A spray run was being flown along the boundary of a paddock. One tree infringed the run and the trainee elected to apply rudder to direct the aircraft past the tree. Incorrect rudder was applied and the instructor took over but the left wing struck the tree. The instructor was able to maintain control although one metre of wing and the aileron had been torn off. He landed the aircraft in the adjoining paddock without further damage.

The pilot and passengers were on the return leg of a flight begun earlier that day. The weather forecast the pilot had obtained included reference to a frontal passage, which would be followed by low cloud, rain and thunderstorm activity. The flight evidently proceeded normally for about two hours, by which time the aircraft was to the south-west of Tamworth. At this point, the pilot reported that he was returning to Tamworth, however, this transmission finished abruptly and nothing further was heard from the aircraft. The wreckage was subsequently located two days later, close to the planned track. The aircraft had struck a ridge 2200 feet above mean sea level, while banked steeply to the right and descending. No defect was subsequently found with the aircraft which might have contributed to the development of the occurrence. At the time of the accident weather conditions in the area were poor, with layers of thick cloud and an embedded cumulo nimbus or large cumulus present. The pilot did not hold an instrument rating, and had only limited experience on the type and on relatively high performance aircraft in general. It was probable that the aircraft was cruising between cloud layers when the pilot noticed deteriorating conditions ahead. While attempting to turn away from these conditions, the pilot probably inadvertently entered the cloud. Control of the aircraft was then lost when the pilot was confronted with a lack of visual reference in turbulent conditions.

The aircraft had been parked in a hangar and not flown for six months until the day before the accident. After landing on that occasion the pilot noticed that the airspeed indication was slow to return to read zero. The next day the pilot believed the airspeed took longer than usual to reach the normal cruise indication. When on final, with an indicated airspeed of 80 kt the stall warning light illuminated, the aircraft stalled and struck the ground. Prior to the second flight the pilot had attempted to clear the pitot/static system by blowing into the pitot tube. Inspection of the static system found evidence of a blockage by an insect nest. The blockage was in such a position that it would not have been visible during a preflight inspection.

The pilot had hired the aircraft in order to maintain currency on the type. After an uneventful flight in the training area he returned to the circuit and carried out a normal approach. However, shortly after touchdown the aircraft swerved to the left and the pilot was unable to regain directional control. The aircraft ran off the side of the runway and the nosegear collapsed. It was discovered that the elevator trim had been set almost fully nose down, and the rudder trim was set almost fully nose left at the time of the accident. The nosewheel had contacted the runway at about the same time as the mainwheels, and it was likely that the subsequent loss of control was the result of the aircraft "wheel-barrowing" on the nosewheel. The pilot, who had only limited experience on the type, had believed that the aircraft had been correctly trimmed prior to touchdown.

As part of a club competition, the pilot was required to carry out a practice forced landing on the strip. On the downwind leg the height of the aircraft was lower than desired and the pilot adjusted his tracking in order to converge with the strip. A continuous turn from downwind to final was attempted, during which the left wing suddenly dropped and the rate of descent increased. The pilot was able to regain partial control but the aircraft struck the ground heavily and ran off the side of the strip, colliding with rocks and scrub. After misjudging the height and distance to the selected touchdown point, the pilot elected to continue the approach. During the latter stages of the turn onto final, the aircraft probably encountered mechanical turbulence, which resulted in control difficulties and an increased rate of descent. It was likely that the pilot was influenced by the competition atmosphere existing at the time.

The pilot, who was also the holder of a Private Pilot Licence, was conducting his first gliding flight for the day. The glider was aero-towed to 1100 feet above the aerodrome, but only weak lift was encountered in the area. The pilot elected to return for landing and commenced a normal circuit. On the downwind leg strong sink was encountered and the base turn was conducted at about 300 feet above the ground. Indicated airspeed at the time was reported to be about 55 knots. The pilot subsequently advised that the roll into the turn was normal, but he was unable to level the wings again, even with full opposite aileron. The aircraft continued descending in a wing-low attitude and struck the ground about 250 metres before the threshold of the strip. Investigation revealed no evidence of any pre-impact defect or malfunction of the controls, and atmospheric conditions at the time were reported as being stable. When the sink was encountered on the downwind leg, the pilot had modified his circuit by flying closer to the strip. As a result, the angle of bank required for the base turn was steeper than normal. It was considered probable that the aircraft had stalled during this turn onto base, with insufficient height remaining to allow the pilot to recover control.

The aircraft returned to its departure aerodrome after suffering a complete electrical failure. Emergency extension of the gear was attempted, but during the landing roll the nose leg retracted, which resulted in the nose and propellers striking the runway. A written checklist was not used prior to departure and the generators were evidently not switched on. The electrical panel and the generator warning lights are obscured by the control column. Emergency gear and flap extension is achieved using the same winder which is placarded "Flaps-push handle in, Gear-pull handle out". Investigation revealed that although the flaps were in the fully down position the gear was only part of the way through its extension cycle.

The aircraft was using a taxiway which had a row of cones positioned about 11.5 m from the centre-line to indicate a step in the sealed surface. The pilot saw a fuel tanker parked some distance away from the cones, but, assuming that the cones were taxiway clearance markers,continued to taxy along the centre-line. The port wing struck the top of the tanker about 15 m from the aircraft centre-line and about two metres from the wing tip. There were works in progress in the area of the occurrence. Tanker drivers were required to park their vehicles not closer than 24 m to the centre-line of the taxiway, but there was no visual delineation of this distance.

The pilot was turning into the parking area, intending to taxy between aircraft parked in parallel rows. As the turn was completed the left wing tip struck the spinner of the aircraft at the start of the left hand row. This aircraft was undamaged, however the wing tip of the taxying aircraft was pushed rearwards with consequent damage to the rear spar fuselage carry-through member. During the turn into the parking area one of the passengers interrupted the pilot's concentration by pointing out that the parking position from whence they had departed, was still vacant. The pilot did not notice that the aircraft had moved almost 2 metres to the left of the taxiway guideline until the collision was imminent.

The pilot was conducting a night cross-country exercise to maintain his recent experience requirements. On final approach he realised that the aircraft was undershooting. Some engine power was applied and the approach was continued but the pilot then saw power lines ahead, too late to take any avoiding action. The aircraft struck the wires and subsequently impacted the ground 211 metres short of the threshold. It came to rest 91 metres further on after colliding with a fence. The wires struck provided power for the airfield lighting, which was extinguished at the time of collision. The power lines struck were 28 feet agl and were 600 metres from the threshold. The pilot had been slow to realise that the undershoot situation was developing and had not taken appropriate action to either regain the normal approach path or to go-around.