The pilot reported that he was entering the paddock for the final spray run, a clean-up run at right angles to his earlier spray runs. The right wing struck a power line at 40 ft above the ground, and was torn from the aircraft. After a rapid roll to the right the aircraft struck the ground in a semi-inverted attitude. The pilot vacated the aircraft, which did not catch fire.

The power line had been identified by the pilot during his initial inspection of the area. He had flown parallel to the line when spraying the paddock but forgot about it when he commenced the clean-up run. This was the first time the paddock had been sprayed this year, but the pilot had sprayed the area in previous years.

An emergency locator transmitter was carried in the pilot's bag. It was not used during the recovery from the accident.

The pilot stated that he was mustering bulls approximately 5 km west-north-west of Kalmeta homestead. He said he was approximately 40-50 ft high when he hit a wire. He did not see the wire prior to impact. The pilot said that when he realised he had hit a wire he took all necessary action, but lost control of the helicopter, and it fell backwards to the ground. The pilot said that due to the impact and injuries he sustained he did not remember anything further.

The pilot of the Bushby Mustang aircraft reported that he was conducting a landing on a private airstrip at the conclusion of a travel flight. During the flare, the aircraft contacted the ground heavier than normal on a soft patch on the runway. The nose wheel broke off and the aircraft overturned. The pilot egressed the aircraft without injury and, with the assistance of onlookers, extricated the passenger.

The pilot reported that when the landing gear was extended, prior to landing at Maitland, the gear down light failed to illuminate. The main landing gears appeared to have extended, but the nose gear could not be checked. Remedial action was unsuccessful so the aircraft was landed in the 23 direction. During the landing roll the nose landing gear collapsed, damaging the propeller and engine cowling undersurfaces.

It was later reported that an engineering examination found that the nose gear had failed to fully extend, due to the failure of the downlock hooks to travel to the locked position. This had resulted from the seizure of a pivot bolt due to corrosion. As the weight of the aircraft was applied to the nose gear the downlock hooks slipped, allowing the nose gear to collapse.

The Piper Arrow was being flown by a pilot undergoing a Commercial pre-licence check, under the supervision of a Grade 1 instructor. At a height of 3450 ft, some 2 NM west of the Wedderburn ALA, the instructor closed the throttle to simulate an engine failure. The weather was fine, with a light wind of about 10-15 kts from the west-south-west. 

The instructor reported that the pilot elected to conduct a glide approach to the ALA, joining the circuit on early downwind for a landing on runway 17. All required checks were correctly carried out, including exercising the throttle to prevent excessive engine cooling. An initial aiming point of about 1/3 of the strip length in from the landing threshold was used. The landing gear was lowered on base leg. Drag was progressively increased by extending flap and moving the propeller pitch to fine, during base and final legs, in order to bring the aiming point back to about 100 m beyond the threshold.

At about treetop level, on short final, an area of sink was encountered which resulted in the aircraft developing a high rate of descent. Although both the pilot and instructor selected full throttle, they were unable to prevent the aircraft from touching down heavily on the runway threshold.

The aircraft came to rest after a 30-40 m landing roll. The nose landing gear had been dislodged, the main landing gears had been bent rearwards, and substantial buckling of the wing was evident. Both occupants were uninjured and were able to vacate the aircraft normally.

The aircraft was landing towards the south-east on a sealed runway, with a 10-knot southerly wind blowing. Toward the end of the landing roll the pilot experienced difficulty in keeping the aircraft centred on the runway, with the result that it veered off the runway and nosed down in the soft ground off the sealed area. The propeller and engine area were damaged. The pilot reported that the left main tyre had deflated, probably because of the tyre not rotating during the landing. He considered that he had held his heels too high on the rudder controls, inadvertently applying brake to the left wheel during the landing flare and initial roll.

At 0252 EST, the pilot of VH-UZQ informed the tower that he had aborted the take-off and that he was returning the aircraft to the hangar. He then requested cancellation of his flight plan. Approximately one hour later, the pilot telephoned the tower and indicated that a runway light may have been damaged. The safety officer inspected the runway and reported no apparent damage. At about 11 am EST that morning, personnel from the company which operate the aircraft telephoned the tower and reported damage to the aircraft indicative of it having run off the runway and impacted with ground equipment. A second inspection of the runway revealed significant impact damage to two sets of T- Vasis boxes.

