kg more than was indicated on the loading documentation. This meant that the aircraft had been operated at weights in excess of its maximum zero fuel weight and maximum brakes release weight.

The investigation revealed that four unrelated factors had contributed to the overloading of the aircraft.

• The first involved accepting freight from another air freight company on the basis of the weights provided by that company and not re-weighing the freight to check the weights.
• The second involved weighing freight on scales with which the airfreight personnel were not familiar and not properly positioning the freight trolleys on the scales.
• The third involved a communication breakdown between loading personnel which resulted in freight being loaded on the aircraft that was not included in the loading documentation.
• The final factor was minor in nature and involved last minute removal and addition of freight from/into containers without accurate adjustments being made to the loading documentation. The company has addressed these problems and taken corrective action to prevent a recurrence.

The helicopter was being used to evacuate a workman from an outstation due to flooding in the area. The pilot, concerned about the deteriorating weather conditions, decided to add another 10 litres of fuel from a drum located at the outstation. The pilot reported that he checked the fuel tank drain finding no indication of water or contamination.

About 30 seconds after take-off the engine began to misfire badly and lose power, committing the pilot to a near vertical autorotational landing into a small hole in the relatively high timber. The autorotation was commenced from about 150 feet above ground level at about 30 knots airspeed, with a turn of 90 degrees required to reach the small clearing. The pilot was unable to reduce the subsequent high rate of descent even though full up collective pitch was applied from about 8 feet above the ground.

This resulted in a heavy landing causing substantial damage to the helicopter. Investigation revealed that the aircraft fuel system was contaminated with water.

On arrival in the circuit area at Cooinda the pilot selected the landing gear down but no 'down' indication was obtained for the left main gear. After several unsuccessful attempts to obtain a left gear down indication, the pilot decided to return to Jabiru where company ground staff were available.

He contacted Adelaide Flight Service with a request to telephone his company but did not advise of any problems with the aircraft. At Jabiru several normal and emergency extensions of the landing gear were carried out, each time with the same unsafe indication. Several passes were flown to enable ground staff to confirm the position of the landing gear, which appeared to be down.

A normal approach and landing was made but as the aircraft touched down the left landing gear leg collapsed. The pilot was able to hold the wing up for a short time, but as the aircraft slowed the left wing settled onto the runway, turning the aircraft through 180 degrees. Because the pilot had not advised Adelaide Flight Service of the problem the aerodrome emergency procedures were not activated.

Subsequent investigation revealed that the left hand extension/retraction mechanism torque tube rod attachment had failed due to fatigue.

VH-TJM departed Ayers Rock for Alice Springs and VH-LTC departed Alice Springs for Ayers Rock. To ensure separation the Alice Springs air traffic controller assigned a cruising altitude of 5000 feet to VH-LTC and cleared VH-TJM to descend to 7000 ft. He estimated that the aircraft would pass about 40km from Alice Springs and VH-LTC was instructed to report sighting and passing VH-TJM.

Subsequently, at 48km from Alice Springs, VH-TJM was cleared for a visual descent. The air traffic control workload was heavy at the time, but shortly afterwards the controller realised he had not applied a separation standard before allowing VH-TJM to commence the visual descent. He contacted both aircraft for position reports which revealed that they had passed safely and were about 20km apart. Fortuitously there was no confliction.

The pilot had not flown the aircraft type (a single seat machine) previously and was checked by the owner prior to commencing the flight. The glider was to be launched by being towed behind a powered aircraft. The pilot reported that the ground run was normal but after the glider became airborne it immediately climbed above the slipstream of the tug aircraft. The glider then descended below the slipstream and the pilot applied back stick to climb but the tail struck the ground.

The tail section broke off and the glider climbed before nosing down and impacting the ground. It rolled over after impact and the pilot sustained serious back injuries. The glider was a relatively high-performance type and is reported to be susceptible to pilot induced oscillations, particularly after take-off. The pilot had begun flying again in 1993 after a 10-year break.

Since recommencing flying, she had accumulated some 30 hours, of which only 2.5 were on single seat fibreglass types. The gliding club chief flying instructor was of the opinion that the pilot should have spent more time in other single seat gliders before attempting to fly this particular type.

After completing a sequence of touch and go circuits the aircraft returned to the parking area. The pilot was performing a pre-shutdown hydraulic pressure check when he inadvertently selected the landing gear to the UP position and the nose gear retracted. Investigation determined that the landing gear selector ground safety lock was out of rig and allowed the selector to move to the UP position whilst the aircraft was on the ground.

The pilot of the Cessna 172 reported that after joining the circuit on crosswind for runway 10 he observed a Cessna 310 stationary on the taxiway at the eastern end. Shortly after he turned onto final approach, the Cessna 310 became airborne and conflicted with the Cessna 172. The pilot of the Cessna 172 took evasive action and estimated that the aircraft had passed within about 100 to 200 m.

He indicated that he had made all appropriate radio broadcasts, including when joining crosswind and on base leg. However, he had not heard a response from the pilot of the Cessna 310. The pilot of the Cessna 310 said he had departed on runway 28 because of equipment located off the end of runway 10 and had not heard any broadcasts from the other aircraft.

The aircraft departed the base airstrip to fly to the treatment area but did not arrive. The pilot and wreckage were located after first light by search aircraft. The aircraft had collided with trees and crashed into an empty paddock. The pilot has not provided a report. However, information provided by other sources suggests that he inadvertently entered low cloud and during an attempt to turn back collided with the trees.

Shortly after take-off for the third aerial agriculture flight of the day, the pilot reported that the engine began to lose power. The pilot dumped the load, then after several unsuccessful attempts to regain power, landed the aircraft in a paddock. During the landing roll, soft ground was encountered and the aircraft overturned. The engine was later run on a testbed, but no faults were found. The weather at the time of the accident was humid, with a temperature of 23-25 degrees Celsius, which may have contributed to carburettor icing.

The pilot was spraying a cotton crop with insecticide. Although he had not sprayed the field for about 12 months, he remembered a power line traversing it but could not remember if he had flown over or under the wire previously. On this occasion he elected to fly under it, however, as the aircraft passed under the wire it snagged the rudder. The pilot reported that the aircraft remained controllable, but the rudder was jammed to the right. He slowed the aircraft to 70 knots to reduce the effectiveness of the rudder but was unable to reduce the extreme right yaw.

He decided to return to the town airstrip where better facilities were available and advised the police of his problem by radio. He was subsequently able to land the aircraft without further incident. Inspection later revealed that the rudder horn had been severely damaged, jamming the rudder. The power line was reported to be 3 metres above ground level where the strike occurred.