During the landing roll, at about 60 kts, the pilot inadvertently selected the gear up when he intended to raise the flaps.

The nose and left main gear collapsed. The aircraft came to rest on the runway near a taxiway.

The glider was nearing the end of a 190 km cross country flight. The weather was fine, with good visibility and light west to north westerly winds. At about five km from the airfield the pilot decided to descend from 3,500 ft by increasing airspeed to 116 kt, some 3 kt less than the maximum airspeed limit.

The pilot reported that initially the glider was flying normally at this speed, but suddenly the control stick was pulled from his grasp and vibrated back and forth, banging against its stops. He managed to regain his hold on the stick and began to raise the nose of the aircraft to reduce airspeed. At this point the glider rolled into an inverted attitude.

Believing that the aircraft had suffered a major structural failure, the pilot elected to escape from the cockpit and make a parachute descent. Initially, he experienced difficulty in releasing the canopy, but once open he fell freely from the glider. The pilot made a successful parachute descent, whilst the glider proceeded to land in bushes, sustaining minimal damage.

During a subsequent airworthiness inspection by the gliding authority, it was found that the mass balance of the tailplane was beyond limits. The out of balance condition had apparently occurred some three years previously when the glider had been rebuilt. As a result, elevator flutter had occurred as the aircraft reached its maximum airspeed limit. Under normal circumstances the critical airspeed for the onset of elevator flutter should have been well in excess of the maximum airspeed limit. 

The gliding authority has advised that it has taken action to prevent a recurrence by issuing an airworthiness directive, and conducting surveillance of the maintenance organisation concerned.

The student pilot was conducting a solo navigation exercise. On arrival in the Goulburn circuit area, he elected to land on runway 04, having observed that the wind was northerly at about 10-15 kts. Shortly after turning onto base leg the pilot realised that the wind was gusting.

During the landing flare the aircraft was struck by a strong wind gust which caused it to be displaced from the runway alignment. While the pilot was attempting to re-align the aircraft with the runway a second wind gust caused the left wing to drop and strike the runway grass verge.

The pilot recovered control of the aircraft and completed the landing without further difficulty.

Significant factor

1. The pilot did not conduct a go-around following the first upset.

Kiwi 52, an A4 Skyhawk, on a missed approach from a runway 35 ILS approach, had been issued with missed approach instructions to maintain runway heading and maintain 6000 feet. When Kiwi 52 was about four miles north of the aerodrome, the aircraft was instructed to turn right heading 070 degrees and to climb to and maintain 6500 feet. The altitude restriction was to maintain separation with VH-PZL, overflying at 7500 feet.

As Kiwi 52 approached VH-PZL, Kiwi 52s altitude readout reached 7400 feet. When asked to confirm his level, the pilot of Kiwi 52 reported maintaining 6500 feet. Kiwi 52 was passed traffic information on VH-PZL. Shortly afterwards Kiwi 52s altitude readout returned to 6500 feet. The two aircraft closed to about two miles radar separation with Kiwi 52 passing behind VH-PZL.

Factors

The following factors were considered relevant to the development of the incident:

1. The pilot of Kiwi 52 failed to follow an air traffic control instruction to maintain an altitude.

The right side of the strip was temporarily unavailable for take-off due to a glider with an unserviceability returning for a landing. A tug aircraft was parked off the left side of the strip. Following a discussion with the pilot of the parked tug a decision was made to take off on the left side of the strip. During the ground run the left wing dropped to the ground, the glider veered to the left and the wingtip struck the left main gear tyre of the parked tug. The glider was substantially damaged.

The aircraft landed beside the strip during light rain. The pilot said that he thought that he had lined up to land on the strip to the right of markers on the left side. What he had seen were the right side markers and inadvertently landed on rough ground to the right of the marked strip. The aircraft struck an obstacle (not identified) in the long grass and was substantially damaged.

The pilot later said that he felt fatigued after a full day's flying.

The aircraft was taking off from a bush strip. The pilot said that the take-off run took about 600 m of the 800 m available. However, the aircraft failed to climb away so the pilot rejected the take-off at a late stage. The aircraft was landed beyond the end of the strip, amongst saplings and trees.

The pilot attributed the lack of performance to a partial power loss, although he had not heard a change in engine note, nor had he noticed any abnormal engine indications. During subsequent testing of the engine, full power was able to be achieved. Two other pilots later stated that the strip surface was affected by soft sand, and only had a usable length of about 500 m. The aircraft performance charts indicated that a take-off roll of approximately 600 m was required under the prevailing conditions.

It is considered likely that the pilot attempted to fly the aircraft off the ground prematurely. As a result, the aircraft climb performance was adversely affected by induced drag.

The pilot was tasked with spreading urea on dry rice crops.

He took off to the south in calm conditions. At an altitude of about 30 ft in the initial climb, he commenced a left procedural turn while continuing to climb at 70 kts to approximately 100 to 150 ft. The pilot then noticed that the airspeed had decayed to about 60 kts so he lowered the nose. Airspeed continued to decay so he stopped the turn while heading northwest and lowered the nose to increase airspeed. The aircraft continued to sink and touched down in a ploughed paddock. The pilot maintained climb power during the ground roll, hoping that the aircraft would take-off again. After a ground roll of 300 to 400 metres through the ploughed paddock, the aircraft collided with a low earthen embankment and overturned.

No fault with the engine or airframe has been reported to have contributed to the accident. The pilot admitted that the inflight turns were somewhat tight. It is probable that the aircraft stalled causing it to mush to the ground. It is also probable that the drag effects of the ploughed soil prevented the aircraft from accelerating enough to become airborne.

Significant Factors

The following factors are considered relevant to the development of the accident:

1. The pilot probably allowed the airspeed to decay during a tight procedural turn.

2. The pilot did not attempt to stop the aircraft in the ploughed paddock.

3. The pilot did not select full power for the attempted take-off from the ploughed paddock.

The pilot was conducting spray runs parallel to an electrical power transmission line. During one run the aircraft collided with a feeder line at 900 to its track. The collision damaged the rudder and vertical stabiliser and although the aircraft remained airborne the pilot had difficulty with directional control. He did not attempt to jettison the load. The pilot continued to fly the aircraft straight ahead until it approached a field that was suitable for a forced landing. During the attempted landing the aircraft was affected by a strong crosswind and the pilot was unable to prevent it from weathercocking into wind and colliding with some trees.

The pilot had been made aware of the main but not the feeder line. He had not noted the feeder line during his pre-application inspection, probably because the line was not visible against the dark background created by the crop. The pilot later indicated that, after the collision, he was reluctant to jettison the load as he was uncertain what effect the sudden loss of weight would have on aircraft stability. When the aircraft weathercocked into wind the damage to the rudder prevented him from being able to exercise sufficient directional control.

A utility vehicle was instructed by the surface movement controller to hold at taxiway A4 holding point which is clear of runway 01. At the same time an A300 was landing on runway 01 and was expected to exit the runway via taxiway A4S, a high-speed exit. However, the aircraft continued past this exit, and as it became obvious that it would now exit at taxiway A4 where the vehicle was stopped, the vehicle driver was instructed to vacate the taxiway. The driver reacted by driving across the runway, passing beneath the wing of the aircraft as it entered the taxiway. The driver misunderstood the instruction and was under the impression that he was cleared to cross the runway. The company has undertaken to re-brief all drivers with reference to clearance requirements.