The day before the accident, the pilot had made some modifications to the aircraft's spray equipment. Approximately 180 lts of water was then loaded to test the equipment.

Early the next morning, the pilot decided to test spray over a paddock. After checking the paddock for hazards, he commenced a spray run from west to east with the sun still below the horizon. The pilot noticed a loss of spray pressure and as he looked down inside the cockpit to adjust the pressure, the main landing gear struck the ground. The aircraft nosed over and slid upside down for approximately 40 m before coming to rest. The pilot was not injured and was able to extricate himself without outside assistance.

An emergency locator transmitter (ELT) was not fitted to the aircraft.

VH-AJJ, a Westwind, departed Sydney runway 16L on a COOKS ONE standard instrument departure (SID) for a maintenance test flight. The SID required the aircraft to turn left on reaching 500 ft. Radar observation, however, indicated that the aircraft remained on runway heading and did not comply with the SID. The departures controller instructed the pilot to turn left immediately as there was an international B747 departing from runway 16R on a GUEST TWO SID. The tower had both aircraft in sight at all times but there was a breakdown in separation.

The operator of VH-AJJ reported that the flight test was to observe the operation of the aircraft's pressurisation system. The pilot was aware of the departing B747 from the parallel runway but was intent on cabin and engine instruments during the initial climb. He realised he had failed to comply with the SID when he was instructed to turn left.

The aircraft was on final approach to Dubbo aerodrome when it suddenly descended, collided with power lines and cartwheeled to the ground. The aircraft was destroyed in the accident but the solo student pilot managed to escape with minor injuries.

The pilot subsequently reported that he had the aircraft configured for a short field landing with full flap and 60 kts approach speed. At about 400 ft on mid final, a sudden wind gust lifted the nose and right wing to a high attitude. The pilot applied full power and opposite aileron but the aircraft failed to recover before colliding with the power lines.

It is likely that the high nose attitude resulted in the aircraft stalling at a height which was insufficient to effect a recovery.

A passenger alerted the crew to fluid leaking from the left engine cowling. Several minutes later, the oil pressure began fluctuating. The crew reduced power on the affected engine as stipulated in the Abnormal Procedures checklist. They declared an emergency and advised the sector controller of their intention to divert to Bundaberg. Emergency services were alerted and in place for an uneventful landing.

Company maintenance staff found an engine oil leak. The leak was traced to the failure of an oil seal at the gas generator tachometer gear.

The pilot reported that while taking off from Lady Musgrave lagoon, just after the aircraft became airborne, a gust of wind caused the right wing to drop. The wing contacted the water surface, and the aircraft cartwheeled to the right. The windscreen was shattered and the cockpit filled with water immediately. The aircraft came to rest inverted under the floats in approximately 8 metres of water.

The rear seat passengers egressed safely from the right side of the aircraft with cuts and bruises. The pilot's door was jammed but the pilot kicked out the side window and egressed with the front seat passenger from the left side of the aircraft. The aircraft was eventually washed onto the reef and destroyed by wave and tide action. An attempt to salvage the aircraft was unsuccessful.

The pilot reported that the wind at the time was a 20-25 knot south-easterly, the general weather was squally conditions with wind gusts to 30 knots, and the sea state was choppy with waves to one metre.

Soon after the helicopter had left Moomba on a charter flight to Whanto, the pilot reported hearing a loud bang and noticed that the rear left door of the aircraft, and associated pillar, were missing. The pilot reduced power, confirmed that his passengers were safe, and checked that the flight controls and systems were performing normally before turning to land at Innamincka Station homestead.

The helicopter landed without further incident. After shutdown, the missing door was found impaled upon the horizontal stabiliser. The helicopter was configured to carry a stretcher by incorporating an approved kit, in accordance with Bell Service Instruction No. 206-68. With the kit correctly fitted, the co-pilot door could not be closed unless the pillar-locking handle was in the locked position. An additional safeguard of the system was that when the co-pilot door was closed and locked, the pillar-locking handle could not be moved to the unlocked position.

Following the accident, the operator found that the stretcher pillar had unlatched in flight. An inspection revealed that the locking handle was in the unlocked position. However, the locking handle had been installed 180 degrees from the correct position, circumventing defences designed to prevent the helicopter departing with the pillar unlatched or being unlatched during flight.

LOCAL SAFETY ACTION

The operator has advised the Civil Aviation Safety Authority of possible shortcomings in the flight manual supplement, with regard to the correct operation of the litter kit. The operator has also incorporated a modification that includes a safety latch, preventing the pillar-locking handle from being incorrectly installed.

