Circumstances:

The pilot was conducting an Instrument Flight Rules flight. Because of a deterioration in the weather at the planned destination, the aircraft was returning to Bankstown. Area forecasts indicated extensive cloud cover with the freezing level in some areas below lowest safe altitude. While cruising at 8000 feet, above cloud, the left engine reduced to about idle power, with the fuel flow decreasing to about five gallons per hour. The pilot carried out a trouble check but was unable to rectify the problem. He was unable to maintain altitude and attempted to feather the left propeller but was unable to move the pitch lever to the feather position. Below lowest safe altitude and having difficulty controlling the aircraft in cloud and turbulence, the pilot decided to make a forced landing as soon as he could see the ground. The aircraft was descended through a hole in the cloud to below the cloud base at 300 - 400 feet above ground level. The pilot selected a small, cleared area for landing. On final approach, he was able to feather the left propeller and also shut down the right engine. During the landing roll, and due to the wet slippery grass, he was unable to prevent the aircraft striking a large rock with the left main gear. The left main gear was torn off by the impact. Subsequent inspection of the left engine revealed a loose connection of the pressure fuel line between the flow divider and injector. The connection was backed off approximately three quarters of a turn. During engine test running, the engine performed normally. However, when the line connector was backed off three quarters of a turn, a substantial spraying fuel leak developed, resulting in the RPM dropping to 1000 and fuel flow decreasing to five gallons per hour. The reason for the loose connection was not established. The propeller feathering function was also normal. It is possible that the fuel leak, which projected towards the pitch control cable in the engine compartment, caused a further lowering of the temperature, resulting in moisture freezing around the cable. When the fuel was turned off and the aircraft descended to a warmer air temperature, the ice thawed, freeing the cable and allowing the pilot to feather the propeller.

Significant Factors:

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

1. The engine lost power due to a loose fuel line connection.

2. The pilot was unable to feather the propeller and, as a consequence, the aircraft was unable to maintain altitude.

3. The pilot was unable to prevent the aircraft striking rocks during the landing run. This accident was not the subject of an on-scene investigation.

Circumstances:

The pilot had planned a short local scenic flight for members of his family. The aircraft was thoroughly preflighted including a physical check of the contents of the fuel tanks. Enroute, the weather deteriorated, and the pilot turned back along his outbound track. He reportedly became stressed due to the weather conditions and with the added anxiety of carrying family members. Approaching the Murray Bridge airstrip, the engine began to run roughly, and the pilot assumed that it was running over rich. By this time, the aircraft was about 500 feet above ground level and just below the clouds. The pilot progressively completed a trouble check as he continued the return flight. In his stressed state, and with little familiarity with the position of the fuel selector, he forgot to include a check of the fuel tank selection and contents. The engine then coughed and stopped abruptly. With little altitude and time to select a forced landing site, the pilot chose the best field available. On final approach, the pilot selected mixture to idle cutoff and turned off the fuel. It was at this point, that the pilot discovered that he had forgotten to change fuel tanks and that the selected fuel tank had run dry. He elected to continue with the approach as he was close to landing. The aircraft landed among rocky outcrops, and the landing gear was torn off. The aircraft skidded about 40 metres before coming to rest.

Significant Factors:

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

1. The decision making of the pilot was effected by stress imposed by the weather conditions and the presence of family members on board.

2. Low total experience of the pilot and lack of familiarity with the aircraft type.

3. Pilot did not properly complete emergency drills in flight.

4. Improper decision to continue flight in adverse weather.

5. Forced landing on unsuitable terrain due to low altitude at which the engine failure occurred. This accident was not the subject of an on-scene investigation.