The pilot later reported that soon after he had advanced the power levers for take-off, he realised that one propeller was probably still on the start locks. He immediately brought the power levers back and while the aircraft was still rolling, he pulled the left power lever into reverse in an attempt to remove that propeller off the locks. The aircraft then departed the runway to the left. The aircraft sustained minor damage to one engine and propeller.

The on-site investigation confirmed that the aircraft departed the runway to the left approximately 150 metres into the take-off roll. The wheel tracks indicate the right propeller struck the first T- Vasis box soon after the aircraft entered the flight strip. The aircraft then passed over a taxiway before re-entering the main runway. The second T- Vasis was struck either by the main landing gear or right propeller as the aircraft was turning right to re-enter the runway. The pilot who was the sole occupant, was not injured and the aircraft was taxied to the company facilities without further incident.

The aircraft had experienced APU problems during the turn-around in Sydney. This had resulted in the crew turning the APU off and isolating the system. The flight then continued, requesting ground power to be available at the ports at which the aircraft was scheduled to land.

The aircraft departed Sydney and had two very short intermittent APU fire warnings during the climb from Sydney. The fire warning light and bell did not remain on during this time. The flight continued normally until the top of descent when the APU fire warning and fire light illuminated. The crew completed the checklist actions for a fire warning and when the light remained illuminated they discharged one fire extinguisher bottle. After these actions the light still remained illuminated and the crew advised Canberra Air Traffic Control (ATC) of the problem and asked for the local fire services to be placed on stand-by. ATC declared a distress phase shortly after this notification.

The aircraft tracked for a right base for runway 35 and during the approach the warning light became intermittent. The crew advised the purser that they had a fire warning and would be landing at Canberra in 5 minutes. She was also told that the landing would be normal and the fire service vehicles would be waiting for the aircraft.

The aircraft landed normally on runway 35 and was followed by the fire tenders. The fire services advised that no fire or smoke was evident and the crew elected to taxy the aircraft to the terminal. The fire tenders again advised that there was no fire or smoke present as the aircraft approached the terminal and the crew advised that the fire services would no longer be required. The aircraft parked at the gate and the passengers disembarked normally. An inspection of the APU by engineers revealed a fault in the fire indication system.

The pilot performed a daily inspection of the aircraft with the intention of flying to Dysart. During this time, he filled the aircraft fuel tanks with Avgas and carried out a fuel contamination check. A small amount of water was drained from the left fuel system. During the engine run-up checks, all pressures and temperatures were within normal operating tolerances.

The pilot reported that following a normal take-off, at about 100 ft, and after landing gear retraction, the right engine lost power. He transmitted a MAYDAY broadcast which was received by Brisbane Flight Service. While carrying out the engine failure vital actions, he thought that the engine may have regained power. However, when the engine did not respond to throttle movements, he completed the vital actions, which included feathering the right propeller. The pilot observed that the indicated airspeed was below the best single-engine climb speed and that the aircraft was not climbing. He was aware of rising terrain ahead and decided to land the aircraft in a flat field beyond the aerodrome boundary. He selected the landing gear down, but the aircraft touched down heavily before the gear had extended. The left tip tank ruptured and caught fire on impact. The aircraft slid for 120 m. and when it stopped, the pilot and passenger exited the aircraft, and the pilot extinguished the fire with the fire extinguisher from the aircraft.

A witness reported that the aircraft took off normally but then suddenly diverged left of the extended runway centreline. A short time later, he lost site of the aircraft behind buildings. The investigation did not determine why the aircraft diverged left after the right engine failed.

Examination of the right propeller indicated that it had been feathered prior to the impact, while damage to the left propeller was indicative of a low-power setting at impact.

Extensive examination of the engines and their systems failed to identify any deficiencies which might have contributed to the reported engine failure. The examination included operating the engines at various power settings.

The controller involved was undergoing a check. MAS135 and VH-HYJ were third and fourth in a six aircraft sequence. Both aircraft were inbound to Brisbane from the north-west with VH-HYJ behind MAS135 and operating at a higher speed. As the sequence progressed, the controller was late in detecting the reducing separation between the two aircraft. VH-HYJ was turned away from MAS135 but not sufficiently early to prevent lateral separation reducing to 4NM. At this time, vertical separation was 500 feet.