CIRCUMSTANCES: "The pilot reported that during the takeoff roll the aircraft was slow to accelerate. At about 50 knots the aircraft became airborne in a nose-high attitude, and the pilot experienced difficulty in lowering the nose. Shortly afterwards the aircraft stalled, the left wing dropped and the aircraft turned through about 120 degrees before impacting the ground. It was determined that the takeoff had been conducted with the flaps in the fully extended position. The pilot had not previously flown this particular aircraft, and was not aware that a flap position indicator was fitted. He had judged the takeoff setting by watching the flaps extend, and had then released the selector, expecting it to be spring-loaded to the neutral position. However, the centering spring was broken and the flaps continued to full extension. The aircraft was found to be about 57 kilograms above the maximum permitted all-up-weight, and the centre of gravity was close to the rear limit. It was evident that the pilot was surprised by the aircraft attitude and the unusually high control column forces required after takeoff, and was unable to react to the situation in time to avoid losing control of the aircraft."

This accident was not subject to an on scene investigation. CIRCUMSTANCES: During a maintenance inspection substantial damage was found to the wing structure in the vicinity of the left main landing gear. It was considered that the damage was consistent with a heavy landing. The aircraft had been flown on several occasions in the previous month by different pilots. No reports had been made of any occurrence likely to cause the damage found to the aircraft. The damage should have been readily noticeable during pre-flight inspections.

CIRCUMSTANCES: "VH-TAB was eastbound from Perth to Melbourne. VH-TAD was westbound Melbourne to Perth. The eastbound aircraft was initially flying air route T6/T10 at Flight Level 330 (Fl 330) and the westbound aircraft on an air route further to the south, T15 at Fl 310. When the eastbound aircraft passed position T6E the Adelaide Sector One controller contacted Perth Sector with a request that the eastbound aircraft be asked if it would accept clearance to track direct from position T6D to Mr William on track T10. (See attached chart) T6D direct Mt William represents a short cut compared with the standard route T6T10. The eastbound aircraft accepted the revised track at 1925. At the time of the track change the Adelaide Sector was being operated by a 'controller-under-training' and the rated training controller for the sector was away from his position taking a meal break. However, before going for the meal break the controllers had discussed ""track shortening"" for both aircraft. Track shortening was not offered to the Westbound aircraft because problems may result with radio communications if aircraft are given routes to the South of T15. The short cut took the eastbound aircraft further to the south than the standard route and eliminated the lateral separation between the tracks of the two aircraft. When the rated controller returned to duty from his meal break the trainee 'handed over' the Sector and went to dinner. A short time later, at 2006 hours, the westbound aircraft reported at position T15B and requested climb to FL 330. This report was relayed to the Adelaide Sector One controller who then cleared the aircraft to FL 330. Each aircraft was on a different radio frequency and each was unaware of the position and altitude of the other. At about 2032 hours, the pilot of the eastbound aircraft observed an aircraft approaching and turned on more of his lights. The pilot of the westbound aircraft responded in a similar manner. The crews report the aircraft appeared to pass at about the same level and within two kilometres laterally. The trainee controller who offered the 'track shortening' for the eastbound aircraft was aware that he was giving away the lateral separation existing between the normal eastbound and westbound routes, and he was conscious that the vertical separation, which existed, had to be maintained. One of the functions of ATC is that of expediting the flow of air traffic. Controllers at Adelaide believed that track shortening saved the airlines considerable sums of money. However the 'T' route structure across the Great Australian Bight is designed to provide the most direct routes possible while laterally separating eastbound and westbound traffic. Short-cuts on these routes will result in insignificant savings in flight time. Furthermore, the loss of lateral separation can preclude the use of optimum cruise levels. The saving, in flight time, for the eastbound aircraft involved in this incident would have been about one minute. When the rated controller returned from his meal break the traffic situation was explained to him and he was made aware that the eastbound aircraft had been given track shortening. This information was also displayed on the flight progress board. Nevertheless, when the westbound aircraft requested FL 330 the controller cleared the aircraft at that amended level in the belief that the required lateral separation would exist at the time the aircraft passed each other. Following the investigation, safety recommendations have been made. These have led to a review of training, checking and supervision procedures for controllers and to track shortening being prohibited on 'T' routes outside of radar cover, except when requested by aircraft for operational-safety reasons."