The pilot was taking off to the west from a 620 metre agricultural airstrip with a load of 420 kilograms of urea. The strip was level and the grass was short. The wind was from the west-north-west at about 5 knots. The pilot used 15 degrees of flap for the takeoff. The engine produced full power. During the takeoff roll initial acceleration seemed normal but then it stagnated. The pilot began dumping the load at about two thirds of the way down the strip. At about 55 to 60 knots indicated airspeed the aircraft became airborne and was about one foot off the ground when it struck a fence. After the accident it was discovered that there was about 200 kilograms of urea still in the hopper despite the dump valve being open. Soon after the accident the company chief pilot inspected the airstrip and discovered that the surface was deceptive. It looked reasonably firm but had been affected by recent very heavy rains. In his opinion the surface would have retarded the takeoff performance about the same as long wet grass. He also believed that the pilot was slow in dumping the load. The Class 2 agricultural pilot was operating under indirect supervision at the time of the accident. This accident was not the subject of a formal on scene investigation.

The pilot made a faster than normal approach for a landing on Runway 28 into a strong, gusty, westerly wind. Just prior to the landing flare, the aircraft encountered windshear and the rate of descent increased rapidly. The aircraft touched down very firmly in a slightly nose low attitude and bounced into the air once before landing heavily on the nose wheel. The nose wheel assembly broke allowing the propeller to strike the ground. Except for three hours, the pilot had done all his flying in a Piper PA28-140 (serial number: 28-11018). One week before the accident the pilot had been endorsed on the PA28-235, which has different performance parameters. The pilot did not attempt a go-around because the windshear and rapid rate of descent occurred so close to the ground that he considered the application of engine power would further aggravate the situation. This accident was not the subject of an on-site investigation.

Circumstances:

The aircraft was engaged on a navigational exercise from Bankstown to Dubbo via Bathurst and return. Due to unfavourable weather, it was decided at Bathurst to return to Bankstown. Approaching Katoomba at 4000 feet, deteriorating weather required a diversion south of track over Lake Burragorang and a descent to 3500 feet. Rich mixture was selected prior to the descent. When cruise power was reinstated at 3500 feet, the engine suffered a substantial loss of power. The instructor took control and carried out a trouble check, which included the selection of carburettor heat, but was unable to prevent a total loss of power. A glide approach was made towards the only cleared area, a road near the lake shore. During the glide, it became apparent the aircraft would not reach the road. The aircraft was ditched into the water, about 10 metres from the shore. All three occupants were able to evacuate the cabin and make their way to the shore. The reason for the engine failure could not be positively established. However, given the high relative humidity at 3500 feet and rich mixture setting, the loss of power was consistent with the effects of carburettor induction icing.

Significant Factors:

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

1. The aircraft was operating in conditions of high relative humidity.

2. The engine was operating at a rich mixture setting.

3. Complete loss of power in flight, probably due to carburettor induction icing.

4. Due to stress of weather, the aircraft was flown over terrain unsuitable for a forced landing.

This accident was not the subject of an on-scene investigation.

The pilot was assisting a ground party in mustering operations. He was pushing a group of bulls some 700 metres from the ground party when they saw the aircraft break away to the West, presumably to chase a breakaway bull. They then heard a dull thud and the noise from the engine of the helicopter stopped suddenly. The helicopter was found some 10 metres from the base of a six metre high dead tree. The pilot was seriously injured in the accident but he was later able to recall that there was, in his opinion, no fault with the aircraft and he had simply flown into the dead tree without seeing it. On site investigation confirmed the tree strike and showed that at the time of the collision, the aircarft was heading in a westerly direction into the low sun and dust . The tree struck by the helicopter was also disguised by another tree behind it. At the time of completing the report, the pilot was still in intensive care and unable to be interviewed.