A Dash 8 aircraft, VH-TQP departed Sydney for Coffs Harbour on climb to FL190. Shortly after this aircraft departed, a second Dash 8, VH-TQG departed Sydney for Port Macquarie on climb to FL170. The second aircraft in the departure sequence was a later model Dash 8, capable of maintaining a high-speed cruise climb. To maintain separation between the two aircraft, both were restricted to 160 KIAS on climb.

As TQG approached top of climb (FL170), the controller observed TQP, the slower Dash 8 ahead, still well below FL170. To expedite the departure of the faster aircraft and achieve coordination with a southbound aircraft, the controller decided to restrict the climb of TQP to FL160. The crew understood their instruction was to FL170, selected this level with their assigned altitude indicator and read this altitude back to the controller. The controller did not detect the discrepancy between the assigned altitude and the crew's read back of the instruction.

The controller was then distracted for a short period of time with other sector controllers involved with an aircraft experiencing communication difficulties. During this period the mode C readout from TQP was noticed at FL168, in close proximity to TQG maintaining FL170.

TQP was instructed to immediately descend to FL160 and TQG initiated a turn to increase the separation between the two aircraft. The aircraft proceeded safely to their destinations following this occurrence.

The pilot reported that he was ferrying the helicopter back to the company base after maintenance via a helicopter landing site near Jacobs Well. At approximately 200 ft AGL during the approach, the cyclic control became restricted in that the pilot was unable to introduce any left cyclic control. The pilot said there was insufficient control available to conduct a safe landing. Eventually, he was able to force the cyclic control free and land safely.

After landing, the pilot consulted the maintenance organisation and confirmed that work had been carried out under the front seats. The pilot then removed the front seats and discovered that the cyclic control had been jammed by a radio control box. The box had not been re-installed correctly after maintenance. The matter has been referred to CASA airworthiness at Brisbane for further investigation.

FACTUAL INFORMATION

The aircraft was involved in aerial spraying operations. The pilot was preparing to do a clean-up run along the edge of a paddock on a heading of approximately 135 degrees. He initially flew due west alongside a powerline. He then turned right to fly under the powerline and return to begin the clean-up run. While approaching the start of the clean-up run, the pilot's attention was focussed on the east-west powerline which he was to again fly under. Before reaching that powerline, the pilot suddenly saw another wire immediately in front of him. He pushed the yoke hard forward to minimise the damage to the aircraft, but the powerline hit the tail area. The aircraft deviated towards the ground before he was able to regain control. The top third of the vertical stabiliser had been removed and the rudder destroyed. Even though directional control was severely affected, the pilot was able to fly the 10 NM back to the airstrip and land without further incident.

The pilot reported that the property owner had briefed him on the location of four powerlines in the area, including the powerline he had flown under. He did not brief the pilot on the powerline that was hit. The pilot stated that the property owner appeared to assume that he knew the location of all the relevant powerlines as he had sprayed in that area a few weeks prior to the accident.

The pilot reported that the powerline was difficult to see as it was not marked and the weather conditions were overcast. It was a clear span powerline between a post located amongst some trees and a shed.

ANALYSIS

The pilot was not aware of the location of the powerline which the aircraft impacted at the commencement of a spraying clean-up run. Although the pilot had been informed of four other powerlines in the area, he had not been briefed on, or noticed, this particular powerline. The clear span wire would have been difficult to detect as it was not marked, was observed against an overcast background, and the post was located amongst trees.

A Mig-15 aircraft was being flown on a series of touch and go circuits from runway 06 at Camden, NSW, for the purposes of type endorsement training. The aircraft was being flown by a student, under the supervision of an instructor pilot. During the final landing of the sequence the aircraft overran the runway at moderate speed, resulting in damage to the left hand undercarriage actuator assembly. The owner of the MIG-15 was observing the sortie from the ground, and reported that on each approach the aircraft had appeared to be fast and high on final.

During the final landing he observed the aircraft to touch down approximately 200 m in from the beginning of the runway, bounce slightly, and begin to float in ground effect. The next touchdown was about half way along the runway, after which a skid developed. He lost sight of the aircraft as it neared the end of the runway. The instructor pilot reported that the initial touchdown had been quite smooth, and gentle braking had been applied very soon after. Because the aircraft was bouncing on the nose landing gear, the instructor told the student to correct the nose attitude and progressively apply heavier braking.

However, the student pulled the control column back, resulting in the aircraft becoming briefly airborne. An instruction to the student to relax the brake pressure was apparently not heard. When the aircraft touched down again the left mainwheel tyre burst. The subsequent loss of braking and steering effectiveness resulted in the aircraft leaving the end of the runway. During a previous training sortie flown by the student earlier in the day, both mainwheel tyres had failed during landing.