Circumstances:

The aircraft was spreading superphosphate when it struck a powerline at a height of about 200 feet above ground level. The aircraft struck the line with the main landing gear legs, and although the wire slid up the cutting edges, it was not severed by the cutters but snapped near a pole supporting the span. The wire then slashed around the aircraft until it cleared itself from the airframe after which the pilot discovered that he was only able to turn the aircraft to the left. He carried out an immediate forced landing. The powerline was suspended across a gully via a 470 metre span. The pilot was aware of the line having flown over it on several previous occasions. The pilot stated that, as the line was extremely difficult to see, he had been judging his clearance by reference to the poles at either end of the span. At the time of the strike the pilot's attention was distracted by difficulty in starting the superphosphate running correctly and by concentration on three other sets of wires.

Significant Factors:

The following factors were considered relevant to the development of the accident:

1. The power line that the aircraft hit was very difficult to see from the aircraft.

2. The pilot's attention was distracted.

Circumstances:

The flight from Orchid Beach was to transport three passengers to Hervey Bay where they were booked on a scheduled flight departing at 1215 hours. The aircraft arrived at Orchid Beach at about 1200 hours, and the pilot hastily loaded the aircraft and departed. The take-off appeared to be normal. The aircraft was seen to make a right turn at about 250 feet above the ground, level with a ridge to the southwest of the aerodrome. The turn was made abruptly, with about 45 degrees of bank. Witnesses then saw the bank angle reduce, and at the same time the aircraft began to lose height. The aircraft was last seen when it was diving in a 45 degree nose down attitude. The aircraft impacted the ground near the base of the ridge. The impact angle was 58 degrees below the horizontal, with a bank angle of 118 degrees and an aircraft speed at impact of approximately 80 knots. No defects were found with the aircraft that may have contributed to the development of the accident. The wind at the time was easterly at about 35 knots, and this would have generated considerable mechanical turbulence in the vicinity of the aerodrome due to the local topography. The behaviour of the aircraft during the moments preceding impact was consistent with a stall leading to loss of control. The wind conditions, excessive bank angle, and control manipulation may have all been contributory.

Significant Factors:

The following factors were considered relevant to the development of the accident:

1. The pilot was in a hurry to depart and did not climb to a safe height before making a turn downwind in turbulent wind conditions.

2. The pilot apparently did not maintain sufficient airspeed for continued flight under the prevailing circumstances.

Circumstances:

The student pilot was carrying out a touch-and-go landing on his first solo flight. He stated that soon after touchdown the aircraft swerved to the left of the runway centreline and did not respond to his efforts to correct the situation. The aircraft left the runway and travelled for some distance across the grass verge before demolishing a fibreglass boundary marker. The nose gear then separated as the aircraft came to a halt against the bank of a drainage ditch, approximately a hundred metres from the runway. The pilot stated that the aircraft speed was between 70 and 75 knots at touchdown. He said that as soon as the aircraft had settled onto the runway, he retracted the flaps and was in the process of advancing the throttle for take-off when the aircraft veered to the left. Examination of the tyre marks showed that the aircraft was wheelbarrowing and skidding sideways when it left the runway. The elevator trim was found positioned approximately midway between the neutral and the nose down position.

Significant Factors:

The following factors were considered relevant to the development of the accident

1. The pilot was inexperienced.

2. The pilot mishandled the flying controls and caused the aircraft to wheelbarrow.

3. The pilot lost directional control of the aircraft.

On completion of a rest period, the pilot flew the aircraft to the first destination of an afternoon bank run schedule. Pre-landing checks were completed prior to turning onto final and the landing gear was confirmed to be down and locked. Shortly after touchdown, the nose of the aircraft contacted the runway. The nose landing gear was fully retracted and the nose gear doors were closed. An inspection of the aircraft immediately following the accident revealed that the main landing gear doors were partially open and the side braces were unlocked. When electrical power was supplied the braces locked into position and the doors closed. The aircraft was then raised and the nose landing gear was observed to cycle to the down and locked position. No defect was found which could have contributed to the accident. Evidence indicated that it was likely that early in the landing roll the pilot had inadvertently selected the gear up.

