The student and the instructor pilot began a period of cross wind circuits using the 230 strip. The wind was an afternoon sea breeze from the south-southeast of decreasing strength closer to the ground due to the sheltering effect of gum trees. The wind is reported to have been between 15 and 10 knots about 15 feet above the ground lesser at ground level. This was to be the student's first experience of a significant cross wind during the takeoffs and landings. The instructor intended to have the student do all the flying. He had briefed the student to initiate recovery action if needed. The takeoff was made without incident. The aircraft was lower than normal as the final approach was commenced. No corrective action for this was taken during the final approach and the need for the flare and round out came sooner than was usual. Wing down adjustment for the cross wind was cancelled by the student pilot as the flare point was approached. After the flare the aircraft ballooned with the left wing rising. Limited power and aileron input was made by the student to correct the situation. When the right wing continued to drop the instructor applied full power and left rudder. A series of left and right wing drops followed during which the aircraft turned 20-30 degrees to the landing direction. The right main wheel contacted the ground heavily and the right spring gear-leg was torn from the fuselage attachment point. The aircraft then slid to a stop facing opposite to the landing direction. This accident was not the subject of an on-site investigation.

It was after sunset when the pilot was doing clean up runs after spraying a pea crop. Sufficient light remained to complete the job, however the pilot had the floodlights on. The spray runs had been in a north/south direction but the clean up runs were made east/west. A powerline ran obliquely through the paddock in a southwest/ northeast direction. A smaller SWER line ran south from the main line, above the eastern fence of the paddock. After turning west to fly along the southern fence of the paddock, the aircraft struck the SWER line. The pilot advised that he had known of the presence of the two powerlines. He had temporarily forgotten about the smaller SWER line because he was concentrating on the main powerline that he had been avoiding all afternoon. He saw the SWER line, pulled up and thought he had missed it, but when he landed he discovered that one of the floodlights was missing. The distance between powerpoles was 100 metres with a minimum clearance of 5.5 metres from the top of the fence. The aircraft struck the SWER line 40 metres from the nearest pole.

In order to avoid thunderstorms in the immediate vicinity, the pilot requested take-off from a runway direction giving a slight downwind component. Light rain was falling at the time, but increased in intensity shortly after the aircraft commenced to roll. The initial stage of the take-off run was normal, but the aircraft then failed to accelerate. The take-off was abandoned at about 65 knots Indicated Air Speed, however braking effectiveness was reduced because of the wet runway conditions. A ground loop was attempted, the nosegear subsequently became detached and the aircraft slid sideways into the aerodrome boundary fence. No fault or defect was subsequently found with the aircraft engines, propellers or braking system which might have contributed to the development of the accident. A detailed engineering study revealed that under the existing conditions the wind velocity, rainfall rate and runway slope combined to prevent normal drainage off the runway. As a result, water tended to pool on the runway to a greater depth than anticipated. Quantitative estimates indicated that under these conditions, the rate of acceleration of an aircraft could be reduced by up to 50 percent. When the pilot abandoned the take-off attempt and applied the brakes, the depth of water present was such that the aircraft commenced to aquaplane.

The pilot had been carrying out spraying operations for most of the day. The flight in question was to be the first for the day from this particular strip. The pilot had pumped 644 litres of water based spray into the hopper, having previously carried this sized load from the 604 metre strip. Normal take-off procedures were employed, however the aircraft failed to become airborne as expected. Almost immediately after lift-off, the left gear leg struck and severed the top wire of a fence. The left flap, horizontal stabiliser and elevator collided with a fence post. The pilot was able to retain control of the aircraft, dumped the load and returned for a successful landing on the strip. Although the pilot had previously operated with a water based spray load of 644 litres from this strip, he had overlooked the fact that the loads had different specific gravities. On this occasion, the specific gravity of the load was significantly higher and resulted in the aircraft being about 190 kilograms above the gross weight permitted for agricultural operations. Under the conditions there had been insufficient strip length available to permit a safe take-off.

