The pilot was operating from an agricultural landing area. During the takeoff run the left mainwheel struck a vehicle tyre, that was being used as a strip marker. The tyre was flung into the air and struck the left stabilator causing it to jam in about the neutral position. As there was insufficient strip remaining to land the aircraft and bring it safely to a halt, the pilot decided to continue with the takeoff. The pilot subsequently landed the aircraft in a paddock three kilometres from the point of DEPARTURE. During the landing roll the aircraft struck a fence. The pilot had commenced the takeoff from the left side of the strip because the centre area was rough. The tyre struck by the aircraft was difficult to see as the white paint on it had worn off, and it was partly obscured by clumps of long grass.

On arrival in the circuit area, the pilot assessed the wind to be from the south-west at 10 knots. He elected to land downwind, as the strip sloped slightly uphill to the north-east. Touchdown occurred about halfway along the strip, and the pilot was unable to bring the aircraft to a stop in the distance remaining. The aircraft collided with a fence and came to rest 60 metres beyond the end of the strip. The strip was undulating, with the slope in the landing direction varying from 2 up to 1.5 down. The average upslope was in the order of 1 , and the pilot evidently misjudged the effect this slope would have on a landing in downwind conditions. The aircraft crossed the threshold slightly higher than the pilot desired, and it floated for a considerable distance under the influence of the tailwind. After touchdown, the pilot was reluctant to carry out a go-around because of the slope.

The pilot was conducting the last leg of a competition flight when he realised that an outlanding would probably be necessary. However, he was able to reach a point about 3 kilometres from the destination aerodrome, and while manoeuvring towards the selected paddock he considered he could in fact reach the aerodrome. The planned outlanding attempt was abandoned, but approaching the aerodrome boundary the pilot realised he was too low, and decided to land in a stubble paddock. During the turn onto final approach the left wing tip contacted the stubble and the glider struck the ground heavily. The pilot had delayed making an outlanding because of his desire to complete the competition. Wind conditions were calm, and the pilot could have conducted a straight-in approach to the stubble paddock, thus avoiding a turn at very low height above the ground. The pilot had been airborne for nearly 5 hours, and it was possible that he was affected by fatigue.

The pilot hired the aircraft privately from his employer to conduct a holiday flight during his leave. The journey commenced at Moorabbin on 25 August and the aircraft arrived at Cairns about midday 30 August, after stopovers at Coolangatta and Proserpine. The pilot and his passengers then spent the next three days at leisure in the Cairns area. On the day of the accident, the pilot attended the Cairns Briefing Office where he collected the relevant weather forecasts and submitted a flight plan. The flight plan indicated that the flight would be conducted in accordance with Instrument Flight Rules. It contained a deficiency in that no details were given for the first route segment from Cairns to Biboohra. It is apparent that the pilot had not noticed that the tracks to the west of Cairns, on the relevant enroute chart, emanate from Biboohra and not Cairns. There was no track line which joined Cairns and Biboohra. Such a line might have alerted the pilot at the time he planned the flight. The error in the flight plan was not detected when the plan was submitted. When the pilot was issued with an airways clearance prior to DEPARTURE it was apparent that he did not understand the terms of the clearance, which gave the initial tracking point as Biboohra. The location of this point was explained to the pilot and he subsequently accepted the clearance. He elected to depart using visual procedures, after being offered a choice of these or the published Standard Instrument DEPARTURE profile. A visual DEPARTURE from the particular runway in use allows an aircraft proceeding towards Biboorha to intercept the required track sooner than is possible with an instrument DEPARTURE. The aircraft was issued with takeoff instructions which included clearance for the pilot to make a right turn after takeoff. Witnesses observed that the aircraft complied with this clearance and headed in a south-westerly direction before turning to the north-west and subsequently entering cloud. The cloud base was estimated to be between 2000 and 2500 feet above mean sea level. No further communications were received from the aircraft and a search was commenced that afternoon. The search effort was hampered by the weather and the wreckage was not located until the following afternoon. Inspection of the wreckage indicated that the aircraft struck the the top of a ridge line, 250 metres south-west of the highest point of the Mt Williams area. At the time, the aircraft was on a west-north-westerly heading, flying wings level and climbing at a angle of about five degrees. No fault was found with the aircraft that could have contributed to the occurrence. At the time the aircraft entered cloud, the pilot should have reverted to Instrument Flight Rules procedures. To comply with these procedures a pilot is required, inter alia, to ensure that adequate terrain clearance is achieved during climb to the lowest safe altitude. The relevant altitude for the route segment Cairns to Biboohra is 4500 feet above mean sea level (amsl). As the aircraft was apparently under control at the time of impact with the ground at about 3250 feet amsl, it was likely that the pilot had overlooked the lowest safe altitude requirements.

The aircraft was engaged on a multi-sector flight for the purpose of transporting bank documents. After the pilot completed normal pre-landing checks the aircraft made an apparently normal touchdown on runway 05. During the subsequent landing roll the undercarriage commenced to retract, resulting in the left main and nose gear legs collapsing. The aircraft skidded for a short distance before coming to rest 10 metres beyond the runway edge. No evidence was found of a pre-existing fault in the undercarriage system. It was considered probable the gear was inadvertently selected up whilst the pilot was attempting to raise the flaps during the landing ground roll.

The pilot intended to spray a cotton crop. A power line crossed the area at an oblique angle, and at the point where the aircraft passed under the wire there was a head ditch one metre high, dividing two paddocks. On the first spraying run the pilot misjudged the clearance under the wire and the mainwheels struck the top of the ditch. The aircraft remained controllable and an uneventful landing was subsequently carried out at the destination aerodrome. Damage was confined to the gear truss points and shock absorbers.

The pilot had expressed an interest in purchasing the ultralight. The owner agreed to allow him to carry out a series of hops along the runway, to familiarize himself with the aircraft. The pilot did one hop and on the second liftoff continued to climb ahead but to a steeper than normal angle. At about 80 feet agl the engine misfired then stopped with the aircraft still nose high. The aircraft turned right, stalled and impacted the ground in a steep nose down attitude. The carburettor main jet was found to be blocked by the remains of an earwig, one of a number that had entered the float bowl via the unfiltered vent ports, possibly while the aircraft was stored in its darkened trailer for the preceding month. The engine failure and stall occurred at a height which did not allow the pilot to recover control before ground impact.

Circumstances:

The pilot was attempting a Silver C distance gliding task. When an outlanding became inevitable a paddock was selected and an approach to land into wind commenced. At about 100 feet above the ground the pilot became aware that the intended landing area was not suitable. The pilot attempted to manoeuvre the aircraft to affect a safe landing but during this procedure the left wing dropped, and the aircraft landed heavily while travelling sideways.

Circumstances:

The pilot reported that he felt a "kick" in the tail rotor which disappeared immediately. A short time later, the anomaly returned, and the pilot elected to carry out a precautionary landing. However, the engine suddenly failed, and the pilot had to use most of the rotor inertia to reach a suitable landing area. The following attempt to cushion the landing with the use of collective input was ineffective and a heavy landing ensued. An inspection of the aircraft by the operator revealed traces of water in the carburettor fuel bowl and this is believed to have caused the engine failure. No other defects or anomalies were reported.

Circumstances:

The pilot reported that the landing area was surrounded by trees. During the take-off sequence, shortly after the helicopter rose to above treetop level, sink was encountered. The application of full collective pitch did not prevent the helicopter striking the trees.