Circumstances:

During descent into Melbourne a large storm cell was detected 148 kilometres ahead on the aircraft's radar. The Captain turned on the seat belt sign and instructed the Flight Attendants to stow cabin equipment and to be seated. The aircraft was diverted right of track and passed abeam the storm cell by 37 kilometres. With no other weather returns indicating on the radar, a short duration of severe turbulence was suddenly experienced. At the time all passengers were secure in their seat belts, cabin equipment had been stowed, some of the Flight Attendants were seated with seat belts fastened and the remainder intended to secure themselves after performing appropriate cabin duties. During the turbulence encounter two Flight Attendants, who were not as yet seated, were injured. Almost immediately after the turbulence ceased, the oil filter bypass light for the number three engine illuminated. The oil filter bypass drill was carried out and number three engine was shut down. Examination of the Flight Data Recorder showed that the aircraft was flying in smooth conditions for three minutes preceding the onset of severe turbulence which lasted for 11 seconds. Vertical "G" varied from +1.57 to -0.27. Recorded Pitch Attitude values ranged between plus and minus 4 degrees while Roll Attitude values varied up to 10 degrees. Airspeed changed from 304 knots to 284 knots in one second. At the end of the turbulence encounter, smooth conditions were experienced for the rest of the flight. With the weather radar clear and inflight conditions smooth, the crew had no way of predicting the onset of severe turbulence. The illumination of the oil filter bypass light was caused by a loose piece of solder within the oil pressure switch.

Significant Factors:

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

1. The aircraft encountered unforeseen turbulence in flight.

2. A loose piece of solder within a pressure switch gave the pilots a false indication of engine oil filter by-pass. This accident was not the subject of an on-scene investigation.

Circumstances:

The aircraft had departed from Bankstown with full tanks and flown to Gunnedah. After DEPARTURE for the return flight, the pilot was unable to climb to his planned cruising altitude of 7500 feet due to weather and spent some time climbing and descending to avoid cloud. Conditions subsequently improved and he was able to maintain 7500 for a short time. The weather then deteriorated markedly with heavy rain showers and low cloud. The pilot diverted towards the coast but then became unsure of his position. Some time later the engine failed when the fuel in one tank was exhausted. After changing tanks and realising that the fuel gauge indicated less than he expected, the pilot prepared for a precautionary landing on a disused strip. The aircraft was fast on the initial approach and the pilot carried out a go around. On the next approach, the aircraft bounced after touchdown and yawed to the left. The pilot overcorrected and on the second touchdown the aircraft veered to the right, ran off the edge of the strip and over an embankment. Approximately 4 litres of fuel remained in the aircraft tanks. There was no evidence of fuel leakage, and no pre-existing fault was found with the aircraft. It was probable that the apparently higher than expected fuel consumption was due to the erratic nature of the flight combined with the leaning procedure adopted by the pilot.

Significant Factors:

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

1. Precautionary landing due to the weather and low fuel state.

2. The pilot made an improper recovery attempt from a bounced landing.

Circumstances:

The pilot reported that he had completed his pre-landing checks, that he had sighted three green lights prior to landing and that the landing gear had retracted during the landing roll. Ground markings and aircraft damage indicate that the landing gear was in the up position on touchdown and did not retract during the landing roll. A technical inspection of the landing gear did not disclose any fault which might have lead to inadvertent retraction of the gear or failure of the gear to extend when selected down. The flaps had not been extended past 10 degrees during the approach to land. It is most probable that the pilot did not correctly complete the pre-landing checks, and as a result did not select the landing gear down. The reasons why the pilot may have forgotten to extend the landing gear could not be determined.

Significant Factors:

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

1. Possible inattention on the part of the pilot.

2. Failure to extend the landing gear.

After takeoff the aircraft was flown to another property some 25 kilometres away. As the aircraft was circled around the property the pilot noticed that the engine was not delivering full power. He changed the fuel tank selection but this did not restore the lost power. The aircraft gradually lost altitude and the pilot realised it would be necessary to land. On final approach at a height of about 30 feet above the ground the engine failed completely. The aircraft was landed heavily. An inspection of the engine found that it had seized. Earlier in the year the manufacturer had issued an Advisory Circular referring to engine overheating problems with the type and recommending that a modification be incorporated. The modification was to install a cooling fin to the engine to improve the flow of cooling air. The circular also stated that modification kits would be posted out to all owners. The owner/pilot had just received his modification kit but had not fitted it.