Following a winch launch, the pilot spent 12 to 15 minutes gliding before returning for a landing. On the downwind leg he noted that the aircraft appeared to be lower than the height indicated on the altimeter. At about the base leg position the aircraft was very low, and witnesses expected the glider to land in one of several suitable paddocks. However, the pilot continued towards the strip and the glider touched down during the turn onto final approach. The tail section was broken off when it contacted long grass. The pilot had accumulated most of his gliding experience at the particular strip and was familiar with the area. The flight in question was to be the first made by the aircraft since returning from another aerodrome. During his pre-launch checks the pilot had forgotten to re-set the altimeter to read zero feet. As a result, the altimeter was over-reading by some 500 feet. The pilot had concentrated on the indicated height and had not visually assessed the approach profile. He was unable to explain why he had persisted with the approach when he became aware that the aircraft was abnormally low and there were suitable outlanding areas available.

The aircraft normally used by the pilot was unserviceable, and he had obtained the use of the PA 24, a type he had not flown for about 3 years. The initial leg of the flight was uneventful, but departure for the return journey had been delayed, and the aircraft arrived at the destination at about last light. When the gear was selected down, a complete electrical failure occurred. The pilot was unable to read the instructions for manual lowering of the gear, which were printed on a cover on the cockpit floor, because there was not a torch available. He therefore decided to land as soon as possible, as the grass strip selected was not lit. The landing was made about 10 minutes after last light, and the aircraft slid for about 60 metres before coming to rest on the strip. No defect was found to account for the electrical failure reported by the pilot. It was likely that when conducting the pre-landing checks, he had inadvertently operated the master switch in mistake for the fuel pump switch. Probably because of the pilot's concern of approaching darkness, and his lack of recent experience on the type, he had been unable to resolve the electrical problem in the time available.

The pilot decided to inspect a nearby private landing strip which was sometimes used by ultralight pilots. Prior to departure he had obtained details about the strip, which included some information on powerlines in its immediate vicinity. Upon arrival, the pilot carried out both an area, and a strip inspection to identify the hazards. He then descended to about 25 feet to carry out an inspection of the surface of the strip. About half way along the strip the aircraft struck a powerline and impacted the ground inverted. The pilot extricated himself from the wreckage just before the aircraft was consumed by fire. The area assumed by the pilot to be a strip, was in fact an access taxiway to the strip which was bisected by a powerline. During the high level observation, the pilot satisfied himself that he had identified the powerlines, however, the subject powerline escaped his attention. Although he obtained some information on the strip before departing, the pilot did not seek a detailed briefing considered necessary for flight at such a low height above an unfamiliar area.

After a lesson of simulated instrument flying and some stall revision, the student was carrying out a practice forced landing at Wallacia Airstrip. He did not hear the instruction to go around and the aircraft touched down. At this point, the instrument hood, which he was still wearing, fell down over his eyes. As he moved the hood, he displaced his headphones. He heard the instructor say "full power", so he retracted flap and then applied full power. The instructor, realising the aircraft was too far along the strip to successfully clear the trees on the climb out, took over, closed the throttle and applied full braking. The grass was wet and the aircraft overran the strip and struck a fence. The nosegear collapsed.

The pilot had intended to carry out a scenic flight which would include aerial photography of a property at Merrijig. An enroute landing was not planned, but the pilot subsequently advised that one of his passengers became unwell and a decision was made to land at a grass strip near the property. Take-off from this strip was commenced about 90 minutes later, and the acceleration was reported to be slower than expected. The aircraft was pulled into the air near the end of the strip, but it then descended, ran through two fences and collided with some disused farm machinery. It came to rest in a nearby river bed. Prior to the attempted take-off, the pilot had made calculations from the performance charts in the aircraft. However, the strip was 100 metres shorter than estimated, and the pilot also incorrectly assessed the take-off weight of the aircraft. Based on the corrected figures, the charts indicated that about 1030 metres would have been required for take-off. The strip being used was only 550 metres in length and, although it had a downslope, it was covered in grass some 20 centimetres high. The long grass had slowed the rate of acceleration of the aircraft and flying speed could not be obtained under the conditions.

Circumstances:

The student pilot was landing the aircraft during his second period of dual instruction on type. Shortly after touchdown the aircraft was struck by a wind gust. Despite corrective action by the instructor, directional control was lost, and the aircraft ran off the runway, substantially damaging the tail boom.

The pilot was returning to collect passengers he had conveyed to the alighting area some hours previously. This area is bordered by steeply rising ground. Because of wind conditions, the pilot was approaching from a different direction to that normally used. About 1.5 kilometres from the alighting area, the aircraft collided with power lines which were about 29 metres above the water level. The collision severed the top portion of the fin and rudder, however the pilot was able to maintain limited control. The aircraft touched down heavily on the left float, after the pilot had taken action to avoid a dinghy in his path. Although the pilot had operated into the alighting area on a number of occasions, he had been unaware of the presence of the power lines struck by the aircraft.

Circumstances:

The aircraft was making a landing approach to runway 03. The pilot reported that the left main gear was indicating an unsafe condition and carried out an overshoot. System checks were carried out without success. An attempt was made to extend the landing gear with the emergency extension system, but the left main gear continued to indicate an unsafe condition. Two flypasts were carried out and the Tower reported the landing gear appeared to be extended normally. With the airport emergency services standing by the aircraft made a normal approach. Shortly after touchdown the left gear collapsed resulting in the aircraft slewing left and departing the runway. The pilot reported that a subsequent examination revealed low hydraulic system pressure may have been a factor in the failure of the landing gear to extend normally.

The pilot reported that while the aircraft was in cruising flight it suddenly began to vibrate heavily. The pilot closed the throttle but the violent vibration continued. The surrounding terrain was generally unsuitable for a forced landing, and in the latter stages of an approach towards a small paddock the right wing struck a tree. The aircraft then dived into the ground and was destroyed. It was subsequently determined that more than half of one of the two propeller blades had separated in flight. The propeller had failed as a result of fatigue cracking. A similar crack was discovered in the other blade. The propeller had only operated for 42 hours total time before the failure occurred. During the approach to land, the pilot's vision was affected by the violent vibration caused by the propeller imbalance. As a result, he was unable to accurately judge his flight path between two trees on the edge of the selected paddock.

The pilot commenced the take-off run while the vehicle was being driven along the left side of the strip. He stated that just after becoming airborne, he had been distracted by some movement to his left. As he looked to the front again, the left main wheel of the aircraft struck a drum on the vehicle and then the vehicle cabin. The aircraft was subsequently landed at the pilot's base strip. It was calculated that the aircraft should have become airborne after a ground roll of about 170 metres. This should have allowed it to be well clear of the vehicle, which at impact was some 640 metres along the strip. The pilot employed an incorrect take-off technique after lift-off which reduced the climb performance of the aircraft.