Circumstances:

The pilot, who was relatively inexperienced, was engaged in pasture spraying, operating from an airstrip located on the property being sprayed. He had been on duty approximately seven hours when commencing his nineteenth flight. After take-off, the pilot initiated a shallow climbing turn onto a southerly heading, affording himself little time in which to review his flight pattern before gaining alignment for the spray run. He began spraying at tree height until the area became sufficiently open to permit descent to about one metre above ground level. Approaching the fence which formed the southern boundary of the treatment area, the pilot initiated a climbing turn to the right, to follow a "racetrack" pattern. Soon after commencing the turn the pilot realised that the aircraft could not climb fast enough to maintain clearance from the hill beginning on the southern side of the treatment area. The pilot dumped the hopper load, and with full throttle attempted to turn across the face of the hill. The aircraft mushed onto the hillside, coming to rest 41 metres from the initial impact and 150 metres from the fence pull-up point. A left turn following pull-up would have taken the aircraft over lower terrain.

Significant Factors:

The following factors were considered relevant to the development of the accident:

1. The pilot turned toward terrain, the gradient of which exceeded the performance capability of the aircraft.

2. The pilot gave himself insufficient time for adequate flight review.

3. The pilot may have been subject to some skill fatigue.

The pilot said that the touchdown was slightly heavy. The aircraft bounced, and after the second touchdown the pilot retracted the flaps. He said that after a short ground roll, directional control was lost, initiated by nosewheel shimmying. The aircraft ran off the right side of the runway. Directional control was regained but by this time the aircraft was heading some 60` off runway heading, pointing at low sandhills at the boundary of the aerodrome. The pilot attempted a go-around to miss the terrain. The aircraft failed to outclimb the sandhill and came to rest some 370 metres from the strip. This accident was not the subject of an on-site investigation.

Circumstances:

The pilot had hired the aircraft to fly some friends to the Birdsville races. His only previous experience on the PA-32-260 was a one hour check flight two days prior to the accident, carried out with an instructor from the hiring company. The pilot reported that during his preflight inspection on the day of the accident, he had found water in fuel samples from all four fuel tank drains. After submitting his flight plan, he carried out a further water drain check to ensure that no water remained in the tanks. After he was satisfied, the aircraft was boarded and a normal DEPARTURE from Archerfield was accomplished.

The aircraft was climbed to 4500 feet enroute to Charleville, where a refuelling stop was planned. The pilot stated that he had leaned the mixture during the climb, and after levelling off he noticed that the aircraft was not performing as well as he had expected. He also noticed that the engine temperature indications were at the high end of the normal range. Approaching north of Toowoomba, the pilot became increasingly concerned about the performance of the engine, and was contemplating a diversion to Oakey, which was visually ahead and on track.

The pilot stated that he had changed from the left main tank to the right main tank at about this time, and shortly afterwards the engine stopped. He carried out checks and attempted to restart the engine without success. During the subsequent forced landing in mountainous terrain, the aircraft struck a tree which tore off the left wing, and the aircraft overturned before coming to rest in a clear area. The engine was subsequently placed in a test rig, and with only minor preparation, the engine was started and ran normally.

The fuel system on this aircraft is fitted with an engine driven fuel pump, and two electric pumps connected in parallel. The electric pumps are controlled by a single switch and are used if the engine driven pump fails. The manufacturer also recommends their use during take-off, landing, and while making fuel tank selections to ensure constant fuel flow to the engine. One of the electric fuel pumps was found to be inoperative, but it is not considered that this would have contributed to the engine failure.

The fuel pump switch was found in the on position at the accident site, and the pilot does not recollect turning it off after DEPARTURE from Archerfield. It is therefore likely that at least one of the pumps was operating when the fuel selection was made, prior to the engine malfunction. It is not known when the electric fuel pump failure occurred. The engine manufacturer recommends that the engine should not be leaned below 5000 feet at power settings above 75 per cent power.

Leaning within this area increases engine operating temperatures. The high engine temperatures that the pilot observed may have led to fuel vaporisation. The incorporation of the electric fuel pumps is to assist in purging the fuel system in these circumstances, and the unserviceability of one of these pumps may have prolonged the restoration of normal fuel flow to the engine. The aircraft had not been flown prior to 30 August 1989 since 14 June 1989. On 30 August, the aircraft flew one hour on the check flight, on the left main tank and no fuel tank selections were made.

As far as is known, the next time the fuel selection was changed, was just prior to the engine failure. The possibility exists that air or water may have been present in the system when the pilot selected the right main tank. The pilot was not aware of the existence of the fuel sump drain, and as a result had not carried out the correct water drain procedure during his preflight inspection. No evidence of water was found in the fuel system after the accident, but the aircraft came to rest inverted, and any water present may have escaped.

