On a flight from Coolangatta to Bonshaw, the pilot identified the Authorised Landing Area (ALA) by spotting a white utility vehicle which he had been assured would be waiting for him. After he landed he found this was not the ALA he had been looking for. After obtaining new directions from the driver of the utility, he inspected the paddock by driving the vehicle the full 1000m length available. During the subsequent takeoff the aircraft had accelerated to about 45 knots, when it encountered some undulations. This retarded its progress, but the pilot forced it into the air in ground effect. The aircraft did not accelerate further in the nose high attitude and sank back onto the ground. It overran the takeoff area and struck a boundary fence. Apparently the pilot had used two stages of flap for the takeoff attempt and had not availed himself of options to use a more suitable takeoff direction or off-load his passengers. His original destination was only a short distance away to the south-west.

A report was received from a pilot industrial organization alleging that a passenger travelling on the flight deck of the aircraft had witnessed a dangerous approach and landing into Brisbane Airport. The aircraft reportedly held south of Brisbane for some time due to thunderstorms before flying a right circuit to Runway 19. The aircraft was reported to have been flown at at bank angles of up to sixty degrees during the base turn to have had a rate of descent of up to 2500 feet per minute on final approach and to have landed half way along the runway. This information was received at 1430 hours on 8 November 1989. On the morning of 9 November 1989 the passenger contacted the Bureau and confirmed the above details. He added also that the cockpit audio warning "sink rate" was sounding on final approach that there was a tailwind of 60 knots during the base turn and that the aircraft touched down at 175 knots - 30 knots higher than he believed was the planned speed. A report from the aircraft captain indicated that the approach was flown in adverse weather conditions with several thunderstorms in the vinicity of Brisbane. He stated that an angle of bank of thirty degrees had been used during the turn onto final. He advised that because of the conditions he had decided to use an airspeed that was 20 knots in excess of normal reference airspeed of 134 knots during the approach. The Captain acknowledged that on final approach the aircraft was above the normal glideslope because he had turned onto final approach early to avoid a thunderstorm. However he stated that at no time during the entire approach did the sink rate exceed 1500-1800 feet per minute and the sink rate warning did not sound. The aircraft touched down 2000 feet along the runway and was turned from the runway onto the taxiway at a point where approximately 3000 feet of runway remained. Following the initial notification of the report steps were taken to obtain the flight data recorder from the aircraft. However because almost two days had elapsed since the time of the occurrence and its notification to the Bureau data from the flight in question had been overwritten and was no longer available. The only factual information available for analysis was recorded radar data from the Brisbane Air Traffic Control Radar. Analysis of this data showed the average groundspeed on downwind to have been 189 knots. Groundspeed early in the base turn was 197 knots. This decreased to 138 knots late in the turn. Groundspeed on final approach was 141 knots. The average angle of bank during the base turn was calculated to have been 28 degrees and the average rate of descent on final approach was 1240 feet per minute. On the basis of the factual information available the passenger's report cannot be substantiated.

Following receipt of advice that the aircraft had failed to return from a no-sar, no-details flight, searchers found the wreckage washed up on the edge of a lake. A power line 20 metres above the lake surface and about 1.5 km from the wreckage had been de-braided over a two metre length. The aircraft had struck the power line, which severed the right canard, a section of the right wing and the propeller blades. The aircraft struck the water and the main wreckage floated to the shore of the lake. The investigation did not reveal any fault with the aircraft that could have contributed to the accident and no operational reasons could be found for the aircraft having been flown at low level over the lake.

Circumstances:

The aircraft was engaged in glider towing operations. The pilot was conducting an engine run-up prior to take-off when the aircraft was struck by a strong gust of wind, about 45 degrees from the prevailing direction. The aircraft tipped forward onto its nose, damaging the propeller. As club members came to assist the pilot, they pushed the aircraft, causing structural damage as it fell back heavily onto its tail.

At the conclusion of spraying operations the pilot initiated a climb enroute to his destination. Almost immediately, the engine failed completely and the pilot was committed to a landing in a barley crop. During the landing roll the nosewheel was broken off and the aircraft overturned. The aircraft was at about 100 feet agl when the engine failed and the most suitable area available required that the landing be made downhill on a soft surface. A skid to the right after touchdown caused the nosegear to fail. The cause of the engine power loss could not be established.

At about 0200 hours, the owner and a passenger boarded the aircraft for a local flight. A resident heard it take off and saw the aircraft lights in the circuit area. He also noted that the runway lights were illuminated. A go-around was made on the first approach and the aircraft was landed after another circuit. A take off was carried out in the opposite direction and shortly after becoming airborne the aircraft struck the ground. Fire broke out and engulfed the wreckage. It was not possible to determine which of the occupants were manipulating the controls at the time of the accident. Neither person was qualified to operate the aircraft. Post mortem examinations revealed that both persons had high blood alcohol levels.

An inter-club fly-in had been organised at the private airstrip. The club secretary who had organised the meeting had expressed an interest in aerobatics, and arranged to accompany the pilot on a demonstration flight. A series of aerobatic manoeuvres, judged by the witnesses to be of a relatively poor standard, were completed between about 1500 and 3000 feet above ground level. The aircraft was then observed to overfly the aerodrome at about 300 feet agl and enter what appeared to be a roll. When the aircraft reached the inverted attitude, its nose was well below the horizon and the roll was not continued. The nose then lowered further as a "pull-through" manoeuvre was apparently attempted, however the aircraft impacted the ground at high speed before level flight could be regained. Subsequent investigation indicated that the aircraft and its control systems had been serviceable prior to impact with the ground. The pilot was neither approved nor sufficiently experienced to perform aerobatics at a low level and it is probable that on this occasion his actions were influenced by the presence of the group assembled on the ground.

The pilot reported that, during approach to the 765 metre wet grass strip, the wind appeared to change to a tailwind. The mainwheels struck a concrete sea wall which marks the threshold, both tyres burst and the landing gear legs were damaged. Directional control problems were experienced during the landing and a go-around was carried out, with the aircraft becoming airborne just before the far end of the strip. The pilot was not aware that any damage had occurred until the gear would not retract. A diversion to an alternate aerodrome was conducted and the left main gear leg collapsed on landing. The strip at the original destination was too short for normal operation of the heavily laden aircraft. Because of this, and the wet surface, the pilot had approached at a lower than recommended airspeed, aiming to land close to the threshold. He had been unable to arrest the sink rate which developed in the final stages of the approach.

Whilst on cruise at 1000 feet agl, the helicopter experienced a sudden loss of power. The pilot carried out an autorotative landing on river mud flats. During the landing the tail rotor struck the water. The transmission of the helicopter failed after the disintegration of the planetary gears which was caused by fatigue cracking. Fatigue cracks were found in several sections of the remaining gear fragments and it was not possible to determine the exact origin of the final failure.

Circumstances:

The pilot was flying at 1500 feet above ground level with the fuel selector set for the right fuel tank when the engine stopped. The right fuel gauge was reading near empty, but the reading was fluctuating due to gusty inflight weather conditions. The left tank had already been run dry in an effort to achieve maximum endurance. Based on past fuel burn off rates and elapse time since the last refuel, the pilot believed that his 45-minute fixed reserve was still available despite the low fuel gauge reading. When the engine stopped the pilot selected the boost pump on. The engine restarted for a few seconds before stopping again. He turned the aircraft to the most suitable paddocks where he became committed to a downwind forced landing. During the landing roll the right flap was damaged by a steel fence post. After the landing, the pilot saw fuel stains on the left wing near the fuel cap. Fuel had vented overboard in flight past a faulty fuel cap seal.