The pilot had intended to carry out a scenic flight which would include aerial photography of a property at Merrijig. An enroute landing was not planned, but the pilot subsequently advised that one of his passengers became unwell and a decision was made to land at a grass strip near the property. Take-off from this strip was commenced about 90 minutes later, and the acceleration was reported to be slower than expected. The aircraft was pulled into the air near the end of the strip, but it then descended, ran through two fences and collided with some disused farm machinery. It came to rest in a nearby river bed. Prior to the attempted take-off, the pilot had made calculations from the performance charts in the aircraft. However, the strip was 100 metres shorter than estimated, and the pilot also incorrectly assessed the take-off weight of the aircraft. Based on the corrected figures, the charts indicated that about 1030 metres would have been required for take-off. The strip being used was only 550 metres in length and, although it had a downslope, it was covered in grass some 20 centimetres high. The long grass had slowed the rate of acceleration of the aircraft and flying speed could not be obtained under the conditions.

Circumstances:

The student pilot was landing the aircraft during his second period of dual instruction on type. Shortly after touchdown the aircraft was struck by a wind gust. Despite corrective action by the instructor, directional control was lost, and the aircraft ran off the runway, substantially damaging the tail boom.

The pilot was returning to collect passengers he had conveyed to the alighting area some hours previously. This area is bordered by steeply rising ground. Because of wind conditions, the pilot was approaching from a different direction to that normally used. About 1.5 kilometres from the alighting area, the aircraft collided with power lines which were about 29 metres above the water level. The collision severed the top portion of the fin and rudder, however the pilot was able to maintain limited control. The aircraft touched down heavily on the left float, after the pilot had taken action to avoid a dinghy in his path. Although the pilot had operated into the alighting area on a number of occasions, he had been unaware of the presence of the power lines struck by the aircraft.

Circumstances:

The aircraft was making a landing approach to runway 03. The pilot reported that the left main gear was indicating an unsafe condition and carried out an overshoot. System checks were carried out without success. An attempt was made to extend the landing gear with the emergency extension system, but the left main gear continued to indicate an unsafe condition. Two flypasts were carried out and the Tower reported the landing gear appeared to be extended normally. With the airport emergency services standing by the aircraft made a normal approach. Shortly after touchdown the left gear collapsed resulting in the aircraft slewing left and departing the runway. The pilot reported that a subsequent examination revealed low hydraulic system pressure may have been a factor in the failure of the landing gear to extend normally.

The pilot reported that while the aircraft was in cruising flight it suddenly began to vibrate heavily. The pilot closed the throttle but the violent vibration continued. The surrounding terrain was generally unsuitable for a forced landing, and in the latter stages of an approach towards a small paddock the right wing struck a tree. The aircraft then dived into the ground and was destroyed. It was subsequently determined that more than half of one of the two propeller blades had separated in flight. The propeller had failed as a result of fatigue cracking. A similar crack was discovered in the other blade. The propeller had only operated for 42 hours total time before the failure occurred. During the approach to land, the pilot's vision was affected by the violent vibration caused by the propeller imbalance. As a result, he was unable to accurately judge his flight path between two trees on the edge of the selected paddock.

The pilot commenced the take-off run while the vehicle was being driven along the left side of the strip. He stated that just after becoming airborne, he had been distracted by some movement to his left. As he looked to the front again, the left main wheel of the aircraft struck a drum on the vehicle and then the vehicle cabin. The aircraft was subsequently landed at the pilot's base strip. It was calculated that the aircraft should have become airborne after a ground roll of about 170 metres. This should have allowed it to be well clear of the vehicle, which at impact was some 640 metres along the strip. The pilot employed an incorrect take-off technique after lift-off which reduced the climb performance of the aircraft.

The pilot intended to spray several crops in the same general area and noted that the first crop had power line obstructions. The spraying of this crop was completed except for clean-up runs and the pilot returned to carry out these runs after treating the other crops. On the first run the pilot passed abeam a power pole and thought he had flown under both power lines. However, as he began to pull up at the end of the crop the pilot saw a power line ahead and was unable to prevent the aircraft colliding with it. The aircraft remained controllable and the pilot made a normal landing at the destination strip.

The pilot was spraying a small paddock, to the south east of which the ground rose steeply. All spraying runs were being conducted towards the south east, with the pilot carrying out left hand orbits at the end of each run in order to reposition the aircraft. However, manoeuvring in this manner was taking the aircraft close to houses in a noise sensitive area. The pilot therefore decided to carry out a procedure turn and conduct a run into the north west. About half way around this turn the aircraft lost performance, probably as the result of a downdraft, and then stalled at about 100 feet above the ground. There was insufficient height available for the pilot to effect recovery and the aircraft struck the ground in about a 30 degree nosedown attitude. The pilot subsequently advised that he was aware that downdrafts were likely to be present in the prevailing conditions. However, he had been concerned to avoid the noise sensitive area, and had not considered the possibility of downdrafts as he manoeuvred over rising terrain. When he was attempting to recover from the stall situation, the pilot had not dumped his load because there were valuable animals in the paddock below the aircraft.

About 5 minutes after take-off for a sight-seeing flight, the latches on the cabin door released and the door partially opened. The pilot was distracted by the resulting airflow noise and was concerned that the door may have opened further. An immediate return was made to the departure point, but the pilot then forgot to lower the landing gear before touchdown. The subsequent investigation revealed that the top door latch had probably not been correctly secured before departure. The pilot had not checked the security of the door, but had asked his passenger to make sure the door was closed. The main latch was found to be out of adjustment, such that a firm push could cause the door to spring open. The pilot had not previously experienced a door open in flight situation. He had been unduly anxious to land, and had not completed the pre-landing checks. The noise of the airflow past the door had masked the sound of the gear warning horn. The aircraft is equipped with an automatic gear lowering system, however the handle for this system was in the manual over-ride position.

The pilot advised that during the landing run, he inadvertently selected the landing gear up instead of the flaps. The nose and right gears retracted and the aircraft slid to a halt on the edge of the runway. The landing was the last in the pilot's duty period and he subsequently advised that he had relaxed after achieving a good touchdown in crosswind conditions. For the previous two weeks he had been operating another aircraft type in which the gear and flap selectors were in the opposite locations to those in this aircraft.