The pilot was conducting a scenic flight in the Hope Island area when the engine lost power. He was able to find a suitable area and carry out a successful forced landing. On inspection of the aircraft the pilot found that the spark plug lead had become detached. He reconnected the lead and after checking that it was secure commenced a takeoff. On climbing through 100 feet the engine again lost power. The pilot was forced to attempt a ditching, but during the approach the aircraft struck trees and spun into the water. This accident was not the subject of an on-site investigation.

Circumstances:

The aircraft was engaged in spraying herbicide. The particular paddock being sprayed consisted of several north/south oriented strips. Earlier in the day the pilot had sprayed the strips in the western section of the paddock. A powerline ran approximately east/west across the northern boundary of the area being treated. The spray runs were aligned south to north, with the aircraft pulling over the powerlines at the end of the northward runs. The pilot then departed to spray another area, with the intention of returning later to complete the small eastern section of the paddock. On return to the area about an hour and a half later, the aircraft was observed to make a spray run from south to north. At the end of this run, the aircraft collided with the powerline and dived to the ground some 180 metres further north. The aircraft had struck the powerline at a height of about ten metres above ground. Only one of the two conductors was broken. The aircraft had struck the cable with the outboard right wing and tail. Marks on the severed section of the right wing indicated that the aircraft was in an estimated 40 degree left bank at the time. The top of the fin and rudder were also torn off, and the fin and rudder were bent to the right, jamming the rudder.

Significant Factors:

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

1. Pilot failed to see or avoid the powerline.

2. Flight controls buckled/ jammed.

3. Pilot encountered unforeseen circumstances beyond his capability.

The pilot stated that when he returned to land after a spreading operation he noticed a dust devil about half way along the strip. The chief pilot, who was on the ground near the southern end of the strip, also noticed the dust devil, and warned the pilot on the company radio. The pilot circled near the northern end of the strip until the dust devil moved off the strip to the west and into the trees. A normal approach and landing was then made from the north. During the landing roll the pilot noticed that the dust devil had reappeared from the trees, and was moving directly into his landing path. Maximum braking was applied, but the aircraft encountered the dust devil and became uncontrollable in the turbulence. The propeller struck the ground and the aircraft slid sideways to the left for forty metres. During the slide, the left wheel axle bolts sheared and the left wing struck the ground.

At a height of about 50 feet on initial climb, the aircraft suffered a birdstrike which resulted in the canopy being broken. Although the pilot's vision was inhibited by the effects of windblast, he was able to land the aircraft. After the engine was shut down the pilot heard a noise, determined that the aircraft was on fire and vacated just before it was totally consumed. It is likely that as a result of the birdstrike, a fuel line was damaged and this allowed fuel to spray onto the hot engine/exhaust area causing the fire.

On 24 October 1989, the student pilot damaged the nose gear of a similar aircraft when he ground looped during a crosswind landing after returning from his first solo flight to the training area. Subsequently he did two dual training flights with different instructors, each flight involving upper air work in the training area and a single landing on return to Bankstown. The student was not given any specific crosswind circuit training, but was authorised for another solo training area flight. During the takeoff run, with an eight knot left crosswind component, the aircraft started to drift to the left of the runway centreline. The pilot applied back pressure to the control column and at this point the aircraft veered further left. As the aircraft ran off the side of the runway, the pilot closed the mixture and throttle and applied brakes. Before coming to a complete stop, the aircraft struck a taxiway sign post damaging the leading edge at the wing root.

During the taxi phase before take-off, the nosegear collapsed and the nose settled slowly. After the aircraft was evacuated, the pilots noticed that the nosewheel had struck a slightly raised termite mound located near the centre of the flight strip. The pilots commented that no impact was felt and they were surprised that such a small protrusion (4-5 cm) would lead to a nosegear collapse. Later inspection of the broken nosegear downlock revealed that the fracture was consistent with an overload failure. This accident was not the subject of an on-site investigation.