The pilot reported that he obtained the normal safe landing gear indication after the gear was extended prior to landing. The touchdown was normal, but the nose gear collapsed as it contacted the runway. It was later determined that the nose gear drag brace fitting which attaches to the fuselage was loose.

Some of the attaching rivets had been replaced with bolts at some time prior to the accident. The bolts and remaining rivets had worked loose. This allowed a change in geometry of the downlock mechanism which unlocked under the landing load and allowed the nose leg to collapse.

During an aero-tow take-off in gusting wind conditions, the pilot lost control of the aircraft after the right wing dropped and dragged on the ground. The glider pilot released the tow rope and attempted to regain directional control to avoid a collision with the boundary fence. He applied full flap and ground looped the glider. However, as the aircraft swung, the tail and the trailing edge of the left wing struck the fence.

During a cross-country attempt at a "Silver C" certificate, the pilot was forced to conduct an outlanding and selected a suitable paddock. After touchdown, the left wing rose, and the pilot overreacted with too much left aileron. The wing of the glider struck the crop which immediately slewed the glider to the left. The glider came to rest after crashing through an electrified fence.

During a solo training circuit, the pilot was subjected to some minor distractions involving other aircraft. The resulting circuit was cramped and the aircraft rolled out high on final approach. The pilot selected the dive brakes and then did not recognise the resulting undershoot until late on final approach. He then dived the aircraft to maintain speed, forgetting to retract the dive brakes. The left wing struck a tree, and the aircraft came to rest inverted. The pilot, who was inexperienced on type, possibly had a temporary lapse of concentration when the approach became dangerously low and forgot to retract the speed brakes.

During the landing roll the pilot felt that the left wing appeared to drop, so immediately initiated a go around. He noticed that the three green landing gear down lights were still illuminated before he cycled the gear to check for a malfunction. The left gear light then failed to illuminate again. The pilot decided to divert to Parafield where emergency services were available and advised Adelaide Flight Service. On arrival, a ground inspection confirmed that the left landing gear leg was partially extended, canted to the rear, and the gear door was missing.

After the emergency services were in place the pilot shut down the left engine, set the feathered propeller in the horizontal position, and carried out a landing. During the landing roll the left gear collapsed, the wheel became lodged between the flap and ground, stopping the tyre rotation and turning the aircraft left through 90 degrees to the runway centre line. The left gear trunnion forward pivot pin bracket/bearing assembly, attached to the wing spar, was found to have failed, and the rear pin then failed in overload as a secondary failure.

This allowed the left gear to separate but remain attached to the aircraft by its retract arm. The failure of the bracket/bearing assembly appeared to have been the result of excessive wear, possibly due to insufficient lubrication. Further examination revealed that the trunnion was an incorrect part, being manufactured from cast aluminium for fitment to PA28R type aircraft.

The correct trunnion is manufactured from forged aluminium and is of a stronger design for the heavier PA34 type aircraft. The aircraft logbook and other records did not indicate when this component was installed on the aircraft. The incorrect trunnion type did not contribute to the failure, or the accident.

The helicopter and crew were tasked to evacuate a stretcher patient from a remote site. To achieve the task the helicopter was to hover over the site with the pilot and winch operator onboard and two paramedic and an aircraft crewman on the ground to attend to the patient. The patient and a paramedic were up-light first. To stabilise the stretcher during the lift a tagline was attached to both the stretcher and the ground crewman. The procedure was that the paramedic lifted with the stretcher released the tagline from the stretcher as the stretcher approached the door of the helicopter. On this occasion, the tagline was not released and as the hover commenced forward flight the crewman was lifted from the ground. The crewman advised the aircraft crew that the tagline had not released, and the pilot ceased forward flight while the winch operator released the tagline. The crewman fell about 12 metres to the ground and suffered back and leg injuries.

