The pilot was landing at a station strip which is long but has a gutter running across it. The gutter is marked by vehicle tyres. The pilot planned to land on the second section of the strip and conducted a short field approach. Just before touchdown the left mainwheel struck a tyre which was thrown up into the left hand tailplane. The tailplane was bent upwards 15 cm and rearwards 2 cm at the tip.

The student pilot was conducting solo touch-and-go landings on runway 04 left. The aircraft was observed to touch down heavily on the nosewheel and become airborne again. The aircraft then touched down heavily on the main gear. The propeller struck the runway and the nosewheel fork was bent during the landing. The pilot stated that she was distracted by a gust of wind during the landing sequence.

VH-WNI departed Wagga for Canberra with a clearance to maintain 4000 feet visual due to VH-PVX inbound to Wagga on a reciprocal track at 6500 feet. The pilot of VH-PVX called at three miles west of Tumut (approximately the CTA boundary) at 6500 feet. She was later issued with a clearance to descend to 4500 feet. The clearance was read back correctly, and mutual traffic was passed to both aircraft.

Later, VH-WNI reported crossing the Hume Highway. VH-PVX was then asked to report distance to run to the Hume Highway and altitude. The pilot responded, "two miles to run and leaving 4300 feet on climb". The two aircraft would have been passing at that time with less than 500 feet vertical separation.

Later, when VH-PVX was approaching at Wagga, the pilot was instructed to descend to 2500 feet and overfly for a right circuit runway 23. This was to maintain separation with other circuit traffic. VH-PVX was observed approaching the aerodrome from the east and in response to a request from air traffic control, the pilot reported her altitude as 2000 feet. She was instructed to climb back to 2500 feet.

The pilot reported that during take-off with a full load, and 15 knots of crosswind, he lost directional control and ground-looped the aircraft about one third of the way along the strip. The right gear collapsed, and the right wing was damaged when it contacted the ground.

The aircraft was in clear air, descending through FL165, at an indicated airspeed of 270 kts, with the centre autopilot engaged. As the speed brake handle was moved from the closed position the aircraft rolled rapidly from a wings level attitude to some 20 degrees right bank. The first officer disconnected the autopilot and recovered to wings level. The autopilot was subsequently re-engaged and operated normally. An Engine Indication and Crew Alerting System (EICAS) message (Spoilers), and associated spoiler indicator light, remained illuminated for the remainder of the flight. One flight attendant was slightly injured during the incident.

Flight data recorder information revealed no unusual flight control inputs associated with the event. Ground inspection revealed that a fault event had been recorded by the No.2 Spoiler Control Module (SCM), but that fault could not be duplicated during ground testing. The operator carried out extensive troubleshooting of the complete system in conjunction with the manufacturer, without detecting any faults. The SCM was replaced as a precaution and the operator plans to install upgraded modules as they become available.

The pilot reported that during the commencement of a spray run he noticed a power line in the flight path and pulled up to avoid the wires. The aircraft struck the wires but remained airborne and was flown back to Warwick and landed safely. The pilot said he was not previously aware of the power line, and it was not marked on the map given to him by the property owner. The aircraft damage was confined to the propeller and wire grazes on the right wing leading edge.

The pilot was returning from a three-hour cross county flight in an area with which she was very familiar. Although too low to complete a final glide to the airfield, the pilot continued on expecting to pick up a thermal to give her the height necessary to complete the flight. The thermal source selected, a quarry, was known to be reliable.

On this occasion the expected thermal failed to materialise, and, at a very low height, the pilot was forced to select an area to make an outlanding. The pilot selected a field, initially not realising it was too short and covered in long grass.

When she realised the field was covered in long grass, she decided to improve aileron performance by setting the flaps to full negative from the previous setting of full positive. This resulted in a significant loss of lift, culminating in a heavy landing. The long wings dipped into the grass resulting in a violent ground loop.

Significant Factors

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

1. The pilot descended to a very low altitude, anticipating a thermal over a known geographic feature.

2. When the thermal did not materialise, the pilot was then limited in choice of suitable areas for an outlanding.

3. The area selected for outlanding was short and covered in long grass.

4. The pilot incorrectly manipulated the flaps.

5. The glider landed heavily and ground looped.

The aircraft departed Whyalla for Kalgoorlie, tracking via Olympic Dam to pick up passengers, then Forrest to refuel.  Later in cruise, between Olympic Dam and Forrest, the pilot became aware of power fluctuations originating from the right engine which he attributed to a faulty density controller.

At Forrest the aircraft was refuelled to its maximum capacity.  After departure the pilot noted that the right engine manifold pressure and RPM indications lagged behind the left engine, and it also failed to obtain correct manifold pressure indications from 4,000 ft above mean sea level (AMSL), and higher.

