The pilot was landing in gusting wind conditions with a cross-wind from the left. After the left wheel had touched down and before the right wheel had been grounded a gust of wind lifted the left wing, causing the aircraft to drift to the right. Attempts by the pilot to re-land were unsuccessful and a go-around was initiated. The aircraft subsequently collided with a fence post and came to rest about 180 metres off the side of the runway. The aircraft encountered a very strong wind gust at the time of touchdown. The pilot delayed action in initiating a go-around and when power was applied the aircraft was unable to out-climb the rising terrain while flying downwind.

Circumstances:

The aircraft was departing from an 1100 metre grass strip which contained some soft patches. The pilot reported that the aircraft became airborne after a take-off roll of approximately three quarters of the strip length. He deliberately adopted a shallow climb angle to build up speed. Shortly after crossing the upwind end of the strip, the pilot felt the aircraft sink. The left main landing gear contacted the ground and was torn from its mount. The aircraft came to rest about 200 metres beyond the end of the strip. The pilot was familiar with the strip, but this was his first flight into the strip in a PA-32 aircraft. Previous operations had been in an aircraft of significantly higher performance. Although the pilot had 73 flying hours on type, his only PA-32 experience in the previous seven years was two- and one-half hours in the 24 hours before the accident.

The pilot carried out the various pre-landing actions, and carried out a normal approach. Shortly after the aircraft touched down, the left wing began to drop. The pilot immediately applied full power and went around. As the aircraft climbed away, the pilot of another aircraft observed that the left maingear had failed to extend. The landing gear was cycled, and again indicated a safe condition. During the subsequent landing roll, the left gear leg collapsed. Investigation revealed that the left gear uplock roller was seizing intermittently due to insufficient lubrication. This caused the gear to jam against the uplock when the extension cycle commenced. The retract rod subsequently became bent, preventing the gear from being fully extended. In this aircraft type, the gear position microswitches can give a down and locked indication even when one or more gear legs is not in the locked position.

The pilot commenced spraying operations before the ground markers had taken up their positions. As he approached the starting point for the first run he glanced towards the markers to check their progress towards their assigned places. The pilot then looked forward and suddenly realised he had temporarily forgotten the presence of a power line which crossed the paddock. Evasive action was taken, however the top of the rudder struck the wire and was severed. Control of the aircraft was maintained and a safe landing was subsequently made.

Circumstances:

The pilot reported that the aircraft was at a critical stage of the approach when it was struck by a severe wind gust. There was insufficient height available to manoeuvre the aircraft and remain clear of the ground. A go-around was considered, however the pilot felt that any application of power would make matters worse. During the attempt to counter the effect of the wind gust the right wing struck the ground, the aircraft landed heavily and the nosewheel collapsed.

Circumstances:

The pilot intended to conduct an aerial inspection of one of his properties prior to departing for his home base. The pilot reported that during the take-off the engine misfired, so he abandoned the take-off and returned to the threshold of the airstrip where he carried out a complete engine run which satisfied him that all was normal. The subsequent take-off was uneventful, and the pilot completed the property inspection. Several minutes after setting heading the engine again misfired, accompanied by backfiring and a loss of power. The pilot attempted to return to the airstrip on his property, but the lack of power committed him to a forced landing. He selected a suitable flat open cultivated paddock and made a successful landing. Vacating the aircraft the pilot noticed a fire burning in the engine bay area, which increased in intensity and completely consumed the aircraft. This accident was not the subject of an on-scene investigation.

On final approach, the pilot reported that the aircraft encountered a strong headwind. At about 30 feet above the ground the aircraft began to sink and the stall warning sounded. The pilot applied some power and selected a higher nose attitude, but the aircraft landed heavily on the mainwheels, bounced onto the nosewheel and the propeller struck the runway. The aircraft ran off the runway before the pilot was able to regain control.

Circumstances:

The aircraft was being repositioned to base after an aerial application operation. The pilot reported that on downwind leg the pre-landing check revealed a soft left brake. He pumped up pressure by engaging the park brake and working the brake pedal. Due to concentrating on the other pre-landing checks and on flying the aircraft he inadvertently left the park brake on. On touchdown the aircraft pulled to the left pitched forward onto the nose and came to rest inverted.

Circumstances:

A report was received that indicated that a jet aircraft struck power lines during an approach to land on Runway 33 at Cairns Airport. The resident of a house approximately 600 metres from the threshold of Runway 33 and on the extended centreline, claimed to have seen what she described as the wheels of the aircraft hitting the power lines after overflying her house during its approach to the runway. Examination of the particular aircraft showed no evidence of it having been in contact with the wires and the pilot reported that the approach was normal. The aircraft flight path was reconstructed using data from the Digital Flight Data Recorder, and this indicated that the height of the aircraft above the ground at the position of the failed powerline was approximately 50 metres. The height of the wires at mid span is approximately 8.6 metres, and the pole height is approximately 9.5 metres. Extensive checks did not reveal any evidence to support the resident's claim. The wires which were allegedly struck by the aircraft wheels showed no evidence of damage. The Far North Queensland Electricity Board (FNQEB) did receive a report of lines down in the area shortly after the arrival of the aircraft. However, the affected lines were not adjacent to the resident's house but were around the corner in the adjoining street some 75 metres away. The damaged wires had been in contact with each other resulting in an explosion, and a blackout in the area. Separators are sometimes fitted to prevent wires from touching and have since been placed on the affected wires when they were repaired. The adjoining span had been similarly dated in the past, and it all so had been fitted with separators to prevent a recurrence. The cause of the wires fusing together could not be positively determined but was probably the result of wake turbulence (wing tip vortices) generated by the aircraft passing overhead. Wingtip vortices are narrow horizontal whirlwinds rotating in opposite directions and streaming rearwards from each wingtip. The wingtip vortices of large aircraft are most intense when the aircraft is flying at low speed with high lift devices extended, such as during an approach to land. The vortices tend to settle behind the generating aircraft and then spread out laterally upon reaching the ground. Under the conditions prevailing on the night of the occurrence, a light wind straight down the runway, it is likely that the vortices developed and caused the power lines to come into contact.

While manoeuvring to commence a clean-up spray run parallel to a power line, the helicopter collided with a spur line. A broken section of the cable struck and severed the tail boom, control was lost and the aircraft struck the ground 150 metres beyond the spur line. The pilot was aware of the presence of the spur line and had crossed it on a number of occasions during the operation. He elected to carry out a previously unplanned clean-up run to dispense the remaining chemical and temporarily overlooked the proximity of the wire. There was some evidence to indicate that the pilot was suffering from fatigue at the time of the accident.