The pilot reported that, on a ferry flight back to Hyden from Northam, following a .37 periodic maintenance inspection, he encountered fog ahead along track. As a precautionary measure, the pilot decided to land in a paddock to wait for the fog to clear. He made several passes over the paddock to ensure it was suitable before attempting to land. As the aircraft touched down, the right main wheel struck a rock, hidden in grass, causing the right oleo to collapse from overload.

The pilot of VH-SKN reported that, while cruising FL170 some 52NM from Boulia, a VFR aircraft (VH-FDM) reported 49NM from Boulia, on the same track, leaving FL175 on descent. SKN had been advised of several IFR aircraft by Flight Service but had not received any broadcasts from VFR traffic until the descent call from FDM. The pilot of SKN considered that the three mile separation which existed between his aircraft and FDM compromised safety.

FDM departed Mt Isa 5-10 minutes before SKN and thus should have been aware that SKN was tracking for Boulia. Both aircraft were King-Air variants, but had a significant performance margin over FDM and it was this which contributed to SKN catching up to FDM during the flight.

An aircraft was approaching to land through a straight-in approach in accordance with the published procedures and criteria. At about 2 NM on final approach, another aircraft reported on base. Although an attempt to contact the aircraft on base by radio was made, it continued and joined final about 500 m in front of the aircraft conducting the straight-in approach. The pilot flying the straight-in approach conducted a go-around and landed off a normal circuit.

The student pilot was conducting circuit training on runway 32. He elected to make the circuit his last for the day due to deteriorating weather. The wind direction was swinging in strong gusts, mainly from the west. The pilot conducted a normal crosswind landing.

However, he later reported that when the aircraft's speed was down to about 30 knots, he relaxed too soon and did not maintain enough aileron pressure to keep the upwind wing down. A strong wind gust then swung around the aircraft around to the left. The pilot was unable to correct the movement quickly enough, and the right-wing tip touched the ground. The aircraft then nosed over onto its back.

Summary: The pilot had submitted a flight plan for the IFR flight at 7,000 ft. The aircraft was limited to 6,000 ft on departure, and this altitude, along with the departure time and the transponder code were mentioned in the co-ordination between the tower and sector controllers. The details read back by the sector controller included 7,000 ft as the altitude. This error was not detected by the tower controller. The pilot subsequently reported maintaining 6,000 ft when contacting the sector controller.

At no time was the altitude prefixed by "amended" or any such phrase to draw attention to the different altitude. Airservices Australia advice was that there is no requirement for the use of the term "amended" when the cleared level is different from the planned level. This incident is the subject of safety deficiency action to investigate the need for the use of the term "amended".

The pilot reported that selection of the landing gear up was followed by a loud noise, which appeared to be associated with the landing gear system. The landing gear in-transit light remained illuminated. The pilot remained in the circuit area and selected the landing gear down. This produced green lights for both main gears but no light for the nose gear. The in-transit light remained illuminated. The pilot then attempted to extend the landing gear manually. However, the manual extension lever was jammed and could not be moved.

Observers on the ground advised the pilot that the nose gear was swinging backwards and forwards as the aircraft flew overhead. The pilot then attempted to force the nose gear into position by manoeuvring the aircraft. However, the landing gear indication remained unchanged. The pilot subsequently selected the landing gear up and landed the aircraft with the main gear retracted and the nose gear hanging.

Examination of the landing gear revealed that the gearbox end of the rear retract rod end for the nose landing had failed. The failure was caused by fatigue crack growth. There was clear evidence of galling between the spherical ball and the outer race. (Galling is adhesive wear between two contacting surfaces and involves localised welding and transfer of materials from one surface to the other.) Under such conditions, then the ball would have been prevented from moving freely during landing gear operation, subjecting the fitting to abnormal operating loads. Advice from the manufacturer indicated that the rod could have been in the aircraft since its manufacture in 1972.

The pilot reported that at 25 DME inbound to Tennant Creek, the appropriate inbound call was made on the CTAF frequency. No traffic responded to this call, nor were any other calls heard until, approaching 5,000 feet, there was an excited call from an unidentified aircraft to "aircraft inbound to Tennant Creek". VH-ANY levelled at 4,500 feet and called the other aircraft. The pilot of VH-NLB responded, saying that he had left 5,000 feet on climb. VH-ANY then continued descent to Tennant Creek.

The pilot of VH-NLB later said that he had made taxy, airborne and departure calls on departing Tennant Creek. He estimated the minimum separation with VH-ANY to have been about 1NM. The crew of VH-ANY did not see the other aircraft.

Shortly after departure from runway 23 at Adelaide for a training flight, the pilot advised ATS that one engine was shutdown. The aircraft returned for an uneventful landing. Post flight examination found that the left propeller had suffered an in-flight separation of a counterweight and retaining bolts. Debris from the separating counterweight punctured the aircraft fuselage. A bolt head and spacer were retrieved from the nose baggage compartment area.

Metalurgical examination of the components was unable to determine the sequence of failure of the counterweights. Due to the inflight loss of failed parts, it is not possible to complete the investigation into the failure.

The pilot reported that shortly after levelling off and at the commencement of cruise checks there was a loud bang followed by a shudder. The pilots first reaction was to check the caution panel and engine transmission temperatures and pressures. All indications appeared normal. The pilot then reduced power slightly suspecting a possible drive train malfunction. However, his attention was then diverted to a flapping noise at the front of the aircraft, at which time he observed that the right-hand forward float bag was deployed, but uninflated. He continued to reduce power, reduced airspeed to 75 knots, and commenced a turn back towards the Sedco 702 platform.

The pilot reported that he was flying an AT502 Air tractor aircraft in calm weather conditions, applying liquid fertiliser to a cereal crop. Whilst conducting a procedure turn for the clean-up run, he felt one wing drop slightly followed by the other wing. After the third wing drop, he managed to maintain wings level, but the aircraft seemed to be in turbulence and continued to descend. The aircraft struck the ground with the right wing and broke up with the pilot sustaining leg injuries.

The pilot reported that the turn was conducted close to the stall, and he considered that the turbulence experienced was created by the aircraft during the turn.