A Boeing 747-338 aircraft VH-EBU was inbound to Cairns on the 153 Very High Frequency (VHF) Omni-Directional Range (VOR) radial and had been assigned 3000 feet not below the DME steps. The pilot reported visual at approximately 15 NM south of Cairns and was then cleared to track for a left base for runway 15. VH-XFW an Embraer EMB-120ER was departing Cairns runway 15 for Bamaga and was given a departure instruction to turn left onto a heading of 030 degrees magnetic and to maintain 2000 ft. VH-EBU was observed by radar to descend below 3000 ft. The approach controller instructed VH-XFW to maintain 1500 ft and VH-EBU to maintain 2500 ft. The pilot of VH-EBU said it was too late and that he had the other aircraft in sight to his right. VH-EBU was then cleared for a visual approach and instructed to call the tower. VH-XFW was given climb and tracking instructions to intercept the outbound track.

Examination of the Automatic Voice Recording (AVR) tape and the radar tape showed that at 0119:20 EST the minimum horizontal separation was 1.33 NM, and the vertical separation was approximately 600 ft. The minimum separation standards are 3 NM and 1000 feet.

Interview with the crew of VH-EBU indicated that when VH-EBU was cleared to track for a left base for runway 15 (after reporting visual) it was assumed that they had been cleared for a visual approach. Accordingly, a descent to 1500 ft was initiated, which is circuit altitude. The crew of VH-EBU had not been cleared for a visual approach however, and thus had not been cleared to descend below 3000 ft.

Safety Action

The crew of VH-EBU have been counselled as to visual approach requirements, and a notice to pilots will be issued to prevent a recurrence.

During a touch and go landing, the pilot inadvertently selected the landing gear up instead of the flap while the aircraft was still on the runway. The landing gear retracted, and the aircraft slid to a stop.

During an early morning inspection of Broken Hill Aerodrome, the groundsman discovered an aircraft upside down about 300 m short of runway 23, just outside the aerodrome boundary. The owner was contacted by the local police who advised them that his aircraft had been stolen. Further police enquiries revealed that the owner had actually been the pilot, who now claimed he was suffering from amnesia, possibly caused by a head injury as the aircraft rolled over.

Later the pilot stated that he had departed his property at approximately 2000 CSuT for Broken Hill, with an arrival time of 2016 CSuT. He joined the circuit on downwind for runway 23, reduced engine power and lowered 20 degrees of flap. Turning base leg, he recalled that the engine appeared to be sluggish to throttle movement when an increase in power was required to overcome an excessive sink rate, which he thought may have been caused by the very high temperature of the day. He then retracted the flaps as he was worried that the aircraft might stall. This action probably increased the sink rate.

The aircraft contacted the ground heavily well short of the runway, continued for several metres before contacting obstacles and rolling inverted.

A friend and his family, who had visited the pilot's property that day for a barbeque, reported they had observed the pilot consume about 8 - 10 stubbies of full-strength beer during the afternoon. They departed for their property at about 2000 CSuT, and after about 15 minutes were "buzzed" by an aircraft they believed belonged to the pilot, which then continued in the direction of Broken Hill.

A thorough inspection, and test run of the engine was carried out which did not reveal any faults or malfunctions that may have caused a loss of power. An inspection of the aircraft failed to find any faults which could have contributed to the accident.

The police and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority are investigating further.

The pilot was transporting the passengers to a waterhole to carry out a ground inspection. Although there was a large clear landing area only 100 m from the waterhole the pilot attempted a landing in a more confined area next to the waterhole. As the helicopter came to the hover the pilot recognised the area was unsuitable for a landing and he commenced a go-around. During the go-around the main rotor blades made contact with a rock wall. The pilot completed a precautionary landing, and the subsequent inspection indicated that the blades were substantially damaged.

