Shortly after take-off an EICAS message 'flap Disagree' was indicated. The crew took appropriate action and the flight was continued.

During climb out at FL205 a loud bang was heard accompanied by fluctuating right engine instrument indications and a yaw effect. The right engine was shut down and the aircraft returned to land at Melbourne.

For the flap problem the rectification consisted of replacement of the trailing edge flap bypass valve.

For the engine malfunction the engine was changed.

Significant Factors

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

1 Defective trailing edge bypass valve.

2 Right engine malfunction, reason undetermined.

The pilot was engaged in circuit training at the time of the accident. He reported that, during the circuit conducted prior to the accident, the controls felt stiff although they appeared to be working correctly.

Following touchdown, with the tail down and the pilot holding the stick back, the left wing started to dip. The pilot initiated a go-round and applied full power. The aircraft began to veer to the left and the pilot was unable to correct the turn with either rudder or ailerons. The aircraft crashed inverted, 60 metres to the left of the centre line, still with full power applied.

The crosswind at the time of the accident was approximately 8 knots from the left. The reason for the reported stiffness in the controls was not determined.

Enroute the pilot encountered unforecast fog and low cloud and decided to carry out a precautionary landing. Rain had fallen on the surrounding countryside, causing the pilot to have doubts over the surface condition of paddocks in the area. Hence, an unopened, new section of the Hume highway was selected. Low runs were made over the area to check the surface condition, which appeared suitable. A section about 1200 metres long was selected.

A normal landing was achieved and as the aircraft slowed down it unexpectedly entered a 30 centimetre deep track across the highway surface. The undetected track had been left in the surface to allow vehicles to cross the constructed area. As a result of entering this area the nose and right main gear legs collapsed.

Significant Factors

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

1. The pilot encountered weather conditions precluding further flight in visual conditions and therefore necessitating a precautionary landing.

2. The area selected for the precautionary landing contained a hazard (a 30 centimetre deep track) which the pilot did not see during a precautionary search from the air prior to landing.

The student pilot was conducting a series of stop and go landings. On the fourth approach, Tower instructed the pilot to carry out a touch and go landing due to a following RPT aircraft. The aircraft bounced on landing and the pilot lost directional control. During the subsequent ground loop, the propeller and right-wing tip struck the ground.

After suffering a complete electrical failure which resulted in a loss of communications, the aircraft was landed on runway 11C. The landing gears collapsed during the landing roll and the aircraft settled onto the runway.

Subsequent investigation determined that the starter contactor had failed in the start position, isolating the generator. The only available power was then provided by the battery which slowly discharged to the level that radio communications could not be maintained. Although the landing gear selection and locking is dependent on electrical power, there was sufficient power to unlock the gear from the UP position. The gear then extended under its own weight but failed to lock in the DOWN position and consequently collapsed under the landing loads.

Pilot reported that the aircraft encountered sink soon after take-off. The main wheels contacted the crop (tea) and the aircraft nosed over. The pilot indicated that there were no mechanical problems with the aircraft of which he was aware. The aircraft had been operating with similar loads throughout the day. The wind was gusting at the time of the accident, and there was a possibility of windshear being present. In addition, the pilot had conducted more than 80 flights on the day of the accident, for about 6 hours flying time. It is possible, therefore, that he was suffering some fatigue at the time of the accident.

The pilot assessed the wind as from 180 degrees at 10-15 kts. On the take-off roll on strip 09 the tail was raised, and the aircraft appeared to accelerate normally. It then encountered a wind gust. The right wing rose, and the aircraft diverted left. The left main wheel contacted a drain on the left side of the strip and the aircraft overturned and came to rest inverted.

Significant Factors

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

1. Decision by the pilot to operate in a gusty crosswind.

2. Probable encounter with a wind gust.

3. The pilot was unable to maintain directional control.

The pilot reported that when he returned to the airfield after a short local flight, the windsock was indicating a strong southerly wind. He therefore elected to land on the 180 degree strip. The approach and flare were normal except for some turbulence. However, during the hold off the aircraft encountered a particularly strong gust. This resulted in the aircraft ballooning with the right wing low and substantial right drift.

The pilot said he immediately applied power to go around but was unable to stop the drift. As the aircraft was now tracking towards a nearby hangar, he turned further right to avoid it but was then confronted with trees and houses beyond. As he believed he would not clear the trees he closed the throttle and attempted to land in a clear area. The aircraft hit the ground heavily on the right wingtip and then cartwheeled, coming to rest after about 50 metres.

The pilot said that after he got out of the aircraft, he assessed the wind strength was 20 knots with gusts to 35 knots.

The pilot planned to visit a friend and land in a paddock at his property. He noticed the wind direction and speed from wind patterns on the sea, then commenced a survey of the property to find a suitable landing area.

He noticed three power lines across the selected paddock but failed to see a fourth. He then descended from 500 ft above ground level (AGL) to 100 ft AGL for a better look at the intended landing area, then continued the descent to about 25 ft AGL to check the surface conditions. The fourth power line suddenly appeared across the path of the aircraft, and with no time to take avoiding action the aircraft struck the wire with the propeller and windscreen, causing it to pitch nose down and impact the ground.

The emergency locator beacon (ELB) activated and was heard by an overflying regular public transport (RPT) aircraft.

VH-BVJ was doing circuits and landings on runway 36. Because the light wind slightly favoured runway 05, the last landing was made on that runway. In order to vacate the runway after landing it was necessary to turn the aircraft around and backtrack.

The crew of VH-BVJ then noticed that VH-AIR was lined up on runway 05. No radio calls had been received from VH-AIR. VH-AIR then commenced its take-off towards VH-BVJ. The instructor in VH-BJV turned his aircraft left to vacate the runway and called to the pilot of VH-AIR to cut his engine. There was no response from VH-AIR, which continued its take-off, passing abeam VH-BVJ about 10 feet above the ground. At this stage VH-BVJ had reached the edge of the bitumen runway but had not vacated onto the grass.

Subsequently it was established that the radio in VH-AIR had been tuned 0.02 Mhz above the correct frequency. The pilot of VH-AIR saw VH-BVJ, apparently stationary on the northern end of the runway. Thinking the pilot of VH-BVJ had pulled over to the side of the runway to let him take off, he commenced his take-off roll.

According to the pilot of VH-AIR, his aircraft passed abeam of VH-BVJ at a height of about 50 feet.

Significant Factors

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

1. The pilot of VH-AIR had selected the incorrect radio frequency.

2. The pilot of VH-AIR took off on a runway that was occupied.