Circumstances:

The student was authorised to conduct solo circuit practice in generally light easterly wind conditions. During the session, the wind began to swing through more than 90 degrees, with associated strong gusts. In the landing flare on the circuit prior to the accident, a wind gust lifted the left wing and rolled the aircraft to the right. Experiencing considerable difficulty, the student regained control and climbed the aircraft for another circuit. Being unsettled, the student forgot that he could seek advice from his instructor through Perth Flight Service. He elected to terminate the session with his next landing. Again, as the student flared the aircraft for landing, a strong gust lifted the left wing, rolling the aircraft to the right. Before he could correct the roll, a second gust struck the aircraft. Despite recovery efforts the student realised he was losing control and attempted to go-around. The aircraft with a bank angle of 50 degrees, stalled and contacted the ground right wing tip first, coming to rest 95 metres from the runway centre line.

Circumstances:

On completion of temporary repairs following a forced landing accident in a paddock, a permit to fly was issued authorising a ferry flight from the accident site to a nearby strip. During the take-off roll the pilot was unable to maintain directional control and the aircraft crossed a drain before striking a fence and overturning. An inspection of the aircraft did not reveal any defect which could have contributed to the loss of directional control. Following the landing accident the property owner had rotary-hoed the paddock to a depth of 10 centimetres. Using a motor vehicle, the pilot compacted a 2.5-metre-wide strip along the centreline of the paddock, which sloped approximately 3 degrees down to the north. At the time of the take-off to the north the wind was from the north-east at 5 knots. The pilot selected a take-off power setting of 53 percent of the maximum power available which effectively increased the take-off ground roll required by approximately 170 metres. The investigation revealed that after a 50-metre ground roll the left main wheel entered the rotary-hoed area. The aircraft then veered further to the left before striking the fence and overturning.

Significant Factors:

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

1. The strip width was inadequate for the safe operation of the aircraft.

2. The pilot did not maintain directional control during the take-off.

3. The pilot delayed abandoning the take-off.

The pilot reported that he was delivering the aircraft to the new owner. The normal strip at the property was unserviceable so the use of another strip had been arranged. No mention was made by the owner of a powerline crossing near the end of the strip. The aircraft struck the powerline on late final approach and fell to the ground tail first. This accident was not the subject of an on-site investigation.

This was to be the first trip away for the pilot since having the area restriction lifted from his Private Pilot Licence. He obtained an area weather forecast which included predicted winds of 35 knots, scattered stratus cloud, base 1000/2500 in showers, visibility reduced to six kilometres in showers, with turbulence moderate and occasionally severe. A Visual Flight Rules plan was submitted for a flight from Romsey to Ararat and return. The aircraft later departed and the flight to Ararat was completed satisfactorily. After several hours on the ground the pilot departed on the return leg, deciding that he would call at Ballarat for fuel. Melbourne Flight Service passed him details of the amended area forecast which included details similar to the forecast earlier received and included advice that there would be widespread moderate turbulence and occasional severe turbulence. The Ballarat Terminal Area Forecast was also passed and this gave a surface wind from 290 degrees at 15-35 knots. After landing at Ballarat and obtaining fuel the pilot departed for Romsey. There was moderate turbulence enroute and this became noticeably worse near Mt Macedon and continued for the remainder of the flight. On overflying the airfield the pilot estimated the wind was a south-westerly to westerly and the strength varied from 20-30 knots. He elected to approach for strip 21 but on the landing flare found the crosswind was too strong and made a go-around. The pilot then decided to make an approach for strip 33, intending that if the crosswind was too strong he would divert to Melton. Again on the landing flare the crosswind was too strong and he applied full throttle for a go- around. It appeared to the pilot that the aircraft was not climbing as well as on the first go around; he reduced the flap setting from two stages to one stage and lowered the nose to try and gain airspeed. The aircraft descended and drifted well right of the strip, striking a small tree abeam of the upwind end of the strip. The right wing was dislodged by the tree impact, the aircraft then fell to the ground. Inspection of the aircraft did not reveal any evidence of pre-existing defects which might have contributed to the accident. The engine had continued operating up to the time of the accident. An analysis of weather data was made by the Bureau of Meteorology. This indicated a surface wind from 290 degrees at 15-20 knots with possible gusts to 40 knots. Also, moderate/severe turbulence, windshear, possible downdrafts and a high probability of rotor turbulence associated with the strong low level westerly flow over Mt Macedon to the west of the airstrip. It was not possible to state with certainty the reason for the poor climb performance on the second go-around but the most likely explanation was an encounter with severe weather conditions and windshear.

Circumstances:

The aircraft was spreading superphosphate when it struck a powerline at a height of about 200 feet above ground level. The aircraft struck the line with the main landing gear legs, and although the wire slid up the cutting edges, it was not severed by the cutters but snapped near a pole supporting the span. The wire then slashed around the aircraft until it cleared itself from the airframe after which the pilot discovered that he was only able to turn the aircraft to the left. He carried out an immediate forced landing. The powerline was suspended across a gully via a 470 metre span. The pilot was aware of the line having flown over it on several previous occasions. The pilot stated that, as the line was extremely difficult to see, he had been judging his clearance by reference to the poles at either end of the span. At the time of the strike the pilot's attention was distracted by difficulty in starting the superphosphate running correctly and by concentration on three other sets of wires.