The instructor advised the investigation that the student had flared too late, during the practice auto-rotational landing. The instructor then reacted too slowly to prevent the helicopter impacting the ground heavily. The aircraft bounced three times and on the third bounce the main rotor blades contacted the tail boom, severing it. Both occupants were able to exit the aircraft safely.

The helicopter suffered major structural damage.

The pilot reported that while cruising at 1,000 ft the engine started to make unusual noises. He decided to make a precautionary landing on a beach. During the landing roll the aircraft entered soft sand. The nose gear broke off and the propeller was bent.

An inspection after the accident found one fuel tank was empty. No fault was found with the engine. A new nose gear and propeller was fitted, the engine was run, and the aircraft was flown off the beach and returned to its base.

The pilot reported that the landing gear was down, and lights were correct in the circuit prior to landing. After the initial touchdown there was a "thump", the landing gear warning horn operated, and the indicating lights went out.

The initial post flight examination found that both the main landing gear drag braces had broken, allowing the main gear legs to collapse outwards. This prevented the aircraft from resting fully on the runway. Later a more detailed heavy landing inspection revealed minor rib damage in the area of the landing gear attach points, on the left side.

The pilot had recently purchased the aircraft. He reported that he was carrying out taxiing trials and simulated take-off runs because he had not previously flown an aircraft of this size and power. During a simulated take-off run the aircraft became airborne and climbed to approximately 30 feet above ground level. When the pilot closed the throttle, the aircraft stalled. It impacted the ground with a high rate of descent and turned over. The pilot sustained minor injuries.

The pilot had accumulated 174 hours total time only 20 of which were on tail wheel aircraft. He had only flown one hour in a biplane during the previous 12 months. At the time of the accident, he had not obtained instruction on the type.

The pilot had planned to visit a friend's property and made arrangements to land at the nearby Collinsville property airstrip. Before departing he contacted the Collinsville manager to ask permission to use the airstrip and obtain information concerning its location and condition.

On arrival in the area the pilot was able to locate his friend's property from the air, then using directions he had been given he tracked to a property which he believed was Collinsville. He was unable to locate the prominent airstrip of which he had been advised but found an airstrip behind an orchard with the runway directions, and similar physical features to that of Collinsville. He noted that the area had been recently cleared and mowed, and a fence removed to increase its length.

The pilot overflew the airstrip to check its condition and reported that he thought its length maybe a little short but believed he would be able to depart again if he used all the airstrip length from the tree line adjacent to the threshold.

The pilot ascertained that a slight south-easterly breeze was blowing and made an approach for landing towards the south.

The aircraft touched down well into the airstrip, and as it was slowing down the left wheel entered a hole which had been left in the ground after the fence removal. This caused the aircraft to veer left and follow a slope towards the airstrip boundary fence. The pilot was unable to regain directional control of the aircraft before the left wing impacted with a concrete fence post causing substantial damage.

The manager of this property arrived soon after the accident and advised the pilot that Collinsville was the neighbouring property.

The pilot carried out an inspection of a paddock and its surrounds prior to commencing the aerial application of insecticide. Three powerlines were identified, two within the paddock and another just outside a nearby fence line. The pilot reported that all three powerlines were checked for spur lines and T-junctions, as well as for aircraft clearance during the spray runs. The area in which the spray runs were being carried out was described as undulating, with a line of trees to the east, parallel to the flight path of the aircraft.

Five spray runs were subsequently carried out in a north-south direction at a height of about six feet. This required the aircraft to be flown beneath the powerlines, the first of which lay in an east-west direction. On the sixth run, as the aircraft approached the first powerline, the pilot reported that he encountered some turbulence. The aircraft struck the powerline, but the pilot was able to maintain control and land on the property.

A damage inspection by the pilot revealed that the right-wing tip leading edge had been slightly bent, the windscreen was broken, and the propeller had sustained minor damage. He assessed that the aircraft was able to be flown to another location, where repairs were carried out. The weather was described by the pilot as fine, with a light south-easterly wind at approximately 8 kts, and scattered cloud.