Circumstances:

The pilot reported an uneventful flight and landing. After landing, while turning to the left off the main runway, the nosewheel entered a soft patch of earth and the nose landing gear collapsed. Both of the propellers, and the underside of the fuselage nose section were damaged. A subsequent check by maintenance personnel could find no evidence of a pre-existing fault in the nose landing gear assembly.

The pilot was called out at about 0400 hours local time for an urgent medical flight from Wynyard to Melbourne. This required positioning the aircraft from its base at Devonport to Wynyard. The take-off from Devonport was made in darkness with an overcast sky and light drizzle. The aircraft then apparently continued on the take-off heading at high power and low level until it struck the ground at high speed in a forest area 25 km south of Wynyard and 56 km from Devonport. The cause of the accident could not be determined but the possibility of pilot incapacitation could not be discounted.

On arrival at the destination, the pilot selected the landing gear down. Almost immediately afterwards, the radio frequency indicators faded, and a strong burning smell became evident. The pilot carried out a go-around, during which radio communications were lost and the burning smell became stronger. The pilot attempted to lower the gear with the emergency system, but found he was unable to move the manual extension handle. Under the circumstances, he elected to land as soon as possible. The aircraft touched down on the runway with the gear partially extended, and slid for about 200 metres before coming to rest. It was determined that the aircraft battery was almost completely discharged, but no other defect was found in the electrical system. It was possible that the pilot had not turned on the alternators before commencing the flight. When he selected the landing gear down, the gear motor had been subjected to excessive heat, and it had subsequently seized. The overheating was probably the result of high current draw under conditions of low battery capacity, causing reduced gear motor rpm. Because the motor and the emergency extension handle are on a common shaft, the pilot was unable to lower the gear manually.

Circumstances:

The pilot arrived in the area of his destination about sunset but was unable to locate the station airstrip. After a short search he found another strip with some buildings nearby and decided to land to ascertain his location. An aerial inspection of the strip was completed. However, the pilot reports that when the aircraft was on final approach, he noticed that what he had assumed was low scrub near the threshold was in fact 10 metres high trees. He adjusted the approach and touched down further down the strip than had been planned. The strip surface was loose, and maximum braking could not be applied. The aircraft overran the strip and collided with rocks and a dirt bank which resulted in the left main and nose landing gear legs collapsing. The strip was approximately 800 metres in length.

The aircraft touched down about 300 metres after the threshold of the 1200 metre long strip, which sloped uphill. When the pilot realised that the aircraft would not stop before the end of the strip, heavy braking was applied. The aircraft overran the strip and the nose gear strut collapsed in the rough terrain. The pilot subsequently advised that had he initiated braking earlier the aircraft would have stopped in the remaining lenght. He had believed that there was more strip length available than was actually the case and it was considered probable that he had been deceived by the slope of the strip.

Circumstances:

Following a similar wire strike accident to another company aircraft earlier in the day, a second pilot and aircraft were brought in to complete the spraying task. The second pilot had flown 30 hours on agricultural tasks during the three weeks leading up to the accident. For approximately nine months prior to resuming agricultural operations, the pilot had been engaged in fish spotting operations. During an aerial survey of the treatment area the pilot observed a 19kV Single Wire Earth Return (SWER) powerline running south to north across the property's northern boundary. The span between support poles was 860 metres. At the property owner's request, the Electricity Trust of SA (ETSA) had attached marker flags to that portion of the powerline above the owner's property. Following the survey, the pilot laid a smoke trail to ascertain wind speed and direction. The wind was evaluated to be a light south westerly. The pilot had intended to use the flags on the powerline as visual markers to indicate his passage beneath the powerline. Spraying started along the northern boundary flying east to west with the pilot pulling up into a right turn before the SWER powerline. On completion of the second run to the west, and while the aircraft was above trees in the adjacent property, the pilot was unable to sight the flags on the wire to the south of the aircraft flight path. With the flags unsighted, and no positive ground marker to indicate wire passage, the pilot, estimating that he had under flown the wire, pulled up into it. The aircraft struck the powerline with the left wing and windscreen cable cutter. The aircraft slid along the powerline and rolled over the top to impact the ground in a steep nose and left wing down attitude. The pilot evacuated the aircraft unassisted. Post ground impact fire destroyed the aircraft.

Significant Factors:

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

1. The pilot lacked recent flying experience in agricultural operations and below obstruction height flying.

2. The presence of marker flags on the powerline deceived the pilot into thinking that he could rely on these flags as wire passage markers.

3. The pilots survey of the property was inadequate. Specifically, he failed to mentally note the location of the powerline in relation to the ground topography, and being unable to select a positive ground feature had failed to arrange for a marker on the ground to give visual indication of wire passage.

Recommendations:

1. That the Civil Aviation Authority give consideration to reducing the calendar period for the flight test nominated in Civil Aviation Orders section 40.6 para 11 from 12 months to 90 days.

2. That the Civil Aviation Authority specify a syllabus for, and the qualifications of the person conducting, agricultural proficiency checks in accordance with Civil Aviation Order 40.6.

The aircraft was on a regular freight run which the pilot had flown numerous times. An area of turbulence was encountered which led the pilot to reduce to turbulence penetration speed. When the throttles were closed, the landing gear warning horn sounded. After a short time, the pilot felt that the horn was affecting his concentration so he pulled the warning horn circuit breaker. As the pilot was conducting the pre-landing checks, but before he selected the landing gear down, the Control Tower requested him to reduce to minimum approach speed because of departing traffic ahead. The aircraft subsequently landed with the wheels in the fully retracted position. No fault was found with the landing gear system. The landing gear warning horn circuit breaker was in the OUT position when the aircraft was inspected. There is some evidence that the pilot was fatigued.

The aircraft was being taxied across another runway towards a taxiway. Approaching the edge of the flight strip, the instructor noticed a 20 centimetre deep spoon drain in the path of the aircraft. He took control and attempted to avoid the drain but the nosewheel entered the drain and broke off. The presence of the drain was indicated on a diagram of hazardous taxying areas available to pilots but the area was not marked by cones. The aerodrome was being used, for taxiing purposes, as an all-over field, contrary to approved procedures. The pilot saw the drain obstruction, which was situated just outside the flight strip, too late to take effective avoiding action.

Circumstances:

The glider undershot the final approach path whilst landing towards the west striking a small tree before landing heavily. The pilot suffered a spinal injury as a result of the impact. The wind was reported as south-westerly at 15 knots.

Circumstances:

The pilot had planned to carry out a series of circuits and landings. During the downwind leg of the first circuit, the engine began to run roughly and then lost power. The pilot attempted a forced landing on a clearing adjacent to the airstrip boundary fence. During the landing roll the pilot lost directional control due to the rough surface and the aircraft collided with the fence. Subsequent examination of the fuel filter revealed that it contained several flakes of rubber material. A larger piece of this material had blocked the filter inlet. The source of the material was traced to the partial disintegration of the inner wall of the priming bulb.