Circumstances:

The pilot had continued gliding at altitude despite deteriorating weather conditions. When he returned to the circuit, he found that a strong wind was blowing. During the approach to land the pilot found that he had to hold a heading up to 45 degrees off runway heading to counter the right crosswind. After flaring to land the glider drifted and weather-cocked. It came to rest after passing through a barbed wire fence.

The pilot had completed an endorsement on the aircraft type two days previously, and intended to carry out a series of circuits with touch and go landings to consolidate his training. During the landing roll following the first touchdown, the pilot inadvertently retracted the landing gear when he attempted to raise the flaps. The aircraft slid to a halt on the runway. The instructor who had carried out the endorsement training was not aware that it was company policy to prohibit the conduct of touch and go landings for solo operations in retractable gear aircraft. He had therefore not briefed the pilot on this matter. The pilot stated that during his circuit training in the aircraft, which consisted of a series of touch and go landings, the instructor had raised the flaps after each touchdown. The pilot had only limited exposure to retractable landing gear aircraft types with the gear and flap controls laid out in a similar fashion to this particular aircraft.

At the conclusion of the dual training segment of the flight the instructor decided to demonstrate a forced landing sequence. Descent was continued to a very low height, and during the go-around the aircraft struck a fence at the approach end of the selected paddock. Control was maintained and a safe landing was subsequently carried out at the destination aerodrome.

Circumstances:

The aircraft was making a crosswind landing on runway 22. The pilot reported that as the aircraft was touching down on the main wheels it was struck by a strong gust, blowing it from the centreline. Because grassed areas were available, the pilot did not attempt to regain the centreline. The aircraft continued to diverge from the runway until it struck a ditch.

The pilot reported that during the initial run over a treatment area, the aircraft struck a power line. The wire deflector folded on impact, allowing the wire to slip between the fin and rudder. The mass balance and the top of the rudder were torn off, but the pilot was able to maintain control and carry out a safe landing.

The pilot reported that a single power line was strung diagonally across the treatment area. A number of runs had been conducted under the wire. At about the mid-span of the wire between the supporting poles, the aircraft struck the wire. The wire deflector failed, allowing the wire to slip between the fin and rudder. The mass balance and the top of the rudder were severed, but the pilot maintained control and subsequently landed without further incident.

The pilot reported that as the aircraft became airborne, he noticed a loss of engine power and believed the aircraft may have touched the ground after the landing gear was selected up. He was subsequently unable to obtain a gear down and locked indication, although the gear appeared to ground observers to be fully extended. During the landing roll the right main gear collapsed. The right gear did not fully retract or extend because of damage sustained by the retraction mechanism, probably as a result of ground contact after the down lock had been released. The engine power loss was probably caused by an intermittent breakdown of one magneto, and/or a partial blockage of fuel injector nozzles by particles of corrosion from a fitting on the manifold valve.

Circumstances:

The aircraft took off, made one circuit of the field, and was flying parallel to the take-off direction at approximately 250 ft when it was observed to dive almost vertically into the ground. The engine was operating at a high-power setting at impact, and no faults were found with the aircraft which may have been factors in the accident. The factors which led to the loss of control could not be determined.

Circumstances:

The trainee pilot was undergoing initial endorsement training on the type. After landing on runway 29 with a slight tailwind component, the aircraft continued across the runway 36 complex at a relatively fast taxi speed. The pilot commenced a left turn and the aircraft nosewheel entered an area of soft dirt and collapsed. The instructor advised that the aircraft was not fitted with dual brakes.

The aircraft was engaged on a charter flight from Adelaide to Moomba and Dullingari. The flight from Adelaide to Moomba was without incident and after landing the pilot parked the aircraft adjacent to the refuelling cabinets. He then assisted the passengers from the aircraft and removed baggage from the nose locker. During this period a conversation took place between the pilot and the aircraft refueller. The exact content of that conversation could not positively be determined but it appears that the pilot did not specify the type of fuel to be placed in the aircraft, only which tanks were to be fuelled. As the refueller was fuelling the aircraft, the pilot accompanied his passengers to the airport terminal. When the fuelling was completed the pilot returned, with his passengers, to the aircraft. He signed the fuel release note which showed that 263 litres of Jet A-1 (Aviation turbine fuel) had been supplied, then completed a check of the aircraft's fuel tanks to ensure no water was present in the fuel. The pilot reported that the fuel sample taken was free of water and appeared to him to be the normal fuel used by the PA-31 aircraft, AVGAS (Aviation Gasoline). The pilot and the passengers then boarded the aircraft, the engines were started and the aircraft taxied for a DEPARTURE on runway 12. During the taxiing phase the pilot completed the pre-take-off checks, these including a check that the temperatures and pressure relevant to the operation of the engine were within limits. The pilot subsequently advised that the take-off was normal and after the landing gear was raised, engine power was reduced to the standard settings for the climb. However, at about 500 feet above ground level the pilot sensed a loss of performance and noted that the indicated airspeed was 115 knots, 5 knots lower than normal. He then noticed a further decay in airspeed, accompanied by the onset of engine surging and rough running. He was unable to diagnose the cause of the loss of performance and commenced a turn back towards the aerodrome. Shortly after entering the turn the right hand engine began to misfire and feathering action was initiated for the propeller. At about this time the indicated airspeed had reduced to 85 knots, the aircraft had developed a high rate of sink and the pilot realised that impact with the ground was imminent. The aircraft initially struck the ground with the right wing, then the nose section before the fuselage made heavy contact in a flat attitude, sliding about 45 metres before coming to rest. The aircraft caught fire during the impact sequence and was completely burnt out. The pilot and two of the passengers escaped from the wreckage but attempts to assist the third passenger were thwarted by the fire. The investigation established that JET-A1 fuel had been added to the fuel tanks of VH-DVX, and of the total fuel in the tank approximately 68 percent was JET-A1 fuel. The type of engine fitted to VH-DVX is not compatible with the use of JET-A1 fuel.