The flight was arranged in order to drop three parachutists to a school fete. Winds at the time were gusting around 15 knots and there is a 20 knot limit on parachuting, with the equipment in use. Two jumpers landed successfully in the school grounds, although the second person landed heavily due to turbulence near adjacent trees. The third jumper conducted an approach similar to the others but he went too far downwind before turning to approach the landing point. When it became evident that the desired landing area could not be reached the parachutist approached for a landing amongst houses. He landed on the roof of a house but was dragged off and into a fence, sustaining spinal injuries and lacerations.

Circumstances:

The pilot had limited solo experience in powered aircraft and had never flown the accident aircraft type before. He said he had been conducting taxi tests with no intention of flying. However, about three quarters of the way down the runway the aircraft unexpectedly became airborne, on somewhat less than full power. Assuming there was insufficient runway remaining for a landing, the pilot climbed to what he assessed to be a safe altitude and turned left without changing the power setting. He was concerned at the low indicated airspeed and when the right wing dropped, he thought the aircraft had stalled. He immediately applied full power and lowered the nose. No other control inputs were made, and the aircraft flew into the ground under high power in a shallow descent. The pilot's instructor said he noticed the pitot head was misaligned before the aircraft was assembled on the morning of the accident. He realigned the head but noticed that it rotated reasonably easily in its mounting. He noticed the head was again misaligned after the accident. If the head had been misaligned during the flight the indicated airspeed would underread. This could explain why the aircraft unexpectedly became airborne, then cause the pilot to think he had stalled when the right wing dropped at low indicated airspeed.

At a height of approximately 50 feet after take-off the engine suddenly lost all power. The pilot was able to glide the aircraft over several drainage banks, two fences and an irrigation canal but a high rate of descent developed and the aircraft landed heavily and overturned. Fire broke out and the central section of the fuselage was burnt out. The investigation was hampered by the extent of fire damage and the cause of the loss of engine power was not positively established.

The pilot lived alone on his property and was last seen on 29 April when he indicated to a friend that he planned to fly his aircraft the following day if conditions were suitable. He had not flown the aircraft before, but was believed to have made taxy runs and short hops during the previous weeks. Two days later the pilot's brother reported that he was missing and that the aircraft was not at the property. The wreckage was located the following afternoon by a search aircraft. An inspection of the wreckage indicated that the aircraft had struck the ground inverted, at a low forward speed, and that the engine was not developing power at the time of impact. No fault was subsequently found with the engine, and it was considered that it had probably stopped shortly before impact, under negative "g" conditions. The pilot was inexperienced, and the particular aircraft was known to be difficult to control in pitch. It was likely that the pilot experienced handling problems which he was unable to correct before the final loss of control.

The aircraft was on the last leg of a cross country flight when an area of sink was encountered. The pilot was forced to make a landing in a paddock. During the subsequent landing roll the aircraft struck a concealed rock which resulted in the fuselage breaking just forward of the tailplane. This accident was not the subject of an on-site investigation.

Circumstances:

The pilot reported he encountered deteriorating weather conditions and decided to make a precautionary landing in a large paddock. During the landing roll the landing gear collapsed due to soft surface conditions.

The student pilot was landing the aircraft under the supervision of the instructor. After commencing the landing flare the student made a violent forward movement of the stick and then froze on the controls. The instructor was unable to prevent the aircraft from landing heavily.

Circumstances:

The aircraft was making a landing approach. On base leg the engine stopped after the pilot reduced power to about 3000 rpm. The pilot attempted to carry out a forced landing on a nearby paddock but struck a boundary fence during the approach, resulting in substantial damage to the aircraft. The pilot considers the engine stopped due to an improperly adjusted carburettor.

The flight was part of a type endorsement. After completing the upper air work sequences, five circuit and landings were carried out without incident, although the fifth landing was reported as being heavier than normal. On the downwind leg of the next circuit, both pilots reported that the gear was found to be still extended when the pre-landing checks were commenced. The gear lights continued to indicate a down and locked situation, but shortly after touchdown the left maingear began to retract. The aircraft veered to the left and the nosegear retracted prior to the aircraft coming to rest, ten metres off the side of the runway. The pilots reported that, after they had vacated the aircraft, they observed the gear selector to be in the up position. Both pilots reported that they had not touched the lever during the landing. The only fault found with the undercarriage system was that the gear selector switch was worn such that the selector could be moved from "DOWN" to "UP" without overcoming the mechanical lock. The pilots had relied on the green light indication for gear position during the pre-landing checks. Neither had physically checked the position of the selector lever. The reason the wearing in the switch was not detected during maintenance and servicing of the aircraft was not established.

Circumstances:

The aircraft had a recent history of directional control problems while operating on water. On two earlier flights on the day of the accident, while landing in strong wind conditions, the aircraft had slewed sharply left when the left pontoon contacted the water. The final landing took place in light wind conditions. On this occasion, as the left pontoon entered the water, the nose of the aircraft dipped, and the aircraft flipped over. Due to accident damage, it was not possible to make an accurate determination as to the cause of the control problem. However, repair work had recently been carried out on the aircraft after it struck a submerged object while landing.

Significant Factors:

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

1. The pilot attempted a landing on water knowing that the aircraft had a directional control problem.

2. The pilot lost directional control of the aircraft on landing.