The pilot in command estimated that there were approximately 26 gallons of fuel in the tanks before the flight commenced. They intended to conduct exercises in the training area for about 20 minutes, followed by a series of circuits and landings. Shortly after takeoff for the fifth circuit, the engine failed. The pilot in command took control, selected the landing gear down, and attempted to hold the aircraft off the ground until the gear had extended. However, touchdown occurred with the gear only partially extended and the aircraft slid to a halt on the runway. The aircraft had not been refuelled following a flight of 4.8 hours duration. The estimate of the fuel remaining onboard the aircraft was based on the reading from a fuel metre that subsequently proved to be unserviceable. When the engine failed, due to fuel exhaustion, the aircraft had been airborne for 1.1 hours and the exhaustion of the fuel supply was consistent with the flight time since the last refuel.

Shortly after the take-off run was commenced, a large stone was thrown up by the right mainwheel and struck the spray boom. The pilot dumped the load and returned for a landing. The strip was rough and undulating and during the landing roll the aircraft overran a depression and became airborne. The right main gear VEE assembly tube failed in overload when the aircraft subsequently landed heavily. The right wing then struck the ground and the aircraft ground looped. The pilot turned off the electrical system and vacated the aircraft, but shortly afterwards a fire broke out and consumed the aircraft.

Gliding operations during the day had been conducted on Strip 19. On this occasion the pilot planned to approach to that strip but to land on the cross Strip 09, to allow the glider to complete its landing near the club hangar. During the turn onto final approach, to Strip 09, the pilot noticed a tug aircraft apparently making an approach to the same strip. He continued his turn in order to avoid any conflict with the tug, and the aircraft subsequently touched down across Strip 19. It then ran through a ditch before colliding with a fence. The tug pilot stated that he saw the glider and thought that it would land on the left side of Strip 09. The tug aircraft was not fitted with a radio which denied two-way communications between the two aircraft. The two aircraft came into close proximity and the glider lost excessive height as the pilot forgot to retract the airbrakes during the turn to avoid the tug aircraft. The tug pilot continued the approach and landed but the glider pilot was committed to a downwind landing and attempted to land across the other strip.

Shortly after takeoff, the pilot discovered that the aircraft had suffered an electrical failure and he elected to return and land. On selecting the landing gear down, he advised that he felt the aircraft slow down and thought that the gear was extended. No gear position lights were available because of the electrical malfunction. During the landing flare the pilot realised that the aircraft was lower than normal, and applied full power in an attempt to go around. The aircraft settled onto the runway with the gear retracted before the power application was able to take effect. The reason for the electrical failure could not be determined. The pilot was unaware that, although the gear extension system is hydraulically actuated, the hydraulic pump is electrically operated and thus did not function following the electrical failure. This accident was not the subject of an on-site investigation.

The student was receiving training in crosswind take-offs and landings in 5 to 10 knot wind conditions. For the third take-off in the sequence a minimum ground roll technique was employed. The aircraft lifted off in a slightly nose-high attitude but did not appear to be climbing or accelerating. The instructor took control but was unable to improve the aircraft performance and the right wing and maingear collided with a fence. The gear leg was detached, and shortly afterwards the aircraft touched down in the paddock beyond the fence. The nosegear collapsed and the aircraft slid sideways to a halt. No defect could be found with the aircraft which may have contributed to the accident. Neither the instructor nor the student had noted the engine rpm or the indicated airspeed prior to, or at lift-off. It would appear that the airspeed at lift-off was lower than the recommended speed and that the nose high attitude subsequently maintained prevented acceleration to gain adequate flying speed. Prior to take-off the wind direction was seen to be varying and it is possible that a slight downwind component may have affected the performance of the aircraft.

The pilot was aware of powerlines associated with the treatment area. He had completed spraying one area, and while waiting for the markers to move to the next area he completed two short runs in the vicinity of the powerlines. He became agitated at the length of time it took the markers to get into position, and when he commenced the first long run he had forgotten about a powerline which crossed his flight path. The upper section of the fin struck the wire, resulting in control difficulties for the pilot. He decided to land ahead rather than attempt to return to the authorised landing area. The aircraft passed through two fences before coming to rest nose down in a gully. There is evidence that the pilot was fatigued. This accident was not the subject of an on-site investigation.

The pilot was approaching to land in what he believed were light wind conditions. As he crossed the threshold he realised that there was a tailwind component, but elected to continue the approach. Touchdown occurred with about 415 metres of the strip remaining. During the landing roll the pilot became concerned that the aircraft would not stop before the boundary fence, and a ground loop was attempted. The left maingear collapsed as the aircraft came to rest 103 metres from the end of the runway. The landing attempt had been made in 12 to 15 knot downwind conditions. The pilot had assessed the wind direction from the smoke emitted by nearby power stations. He had not noticed the direction indicated by the two windsocks at the aerodrome. It was likely that the pilot was mentally fatigued following a long and difficult day at his workplace, and he may have been pre-occupied with business matters which were related to the reason for the particular flight.

The pilot held a Student Licence as issued by the AUF. During a landing approach the aircraft overshot the intended touchdown point. It subsequently ran off the end of the strip and collided with a tree. It was reported that the student was not being supervised by an instructor at the time of the accident. The reason he apparently misjudged the approach was not determined.

Prior to DEPARTURE, the pilot had been made aware of a Notam advising pilots to disregard temporary displaced threshold markings for runway 27 at the destination. During the subsequent approach the pilot noticed red and white lighting, and associated this with the displaced threshold. It was his intention to land beyond these lights, which were in fact the runway approach lights. Very late in the approach the pilot realised he was too low, but before power could be applied the aircraft struck the lights, 180 metres short of the runway. The maingear legs were torn off and the nosegear collapsed before the aircraft slid to a halt on the side of the runway. The pilot had been confused by the Notam relating to the displaced threshold, but had not sought clarification prior to DEPARTURE. He had limited night flying experience and was unfamiliar with the presentation of High Intensity Approach Lighting. It was evident that during the approach he had focussed his attention on these lights, to the exclusion of the runway lighting.

The pilot had conducted a soaring flight for an hour in particularly turbulent conditions. The subsequent landing was conducted with a light crosswind from the right. The pilot misjudged the flare, and the aircraft ballooned to a height of about 15 feet, while veering to the left. The pilot then retracted the air brakes and the glider subsequently struck the ground heavily in a slight nosedown attitude. This had been the longest flight undertaken by the pilot, and the weather conditions probably resulted in stress and fatigue. The landing flare had been made with rapid, rather than progressive, control movements. The pilot had then lost directional control, and while he was attempting to regain a normal glide attitude the aircraft had struck the ground in a shallow dive.