Circumstances:

The pilot was completing the pre-take-off checklist as he taxied the aircraft for take-off. A passenger drew the pilot's attention to an approaching tree however despite heavy braking the aircraft's wing collided with the tree.

After the helicopter had been transitioned to forward flight, the pilot felt a vibration through both the collective and cyclic controls. During his attempts to stop the vibration, the helicopter was allowed to descend. As he then selected a climb attitude the helicopter yawed to the right. The pilot was unable to correct the yaw and the tail struck a tree which slowed the yawing and allowed the pilot to land the helicopter. Initial inspection revealed that the intermediate flexplate in the tail rotor drive system had disintegrated. A metallurgical examination of the flexplate indicated that it probably failed due to overload. The examination also revealed that prior to the application of the overload that resulted in the ultimate failure, the flexplate had been cracked and weakened by another previous overload. The cause of the overload that resulted in the pre-existing crack could not be determined. However, examination of the tail rotor indicated that the ultimate failure most likely occurred as a result of a minor tail rotor strike whilst the helicopter was transitioning into forward flight.

The pilot was familiar with the destination aerodrome, having landed there on several previous occasions. On arrival, rain showers were in the area and the pilot held until the showers had cleared. After an apparently normal approach, the aircraft floated beyond the target touchdown point. The short grass surface was firm but wet, and the pilot was unable to stop the aircraft in the remaining strip length.

The pilot had completed spraying operations for the day. He decided to proceed via a friend's property at Sprent to pick up some mail. There is an agricultural strip located on the property but it is some distance from the house. Instead of using that strip he decided to land in a paddock close to the house to save himself a walk. He had used this paddock previously and considered it suitable. The distance from fence to fence in the landing direction that the pilot chose was approximately 250 metres. The first 200 metres had a steep upslope and the last 50 metres was approximately level. Late in the final approach the pilot realised that the speed was high and that he had misjudged the approach. He forced the aircraft onto the ground some 95 metres beyond the approach end fence. The aircraft bounced and touched down again 40 metres further on. From this point heavy braking marks were evident. When the aircraft came to the top of the steep slope the pilot realised that he was not going to be able to stop before the fence at the end of the paddock. There was insufficient room to groundloop and the pilot decided against attempting a go-around as there was a power line beyond the end of the paddock. The aircraft ran through the fence at the end of the paddock, across a driveway and came to rest straddling a fence on the other side of the driveway. When the pilot vacated the aircraft he noted that there was a 10 knot tailwind. The pilot believed that he had a crosswind for landing but there was no windsock at the paddock. It was established that he had been spraying very small paddocks in hilly country, requiring a high degree of concentration. With the day's spraying operations over he had relaxed and did not give his full attention to flying an accurate approach and landing.

Circumstances:

The pilot was spraying a 120 acre field of wheat. When the main area was finished the pilot started clean-up runs around trees and the fence. One fence line was in the form of a vee, and a clean-up run was made along this with the intention of ruddering the aircraft around at the bend in the fence. As this was done the left wheel contacted the fence and the pilot was unable to stop the aircraft hitting the ground and sliding to a stop.

After landing the aircraft was taxiied along a taxiway to the general aviation parking area. In preparation for a 90 degree turn in the taxiway the pilot moved the aircraft to the right of the taxiway. The nose wheel struck a steel gable marker, which was positioned 500 millimetres off to the the right of the taxiway. As a result of the collision the nose gear collapsed. The pilot was not concentrating sufficiently on the taxiing of the aircraft, which was being operated at a high speed.

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.