The crew reported that the 3 red "in transit" lights remained illuminated when the gear was selected down for landing. The down and locked green indicators were also illuminated at the same time. The gear was cycled several times after which normal gear down indications were obtained. Post flight examination found a faulty micro switch in the landing gear selector handle. The switch was replaced and the aircraft returned to service without further incidence.

During a maintenance investigation for an oil leak on the aircraft's Jabiru 2200cc engine, it was discovered that two flywheel-to-crankshaft retention cap screws had failed. The remaining four retention cap screws also showed signs of impending failure. The engine had operated for approximately 226 hours.

The operator had previously experienced a complete failure of all six retention cap screws, during start-up, on another 2200cc engine that was fitted to this aircraft. This failure occurred at approximately 274 engine hours. The operator had also experienced problems with cracking of the engine rocker assemblies.

Although the aircraft was operated under Australian Ultralight Federation (AUF) requirements, the aircraft type was certificated to operate as an Australian registered aircraft. However, the Jabiru 2200cc and 1600cc series engine types had not been certificated, but were accepted for use in Australia under the auspices of CAO 101.55. This aircraft was one of the first to be fitted with the Jabiru 2200cc series engine.

SAFETY ACTION

As a result of this occurrence, technical personnel from the Bureau of Air Safety Investigation met with CASA to discuss the Jabiru engine certification issue, and the flywheel cap screw failures. CASA advised that both the Jabiru 1600cc and 2200cc engines were currently undergoing certification. The Jabiru 2200cc engine is to comply with JAR 22H. CASA indicated that they will consider the Jabiru engine flywheel retention cap screw failures as part of the certification process.

The Bureau of Air Safety Investigation will continue monitoring the certification of the Jabiru 1600cc and 2200cc engines.

The crew reported that they received a cockpit warning during climb passing through FL 310. In accordance with company procedures the flight was returned for an uneventful landing at the departure runway.

Post flight examination found the number 3 Air Data reference Unit had failed. The unit was replaced and all systems tested normal. The aircraft then returned to service without further incident.

The pilot initially called ATS after becoming airborne, having tried unsuccessfully to make radio contact on the ground during taxi. An airport groundsman was asked to maintain a sarwatch for the aircraft until the pilot reported that he had made contact with ATS. The pilot was instructed to remain OCTA until radar identified, due to crossing traffic. When the transponder was first observed the aircraft was at FL105 on climb. The CTA lower limit in the area is 4,500 ft. No breakdown in separation occurred.

After checking the terminal chart on taxi the pilots were satisfied that the controlled airspace started at FL200 on their route. After the mistake was revealed the pilots accepted responsibility for the error, citing lack of familiarity with the area, the light blue ink on the chart and relatively poor cockpit lighting as factors.

During a solo training flight, the aircraft made a heavy landing. This collapsed the nose strut and allowed the propeller to strike the ground. The aircraft then veered off the runway and came to a stop. Post flight debrief of the student by his instructor suggested that the student may have been too intent on monitoring his airspeed indicator on short final and misjudged his height.

On approach to land, a slat fault indication was displayed when the flaps were selected. The crew discontinued the approach and obtained clearance to another area so that the appropriate checklist actions could be carried out. A normal landing followed. The crew indicated that the aircraft had a recent history of slat problems.

Maintenance staff conducted the specified maintenance checks, and no fault was found after the checks. On the following day a different flap problem was displayed, and the system was again reset, achieving normal operations. The aircraft had operated normally since then.

The pilot commenced a business trip to Boonah and return with 65 to 70 litres of fuel on board the aircraft. Approaching Toowoomba on the return flight, a landing gear down indication was not obtained. The pilot arranged for ground observers to inspect the landing gear while he overflew the airstrip, having pulled the landing gear pump circuit breaker. One pass was flown towards the east, followed by a reversal turn and an overfly towards the west. Conscious that the fuel was getting low, the pilot conducted a right turn with the intention of landing. Around this time the engine stopped. The pilot did not have time to select the other fuel tank, nor to reset the landing gear circuit breaker, as had been his intention prior to landing.

The aircraft was landed on a road but the left wing collided with a pole. The landing gear down light was reported to be on after the landing. Prior to undertaking the flight the pilot considered that about 45 litres of fuel would be used. He normally intended having about 30 minutes of fixed reserve, however he was pressed for time on this occasion and accepted less. The investigation found that the flight as conducted should have consumed about 67 litres of fuel. Only about three litres of fuel were recovered from the reservoir tanks after the landing. No fuel was found in the wing tanks.

The pilot of the Boeing 737 reported that after departing from runway 34L, whilst climbing through 2,400 ft with climb power set, three birds were sighted just before they impacted in the vicinity of the right engine. There was immediate vibration throughout the aircraft and smoke was evident in the cabin and cockpit. The right engine was shut down and the appropriate check lists were actioned. An emergency was declared and the aircraft subsequently returned and landed safely on runway 34L, with the vibration continuing throughout the flight. The aircraft was taxied back to the ramp on the remaining engine. There were no injuries to passengers or crew.

Inspection of the engine revealed major damage to the inlet duct and fan section, with the outer sections of two fan blades missing. There was no evidence of fire. Bird remains were recovered from the engine, and there was evidence of multiple bird strikes to the right-wing leading edge in the vicinity of the engine pylon. No data was available from the flight data recorder due to an unserviceability in the recording system.

Analysis of the bird remains indicated that feral pigeons were the most likely species. The engine manufacturer reported that the damage was not normal but was consistent with a radially orientated pigeon strike impacting near a fan blade mid span shroud section.

Soon after departure, the crew advised that the flight would be returning to Brisbane due to a hydraulic problem and requested that the fire services be placed on standby for the landing. The aircraft landed uneventfully a short time later and cleared the runway unassisted.

Post flight examination found that a piston seal on the right outboard elevator power control actuator had failed. The actuator was replaced and the aircraft returned to service without further problems.

An intoxicated passenger was cautioned in the terminal by security officers, for annoying other passengers. Although the passenger appeared to be slightly intoxicated, security officers decided to take no further action when the passenger appeared to cooperate with their request to behave. The passenger then boarded the aircraft and attempted to enter the flight deck. The flight attendant seated the passenger and offered to serve him some non-alcoholic refreshments once the aircraft was airborne.

The passenger continued to annoy the other passengers and was cautioned by the captain and advised that he would be removed from the aircraft if he didn't behave. A short time later, after a request by the flight attendant, the first officer again cautioned the passenger. As the aircraft was taxiing, the passenger began to assault another passenger by punching him in the head. The flight crew called security officers, who arrived shortly after and restrained the passenger. The passenger was charged and convicted of grievous bodily harm.