Significant Factors:

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

1. The power line that the aircraft hit was very difficult to see from the aircraft.

2. The pilot's attention was distracted.

Circumstances:

The flight from Orchid Beach was to transport three passengers to Hervey Bay where they were booked on a scheduled flight departing at 1215 hours. The aircraft arrived at Orchid Beach at about 1200 hours, and the pilot hastily loaded the aircraft and departed. The take-off appeared to be normal. The aircraft was seen to make a right turn at about 250 feet above the ground, level with a ridge to the southwest of the aerodrome. The turn was made abruptly, with about 45 degrees of bank. Witnesses then saw the bank angle reduce, and at the same time the aircraft began to lose height. The aircraft was last seen when it was diving in a 45 degree nose down attitude. The aircraft impacted the ground near the base of the ridge. The impact angle was 58 degrees below the horizontal, with a bank angle of 118 degrees and an aircraft speed at impact of approximately 80 knots. No defects were found with the aircraft that may have contributed to the development of the accident. The wind at the time was easterly at about 35 knots, and this would have generated considerable mechanical turbulence in the vicinity of the aerodrome due to the local topography. The behaviour of the aircraft during the moments preceding impact was consistent with a stall leading to loss of control. The wind conditions, excessive bank angle, and control manipulation may have all been contributory.

Significant Factors:

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

1. The pilot was in a hurry to depart and did not climb to a safe height before making a turn downwind in turbulent wind conditions.

2. The pilot apparently did not maintain sufficient airspeed for continued flight under the prevailing circumstances.

Circumstances:

The student pilot was carrying out a touch-and-go landing on his first solo flight. He stated that soon after touchdown the aircraft swerved to the left of the runway centreline and did not respond to his efforts to correct the situation. The aircraft left the runway and travelled for some distance across the grass verge before demolishing a fibreglass boundary marker. The nose gear then separated as the aircraft came to a halt against the bank of a drainage ditch, approximately a hundred metres from the runway. The pilot stated that the aircraft speed was between 70 and 75 knots at touchdown. He said that as soon as the aircraft had settled onto the runway, he retracted the flaps and was in the process of advancing the throttle for take-off when the aircraft veered to the left. Examination of the tyre marks showed that the aircraft was wheelbarrowing and skidding sideways when it left the runway. The elevator trim was found positioned approximately midway between the neutral and the nose down position.

Significant Factors:

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

1. The pilot was inexperienced.

2. The pilot mishandled the flying controls and caused the aircraft to wheelbarrow.

3. The pilot lost directional control of the aircraft.

On completion of a rest period, the pilot flew the aircraft to the first destination of an afternoon bank run schedule. Pre-landing checks were completed prior to turning onto final and the landing gear was confirmed to be down and locked. Shortly after touchdown, the nose of the aircraft contacted the runway. The nose landing gear was fully retracted and the nose gear doors were closed. An inspection of the aircraft immediately following the accident revealed that the main landing gear doors were partially open and the side braces were unlocked. When electrical power was supplied the braces locked into position and the doors closed. The aircraft was then raised and the nose landing gear was observed to cycle to the down and locked position. No defect was found which could have contributed to the accident. Evidence indicated that it was likely that early in the landing roll the pilot had inadvertently selected the gear up.

Circumstances:

The pilot, who was relatively inexperienced, was engaged in pasture spraying, operating from an airstrip located on the property being sprayed. He had been on duty approximately seven hours when commencing his nineteenth flight. After take-off, the pilot initiated a shallow climbing turn onto a southerly heading, affording himself little time in which to review his flight pattern before gaining alignment for the spray run. He began spraying at tree height until the area became sufficiently open to permit descent to about one metre above ground level. Approaching the fence which formed the southern boundary of the treatment area, the pilot initiated a climbing turn to the right, to follow a "racetrack" pattern. Soon after commencing the turn the pilot realised that the aircraft could not climb fast enough to maintain clearance from the hill beginning on the southern side of the treatment area. The pilot dumped the hopper load, and with full throttle attempted to turn across the face of the hill. The aircraft mushed onto the hillside, coming to rest 41 metres from the initial impact and 150 metres from the fence pull-up point. A left turn following pull-up would have taken the aircraft over lower terrain.

Significant Factors:

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

1. The pilot turned toward terrain, the gradient of which exceeded the performance capability of the aircraft.

2. The pilot gave himself insufficient time for adequate flight review.

3. The pilot may have been subject to some skill fatigue.

The pilot said that the touchdown was slightly heavy. The aircraft bounced, and after the second touchdown the pilot retracted the flaps. He said that after a short ground roll, directional control was lost, initiated by nosewheel shimmying. The aircraft ran off the right side of the runway. Directional control was regained but by this time the aircraft was heading some 60` off runway heading, pointing at low sandhills at the boundary of the aerodrome. The pilot attempted a go-around to miss the terrain. The aircraft failed to outclimb the sandhill and came to rest some 370 metres from the strip. This accident was not the subject of an on-site investigation.