As the aircraft climbed through 5,000 ft AMSL, approximately 55 km west of Forrest, a passenger attracted the pilot’s attention to the right engine which he believed was on fire.  The pilot noticed smoke and also thought he could see flames so immediately turned the aircraft back towards Forrest, advising Perth Flight Service of the situation. He set the right mixture control to "idle cut-off", then dived the aircraft to increase airspeed.  This being a flight manual recommendation as a means to extinguish engine fires.

After descending to about 3,000 ft AMSL the right propeller control was selected to the feather position, but the propeller failed to feather and continued to rotate.  The pilot then made several more unsuccessful attempts to feather the propeller, but without having increased power to the left engine the airspeed decayed.  The aircraft continued to descend to about 100 ft above ground level (AGL), but with the windmilling right propeller, and now using maximum power on the left engine, the pilot was unable to prevent the airspeed from further decreasing below the best single engine rate of climb speed while attempting to maintain level flight.  About 26 km from Forrest the pilot realised that the aircraft would not maintain height any longer and elected to carry out a forced landing.

The aircraft touched down on an uneven, rocky surface, then after a ground roll of about 390 metres the landing gear collapsed.  The aircraft slide for a further 20 metres, turning through 60 degrees to the right.

The uninjured occupants evacuated the aircraft and walked about a kilometre to the railway line where they hailed and boarded a freight train, which had been alerted to their problem and enabled them to continue their journey to Kalgoorlie.

There were no signs of a fire in the right engine compartment, but there was evidence that a considerable amount of oil had sprayed onto the exhaust pipes and surrounding structure etc near the turbocharger.  The engine oil levels had been checked prior to departure from Whyalla, where they both indicated about 11 quarts.  After the accident the right engine oil level was found to be 6 quarts.

A test run of the right engine found it capable of developing normal power.  Examination of the right turbocharger revealed it had a worn bearing seal which allowed oil to escape during engine operation.

The right propeller blade angles appeared to have been in the normal operating range at impact, and further inspection of the propeller, after disassembly, indicated there was no pre-impact damage which could have prevented it feathering.

Inspection of the aircraft maintenance logbooks showed that the constant speed unit (CSU) on the right engine had been installed for more than 1,000 hours beyond the approved overhaul period for this type of component.  A bench test revealed its feathering operation to be very slow, apparently caused by the speeder spring lift rod being out of adjustment.  The propeller pitch control lever was operated several times through its full range while the pilot attempted to feather the propeller, each occasion having the effect of re-starting the slow feathering cycle which possibly allowed the engine RPM to reduce to a speed where the latch mechanism engaged, preventing the propeller blades from moving to the feathered position.

The induction manifold upper deck air sense hose to the turbocharger differential pressure controller was found to be charred, in poor condition and separated from its end fitting at the differential pressure controller attachment.

A partially melted aluminium heat shield, located between the turbocharger and the hose, showed a definite pattern of a hot gas flow in a path from a leaking exhaust flange gasket at the turbocharger to the hose end fitting.  This released the clamping pressure of the hose to the end fitting nipple, causing it to separate.  The detached hose would have caused the power lagging and reduced manifold pressure as reported by the pilot.

The hose was also found to be covered with oil from the leaking turbocharger seal, which when heated by the exhaust gases may have produced a flame as seen by the pilot and passenger.  The smoke was caused by oil spraying onto the hot exhaust pipe surface.

An incorrect empty weight was used on the trim sheet when calculating the weight and balance for this flight, allowing the aircraft to be loaded in excess of its maximum take-off weight on departure from Forrest.  This may also have had an influence on the aircrafts inability to maintain height.

The pilot was conducting agricultural spraying operations on a 12 ha cotton crop. He said he had a good knowledge of the field and had sprayed it several times during the season. He was aware of two power lines running across the field and planned to fly under them. One powerline ran diagonally across the direction of the intended spray run.

After passing under this wire the pilot felt a vibration through the helicopter. Although it continued to fly in a straight direction, the helicopter would not respond to the pilot's control inputs. It then descended, entered the crop, and slid along the ground for 20 m before coming to rest.

The pilot assessed that he had maintained inadequate clearance from the powerline, and that the main rotor blades had brought the powerlines into contact with the tail rotor. The clearance below the wires was reduced by the fully grown cotton. The diagonal orientation of the wires and reduced ambient lighting may also have impaired the pilot's judgement of the available clearance.

A visiting Japanese glider pilot was undergoing conversion to the "Junior" glider. On her first flight she appeared to be aiming too close to the tugs and pie cart on the left of the strip, but she successfully corrected and continued for a normal landing.

The instructor judged that she understood the problem and briefed her for the next flight which was to be solo. On final approach she again aimed too close to the parked obstructions but this time she failed to take corrective action.

During the landing roll the left wing of the glider was substantially damaged when it collided with a parked tug aircraft. The collision swung the glider through 180 degrees. The tug was less severely damaged.

Significant Factors

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

1. The pilot did not position the glider to give adequate obstacle clearance.

2. The glider collided with a parked tug.