The tagline is fitted with an 80 kg "weak link". However, on this occasion the crewman only weighed 70 kg and the "weak link" did not operate. Also, it was the task of the winch operator to ensure that the tagline was disconnected before he cleared the helicopter for forward flight. Because of the terrain and position of the stretcher on this occasion the winch operator was not able to visually check the tagline. The operator has investigated the circumstances surrounding the occurrence and implemented changes in their procedures to guard against a recurrence.

The pilot reported that on arrival at the airstrip she overflew to check the wind. She estimated the wind was from the southwest at 10 knots so elected to land on the 130 degree strip. She described the strip as being close to hills necessitating a steep approach with full flap and low power. It was 1000 metres long with a gravel surface. She had not landed there before.

Initial touchdown was on the main wheels. The aircraft then bounced twice and veered to the left. The pilot said she then applied power to go around but speed was low, and the stall warning sounded. She then closed the throttle and attempted to put the aircraft back on the ground. However, the aircraft hit the ground nose first, broke the nose gear off and nosed over onto its back.

The pilot reported that he was operating at 500 feet above the sea taking photographs of a friend's boat. He experienced a sudden onset of severe engine vibration. Because of the severity of the vibration, he believed that the engine may break its mounts. He shut the engine down immediately and ditched close to his friend's boat. He was rescued from the wing of the aircraft which sank shortly afterwards in approximately 60 fathoms of water.

The cause of the engine vibration was not determined but the pilot said the severity of the vibration was what he imagined would be consistent with the loss of part or all of a propeller blade.

The pilot reported that, approaching destination, he had just reduced power to commence descent from 9000 feet when a rattling noise started. The engine then started to vibrate and run roughly and would only deliver partial power. The aircraft entered cloud at approximately 3500 feet and broke out of the cloud base at about 2600 feet.

By this time there was not enough power to maintain level flight, so the pilot elected to land uphill in a paddock. The pilot reported that he was a little high on approach and after touchdown the aircraft ran 150-200 metres before going through two fences and hitting a tree.

The elevation of the accident site was reported as approximately 1000 feet. The pilot said the cloud cover below the aircraft at the time of the engine malfunction was between seven and eight eighths.

Inspection of the engine after the accident revealed a failed connecting rod big end.

Significant Factors

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

1. Failed connecting rod big end in the engine.

2. When the pilot broke out of the cloud base, he was only 1600 feet above the terrain and therefore limited in his choice of areas suitable for a forced landing.

3. Forced landing site not suitable to permit a successful (damage free) forced landing.

Earlier in the day, the pilot had flown his aircraft from Great Keppel Island to Rockhampton to hand-feed his cattle.

While he was completing the task storms moved into the area and rain began to fall. By the time the pilot returned to the airport the conditions were unsuitable for visual flight. He waited at the control tower for about an hour until the storms to the east of the airport cleared. He then departed and tracked via the Fitzroy River with the intention of proceeding up the coast to the island. En route, a weather report was obtained from the island that indicated that the weather there was clear.

When the aircraft was in the Emu Park area the pilot reported that he was unable to see either the island or Yeppoon and as the weather was deteriorating, and the cloud ceiling was about 400 ft, he decided to land at Emu Park. He joined the circuit area but on the downwind leg he was unable to sight the strip markers. The pilot continued the approach and as the aircraft turned onto the base leg it entered rain. On final the pilot had difficulty seeing through the rain covered windscreen, but he stated that he was able to make out the length of the strip. When the aircraft passed over the threshold of the cleared area the pilot closed the throttle, and the aircraft landed. He then realised that the aircraft had landed about 10 metres to the right of the airstrip. Shortly after touchdown the aircraft ran through a depression in the ground and the landing gear and left wing, and engine were torn off. The right wing was bent as the aircraft spun around before coming to rest. The cabin area remained intact, and the pilot was able to evacuate the aircraft uninjured.

The pilot stated after the accident that he had considered going around during the approach but believed that weather conditions were such that he may have had difficulty maintaining flight in visual conditions.