When the pilot arrived at his planned destination, he was unable to obtain a down and locked indication for the nosewheel. Both normal and emergency means of lowering the gear were employed, but without success. A diversion was made to a more suitable aerodrome, where a safe landing was made with the nosegear retracted. It was determined that the hinge on the left door of the nosegear assembly had seized because of corrosion. On the previous retraction, the door linkages had been forced out of position in such a manner that the gear doors were jammed closed. All required maintenance and inspections had been certified as being completed, and it was not possible to determine how the hinge had become corroded.

A series of demonstration flights had been arranged by the aircraft owner. The weather was clear and sunny, with occasional wind gusts up to about 5 knots. Thermal activity was reported in the area. The pilot was the manufacturer of the aircraft, which was sold in kit form. Although he had considerable experience on the aircraft type, he was not familiar with flight in thermalling conditions. After conducting three short demonstration flights with a passenger on board on each occasion, the pilot arranged with the owner to carry out a solo flight to gain thermalling experience. Witnesses reported that the ground roll appeared to be normal, but the aircraft commenced a turn at about 10 feet above the ground while climbing at an unusually steep angle. After the aircraft had reached a height of about 100 feet the climb angle was seen to steepen further, and shortly afterwards the left wing dropped and the aircraft entered a spin. The rotation ceased after one and a half turns with the aircraft then in a steep nose-down attitude. Recovery from this dive was apparently being made when the aircraft struck the ground. No evidence of any mechanical failure or defect was subsequently found. It was considered probable that the unusually steep climb attitude was the result of either the pilot's wish to demonstrate maximum performance, or the unexpected effects of a thermal. The pitch-up which occurred before the stall and subsequent spin was possibly related to the thermal activity.

Shortly after take-off a loud banging noise was heard from the inboard area of the right wing. The pilot elected to fly a low level circuit and land to investigate the noise. On short final approach heavy sink was encountered, and despite the application of power the aircraft touched down about 100 metres short of the runway. It ran through the airport boundary fence and came to rest near the flight strip with the gear collapsed. Investigation revealed that a section of the door seal had become unstuck and had trailed in the slipstream, beating against the door. The pilot had believed that the aircraft had suffered a serious malfunction and was anxious to land as soon as possible. Her husband, who occupied the right front seat, was a more experienced pilot. However, he did not offer to take control of the aircraft. It was probable that the airspeed during the approach was less than the optimum. When sink was encountered, the power and control inputs which were applied were insufficient to prevent the aircraft striking the ground in a semi-stalled condition.

Circumstances:

The pilot said the preflight engine run-up was normal, although the engine seemed to run roughly with a slight RPM drop when carburettor heat was applied. A take-off was commenced but the pilot did not think engine performance was normal. After becoming airborne the engine ran roughly and lost power. The throttle was closed, and the aircraft was landed straight ahead on the strip remaining. However, the aircraft overran the strip end and collided with a fence. The pilot reported that wasps had nested in the intake ducting whilst the aircraft had been idle and uncovered during the previous few days. The nest had apparently dislodged during the preflight run-up causing eventual power loss after take-off. This accident was not the subject of an on-scene investigation.

Circumstances:

The aircraft was carrying out calibrations of the RAAF Richmond Tacan transmitter and was planned to track out from Richmond on the 143 degree radial for 25 nm, track north-east to intercept the 108 degree radial at a point 25 nm from Richmond then to track inbound to Richmond on the 108 degree radial, flying all legs at 2 000 feet. Toward the end of the outbound leg, the pilot called Sydney Flight Service for clearance to enter the Sydney Control Zone. Before clearance was available, the aircraft penetrated Sydney controlled airspace over Bankstown Aerodrome, causing a breakdown of separation with another aircraft departing Bankstown on a Standard Instrument Departure. The pilot was instructed to call Bankstown Tower, which, after confirming the aircraft's altitude as 2 000 feet, instructed the aircraft to hold over Bankstown until onward clearance was available. The pilot was unaware that the lower limit of the Sydney Control Area was 1 500 feet over Bankstown Aerodrome, believing that the lower limit was 2 000 feet (as it is to the west of Bankstown), and that the aircraft was outside controlled airspace. This incident was not the subject of an on-scene investigation.

During a spray run which involved flight beneath a power line, the pilot lost sight of the supporting poles and assumed he had passed the cable. A pull up was initiated but the fin and rudder struck the cable, which tore about 15 cm from both surfaces. The aircraft remained controllable and a safe landing was subsequently carried out.

Shortly after a normal touchdown directional control problems were experienced and the left wing began to lower. The pilot applied full power and carried out a go around. The pilot advised the tower that the left mainwheel tyre was probably flat, and subsequently positioned the aircraft for another landing. Normal gear down and locked lights were illuminated, however after touchdown the left gear leg began to collapse and the aircraft slewed off the side of the runway. The left gear retracted due to insufficient overcentre action on the side-brace lock. This was compounded by wear in the side-brace centre-pivot. Both of these potential problem areas had been addressed by the aircraft manufacturer in relevant Service Instructions. Compliance with these instructions was not mandatory and the aircraft had not been modified.

The pilot misjudged the height of the aircraft above the ground when he initiated the landing flare. Touchdown occurred at a high rate of descent and the left gear collapsed. The pilot was inexperienced. During the day he had flown for almost 8 hours in Northern Australian summer conditions. Metal fatigue in the left gear oleo casting had reduced its capacity to withstand side load stress.

The pilot was approaching to land into the south. The wind at the time was from the south-west and gusting to about 30 knots. The first half of the strip was sheltered from the wind by a solid line of tall scrub and trees. The aircraft did not touch down when the pilot flared for landing and a go-around was initiated. At a height of about 10 feet and passing abeam of the end of the sheltered area, the aircraft suddenly moved violently to the left. The nose dropped sharply and the nosewheel dragged on the ground for some 10 metres before the pilot was able to continue the go-around. A diversion to a more suitable aerodrome was made, where a post-landing inspection revealed that the nosegear had been bent sideways by the previous ground contact. Because of the turbulent conditions, the pilot had approached at about 10 knots faster than normal. The strip was relatively short and the general crosswind in gusts was probably above the maximum for the type. A post analysis of the weather conditions indicated that wind gusts in excess of 50 knots may have occurred in the area.

Circumstances:

The pilot reported that some tape from the main rotor blades lifted and that the main rotor RPM decayed. A heavy landing ensued in the attempted recovery.