The pilot was participating in a "ridge soaring camp". After becoming airborne the glider was flown at low level in a south-westerly direction along the ridge line, about 200 feet above the ridge. The pilot then turned the aircraft left towards the ridge in an attempt to gain lift. No lift was gained and the aircraft descended. The pilot then raised the nose of the aircraft to clear the ridge but the right wing struck a tree. The aircraft slewed to the right and descended down the ridge line before impacting the ground. The pilot had intended to turn back towards the ridge but delayed this turn to allow her passenger to take a photograph. The resultant flight path took the aircraft into an area of sink on the leeward side of the ridge. The pilot usually flew the glider from the front cockpit but due to centre of gravity considerations she had to use the rear cockpit which somewhat restricted her forward vision. The volume of the variometer, which was fitted in the front cockpit, was turned down so as not to disturb the passenger, however this action also deprived the pilot of immediate indication of changes in lift. This accident was not the subject of an on-site investigation.

The pilot was engaged in the spraying of a crop of beans and had successfully completed several spray runs. At the commencement of the next spray run the aircraft flew into powerlines which struck the main landing gear. The aircraft subsequently struck the ground in a steep nose-down attitude, then nosed over and came to rest inverted some 73 metres beyond the point of collision with the wires. The pilot's memory was affected by trauma suffered in the accident and he could not remember details of the wire strike. Consequently, a reason for the wire strike was not established. However, it was noted that the powerlines were oxidised and that the span between the poles was quite long. Both of these factors could have adversely affected the pilot's ability to see the wires against the natural background.

The student was being instructed in crosswind techniques, and several circuits and landings had been completed without incident. On the final circuit a normal approach and touchdown were made, but during the landing roll the right wing lowered and the aircraft swung through 90 degrees. Initial inspection found that the lower torque link bolt on the right gear had failed, allowing the wheel assembly to detach. Engineering investigation revealed that the torque link bolt was of defective manufacture in that stress raisers existed near the thread root. This condition resulted in a slow progressive fatigue fracture originating from the stress raisers. There is no inspection requirement for this bolt and the defect is considered an isolated case.

The pilot had borrowed the aircraft from his brother to carry out some taxi training. He had previously flown gliders. After making about 20 runs along the strip the aircraft became airborne, the pilot decided to continue with the takeoff as he was uncertain if the aircraft could be stopped in the remaining available strip. The aircraft collided with trees at the end of the strip and became wedged in the tree tops. The pilot escaped from the aircraft uninjured and had to climb down the tree to the ground. This accident was not the subject of an on-site investigation.

After arriving at the strip at about 0700 hours, the pilot assembled the aircraft and inspected it before carrying out three taxiing runs along the strip. He then rechecked the aircraft before conducting a short, apparently uneventful, flight in the vicinity of the strip. After landing the pilot taxied the aircraft back to the start point and commenced another takeoff. When the aircraft became airborne it was observed to turn left and shortly afterwards the right wing struck a tree. The aircraft spun to the ground and the pilot was fatally injured by the impact forces.

The glider was being winch-launched from strip 36. During the launch, the left wingtip dropped into lush vegetation covering the strip. The glider rolled rapidly to the left around the wingtip, until it was inverted. It impacted heavily in this attitude and came to rest 96 metres from, and 15 metres to the left of the take-off point. A 15-20 knot north-easterly wind was blowing at the time and the right wing was seen to lift as the left wing contacted a reasonably heavy cover of dandelions which were 30-40 centrimetres tall. The pilot had activated the manual release and the winch operator stopped the launch when the glider adopted the acute roll angle, but both of these actions were too late for recovery to be achieved prior to impact. Due to soggy conditions, the gliding club had not used the strip for the previous 2 months, and had not mown the surface prior to recommencement of operations.

During a period of dual training, the instructor noticed that the oil temperature was rising to an undesirable level and that the oil pressure was falling. He elected to carry out a precautionary landing on a short, disused agricultural strip, rather than flying 20 minutes back to the aerodrome. The student was to carry out a short field landing under the supervision of the instructor, who was to talk her through the exercise. At about the point of touchdown, the press-to-talk switch in the rear pilot compartment failed and the student was unable to hear any further instructions. She became apprehensive about the length of strip remaining and applied heavy braking, which the instructor was unable to overcome, and the aircraft nosed over. An inspection of the aircraft revealed that a cleaning rag, which had been missed during the daily inspection, had partially covered the oil cooler, rendering it less effective.

The pilot was carrying out a practice circuit. Although the approach was good, the flare was initiated too high. The pilot attempted to correct by lowering the nose, however he was late in initiating the second flare. The aircraft struck the ground and bounced into a nose high attitude. The pilot again lowered the nose which resulted in another bounce. The gear finally collapsed after the third ground impact. The instructor assessed that the pilot's performance on earlier dual flights that day was of a sufficiently high standard to authorise him to do a solo circuit. However, on this circuit the flare height was misjudged and the technique used to recover from the bounced landing was incorrect.

The aircraft was being used to assess the effects of recent heavy rain and associated flooding in the area. The wreckage of the aircraft was found several hours after DEPARTURE, directly below an array of power lines which spanned a river valley. The aircraft had collided with the lines at about 265 feet above ground level, before striking the ground in a vertically nosedown attitude. It was determined that the pilot had flown in the vicinity of the power lines on numerous occasions. Where the lines crossed the river, the distance between the supporting towers was 934 metres. Hazard markers were attached to the lines, but they were small and inconspicuous. It was likely that on this flight, the pilot had been directing his attention to the flood damage, and had overlooked the presence of the wires.

The pilot reported that during a crosswind spray run along a fence line the left wing struck a tree. Despite extensive damage to the wing the aircraft remained airborne and the pilot was able to land the aircraft at the DEPARTURE strip, some three kilometres away. This accident was not the subject of an on-site investigation.