CIRCUMSTANCES: "On 16 July 1983, the pilot/owner of the aircraft, Mr Elsing, flew it from Griffith, its home base, to Hobart with Mr and Mrs Twilley as passengers. The purpose of the trip was an overnight visit to Hobart, with a return to Griffith on 17 July. Mrs Twilley suffered earache and airsickness on the flight to Hobart and decided to return on an airline flight. Initially her husband was to accompany her but finally decided to return on VH-WJC. Prior to departing from Hobart the pilot supervised the refuelling of the aircraft and had 344 litres added to the fuel tanks. After the refuelling he personally checked the security of the fuel tank caps. The pilot submitted a flight plan to the Hobart Briefing Office for a private category flight from Hobart to Moorabbin, tracking via Launceston and Wonthaggi. The plan indicated that the flight would be conducted under Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) at Flight Level 120 (12000 feet on standard atmospheric pressure of 1013.2 millibars), with two persons on board. The flight plan showed that the aircraft had a fuel endurance of 220 minutes, and carried an Emergency Locator Beacon (ELB) and life jackets. There was no indication that a life raft was carried. The aircraft departed Hobart at 1352 hours and the flight apparently progressed normally until 1452 hours when the pilot advised Launceston Air Traffic Control, ""Er Whiskey Juliet Charlie we seem to have been in trouble with er fuel here the red er warning light comes and the gauge is down .."". At 1454 hours the pilot transmitted a Mayday call, indicating that he was descending from Flight Level 120 to track to Bass (a position reporting point); present position was 85 nautical miles (nm) from Launceston and he would be making a controlled ditching. Launceston Control suggested a diversion to Devonport but the pilot did not respond to the suggestion. At 1455 The pilot reported, ""We have lost an endurance of more than two two zero in flying time of seven zero minutes and when the warning light goes on this aircraft we have got three zero minutes flying left ....."". At 1456 the pilot advised that he intended to remain on track and make an emergency descent at 2000 feet per minute ""in case the pressurisation gets lost"". At that time the pilot reported his position as 92 miles from Launceston and indicated that he would stay on track and fly low ""in case we cut out"". At 1457 he asked if there was any advice available from Aero Commander experts on how to ditch the aircraft, however no information on the matter was immediately available. At 1459 Launceston Control established that the pilot intended descending to 500 feet to ""observe the situation"". The pilot also advised that the aircraft was ""DME Wonthaggi nine five"", i.e. the aircraft was 95 nm from the Wonthaggi Distance Measuring Equipment (navigation aid). In response to further enquiries, the pilot reported that the aircraft had left 4000 feet on descent and the remaining flying time was ""none whatsoever theoretically"". The last recorded transmission from the aircraft was at 1501 45 when the pilot confirmed that there were two persons on board. There was no indication from the pilot, at any time, that the fuel supply had been exhausted or that either engine had failed. It was estimated that the aircraft ditched at about 1505 hours, at an approximate position of 81 nm from Wonthaggi on the planned track. Searching aircraft subsequently sighted a fuel slick and a survivor in the water, however, contact with this person was lost before rescue helicopters and ships reached the area. No trace has since been found of the aircraft or its occupants. Subsequent investigation indicated the loss of fuel reported by the pilot was probably the result of a malfunction in the fuel system, rather than a spurious indication of fuel remaining. In the absence of the wreckage the precise reason for the fuel loss cannot be determined. Calculations relating to aircraft performance revealed that had the pilot elected to remain at the planned cruising level, the aircraft could have glided for about 35 nm after fuel expiry, with both propellers feathered. It was considered that had the pilot elected to turn back when he realised the nature of the problem and maintained altitude until the remaining fuel was exhausted, the aircraft could have reached the northern Tasmanian coast. There is no known hazard associated with a potential loss of cabin pressurisation that would have required an emergency descent from FL 120. The pilot's reason for conducting such a descent could not be established, however the effect of the decision was that the aircraft was ditched at an earlier time, and further from the Victorian coast, than was necessary. This factor increased the difficulties encountered during the subsequent search and rescue operation."

CIRCUMSTANCES: "The aircraft was planned to conduct a regular freight service to Brisbane and Cairns. After an evidently normal take-off from Runway 16 the crew contacted DEPARTUREs Radar, advised that the aircraft was climbing to Flight Level 370 and requested the direct track to Brisbane. Approximately two minutes later the crew did not respond to calls from the radar controller, and the aircraft faded from the radar screen. Witnesses subsequently reported that the aircraft was seen diving steeply towards the water. The evidence obtained from eye witnesses, recorded radar information and the Flight Data Recorder indicated that the aircraft entered a rapid turn to the right and rolled, probably to a nose-down inverted position, before entering a steep descent. The pilot in command intended to use the flight to assess the performance of the co-pilot, who was being considered for up-grading to command status. He was known to simulate emergency instrument flight conditions while checking company pilots. These simulations took the form of failures to the Flight Attitude Indicators on the left instrument panel, and the masking of the indicator on the right by covering or the removal of instrument lighting. It was likely that on this occasion that the simulated failures referred to above were given shortly before the aircraft commenced a planned turn to the left to take up the track towards Brisbane at a height of about 5000 feet. At this time the pilot in command had no external reference by which to monitor the attitude of the aircraft in relation to the horizon. The pilots did not recover control of the aircraft before impact with the water. NOTE A full report on this accident has been prepared and is available from the Australian Government Publishing Service in each Capital city."

PLT NON-NVMC RATED BECAME UNSURE OF POSN IN POOR WX CONDITIONS IN REMOTE AREA.ACFT BROKE APART AS ARESULT OF OVERLOAD FORCES IN A STEEP DIVE.PLT'S OF SEARCHING ACFT REP WX CONDITIONS IN AREA WERE IMC

The pilot was completing an air test following work on one propeller. During the base leg for runway 21 at Perth the aircraft appeared to stall and the pilot did not regain control. It crashed in the back yard of a house in Bassendean causing some roof damage. The out-of-control descent was described as a "falling leaf" indicating the aircraft had little forward speed. Also there was no wreckage trail. The aircraft caught fire on impact. The reason for the loss of control was not determined however, the post-mortem examination of the pilot indicated a possibility of incapacitation resulting from heart failure.

MERCY FLT.ON ARR KALGOORLIE CCT,PLT ENCOUNTED SEVERE STORM CELLS,INTENSE WIND GUSTS & TURBULANCE.ONFINAL AFTER A NUMBER OF SUDDEN ATTITUDE CHANGES A/C COLLIDED WITH A MINE POPPET HEAD.L WING TORN OFF

PLT HAD NOT FLOWN AT NGT 21 MTHS.NO STRIP LGTS.DID NOT MONITOR FLT INSTRUMENTS UNTIL JUST BEFORE IMPACT.PLT MOTIVATED TO RESCUE STRANDED PEOPLE.SAR MISSION CO-ORD DIDN'T MAINTAIN OPERATIONAL CONTROL.

ARRIVAL REPORT WAS NOT RECEIVED FROM ACFT AT SARTIME.PLT ADZ HAD RADIO PROBLEMS.