The investigation did not reveal any defect with the engine or the airframe fuel system that may have contributed to the engine failure. From the available information, it is considered that a possible cause of the engine failure was fuel vaporisation and water or air contamination in the fuel system, which could not be purged in the time available before the aircraft struck the ground. The nature of the terrain, and the altitude of the aircraft when the engine failed, precluded the pilot from reaching a suitable forced landing area.

Significant Factors:

The following factors were considered relevant to the development of the accident:

1. The pilot had only limited experience on the aircraft type.
2. The engine failed due to reasons which could not be positively determined. The most likely cause was an interruption of normal fuel supply to the engine, and power was unable to be restored before the aircraft reached the ground.
3. The pilot was committed to a forced landing on unsuitable terrain.

The purpose of the flight was to despatch 60kg of Buffle seed and 50kg of Sorghum seed. When the aircraft returned to the strip, a light NE wind was blowing, favouring a landing on strip 07. The pilot intending to avoid a slightly damp area at the Eastern end of the strip, decided to land the aircraft at the threshold. The aircraft touched down several metres short of the threshold and the right maingear was torn out when the wheel struck a low windrow. The aircraft continued for some 260 metres along the 1000 metre strip and came to rest to the right of the strip close to a bordering spoon drain. The pilot in his endeavour to land at the threshold misjudged the touchdown point and struck rough ground short of his aiming point.

Circumstances:

A party of people comprising five pilots and the family of one of the pilots left Shepparton on Friday 9th November in two aircraft. They intended using their destination, Milparinka, as a base for further flying over the weekend. On Saturday and Sunday mornings, both aircraft were observed engaged in low flying activities. On Sunday afternoon, a discussion amongst a number of the pilots centred around streamer cutting and flour bombing activities. As a result, two of the pilots were keen to try their hand at flour bombing and packed four packs of flour for the exercise. The aircraft subsequently took off with one of the local residents occupying the front right seat and the other pilot in the rear seat directly behind the pilot-in-command. On the first bombing pass, the aircraft flew past the hotel at about 50 feet above ground level. One pack of flour was dropped from the pilot's storm window. The pack struck the ground some 70 metres beyond the hotel. Witnesses reported that on the second pass the aircraft was slow and even lower than on the previous pass. When the aircraft was in front of the hotel, they saw that the two pilots were trying to push a pack of flour out of the storm window, where it had apparently become jammed. The aircraft then pulled up and entered a steeply banked turn left. The left wing struck the roof of the courthouse which is located 100 metres beyond the hotel. The impact buckled the left wing tip and bent the outboard two metres of wing up at an angle of approximately ten degrees. The left bank gradually increased to in excess of 90 degrees, and the aircraft turned through 180 degrees before striking trees. It cartwheeled, crashed upside down in a dry riverbed and caught fire. The first people on the scene were unable to assist the occupants.

Significant Factors:

The following factors were considered relevant to the development of the accident:

1. The pilot exercised poor judgement in attempting a low-level flour bombing operation. The investigation into this accident was terminated when it became apparent that further work would not disclose any new safety enhancement information.

Circumstances:

For several days, the pilot had been giving flying instruction to the aircraft owner operating from an airstrip located in a valley on the owner's property. The strip was aligned in an east - west direction with a downhill slope to the west. Wind conditions had been such that take-offs were being made towards the west with right hand circuits to the north so as to operate over the lowest surrounding terrain. The pilot was aware of a power line running from east to west parallel to the airstrip situated on a ridge about 700 metres to the north which the aircraft could remain well clear of while flying parallel to it on the downwind leg of the circuit. On the day of the accident the pilot had arranged to take another person for a familiarisation flight. The wind had changed to an easterly at about 10 knots, so the take-off was conducted uphill. This required a longer climb out before the pilot could commence a left hand circuit to again operate north of the airstrip. He turned onto the downwind leg when about 120 -150 feet above ground level at approximately the same distance from the airstrip extended centre line as before. The circuit area was now displaced to the east where unbeknown to the pilot the power line changed direction by about 20 degrees to the south. After turning onto the downwind leg, the pilot noticed the power line converging towards him from his right. Although evasive action was taken it was too late to prevent the right hand wing from contacting the power line resulting in loss of control and the aircraft dived into the ground. The pilot reported that the aircraft had been operating normally before colliding with the power line. This accident was not the subject of an on-scene.

Significant Factors:

The following factors were considered relevant to the development of the accident:

1. The pilot had not made himself familiar with the location of the power line.

2. The power line was obscured by trees to the east of the airstrip.

3. The pilot failed to see the power line in time to prevent a collision.