Due to wind conditions at the landing site, the pilot decided that a firm touchdown was required to avoid the possibility of the balloon dragging. The landing was not heavy, but as the balloon touched down a passenger released her grip of the hand hold. As the basket leaned, she fell forward and struck the fuel cylinder, breaking two ribs.

Circumstances:

The pilot has reported that on the final leg of a competition cross country flight he was forced to make an outlanding. He reported that he flew a full circuit for the selected landing site and completed his checks on the downwind leg. Shortly before touchdown, the glider encountered some turbulence, and the landing gear warning horn sounded. The pilot suspected that the landing gear was not fully locked down. To check the landing gear, he released the speed brake control from his left hand and transferred that hand to the control column. This allowed him to check the landing gear lever with his right hand. During this transfer of hands, he lost control of the glider which impacted the ground and suffered substantial damage. The landing gear was found to be "in-transit" after the glider came to rest. Subsequent investigation by the gliding club showed that the landing gear lever could be moved in its detent such that the warning horn micro-switch operated while the landing gear was still down and locked. It is possible that when the horn operated during turbulence on the approach the pilot moved the gear lever forward which acted to retract the landing gear. The pilot was relatively inexperienced and suggested that when the warning horn sounded, he was startled and moved the landing gear lever in the direction he became used to while recently training in the IS-28 glider. This was opposite to the movement required in the Hornet.

Significant Factors:

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

1. While at low altitude during an outlanding the pilot was startled when the landing gear warning horn sounded.

2. The landing gear mechanism was not correctly adjusted.

3. The pilot changed hands on the control column so he could move the landing gear lever. During this action he lost control of the glider. This accident was not the subject of an on-scene investigation.

The student was carrying out a crosswind landing under the supervision of the instructor who occupied the rear tandem seat. A witness reported that the speed of the aircraft on approach was higher than normal. The airbrakes were closed prior to the flare and the aircraft subsequently ballooned to a height of about 50 feet above the ground. The aircraft appeared to remain under control but it landed heavily and bounced back into the air. On the following touchdown one wing contacted the ground and the glider groundlooped.

The pilot had landed at the strip on a number of previous occasions, but this was the first time in this aircraft type. To give himself more time the pilot made a longer than normal final approach. At about 100 feet above the ground, with the airspeed at about 65 knots, the aircraft began to sink. The pilot applied full power to commence a go-around and as the nose pitched up, the left wing dropped. The pilot did not prevent the nose of the aircraft pitching up, thus aggravating the almost stalled condition of the aircraft. Power was then reduced and the aircraft landed heavily in a wheat paddock along side the strip and slid sideways as it came to rest.

The pilot reported that as he applied full power for takeoff, on strip 32, the aircraft began to swing to the left. He was unable to correct the situation and the aircraft ran off the strip and collided with trees. The wind velocity at the time was reported by the pilot to have been a light south-westerly. The topography surrounding the strip is known to give rise to sudden and unpredictable wind gusts and it is possible that the aircraft encountered such a gust as the takeoff run was commenced.

The pilot was conducting a flight to satisfy distance, height and duration requirements for the silver endorsement on his gliding certificate. One of the requirements was that the flight should last for at least five hours. After about three hours flying the pilot felt slightly nauseous, and about an hour later he became extremely nauseous and vomitted. His condition then improved, and he elected to continue the flight. He subsequently arrived in the circuit area at an indicated altitude of 2500 feet, and intended over- flying the field before joining a left circuit to land. He was aware that the angle was unusual but deferred to his altimeter, assuming his perception had changed as he had been above 5000 feet for most of the flight. He then realised that the aircraft was much lower than the indicated height and that a landing on the intended strip would not be possible. While manoeuvring to land on another strip, the left wing tip touched the ground and the aircraft swung through about 120 degrees before striking the ground heavily. After the accident the pilot discovered that he had inadvertently set 1000 feet instead of zero on his altimeter before DEPARTURE. The pilot was aware of the problems of sun exposure and had taken suitable precautions. These precautions were apparently insufficient to counter the effects of dehydration and heat stress.

Initial test flying of the aircraft had been commenced the previous day. The pilot, who was a friend of the owner, had carried out a number of short hops along the 1000 metre strip. The following morning a further six hops were carried out, after which the pilot announced his intention to conduct a right hand circuit and landing. He made one further short flight along the strip, before taking off for the circuit. The aircraft passed over those on the ground at a height of about 300 feet, before passing out of sight while heading south-westerly. Shortly afterwards the engine noise level changed several times before ceasing altogether. A nearby farmer saw the aircraft in a left turn when the engine stopped. The turn tightened and the aircraft disappeared behind a hill. Sounds of impact were then heard. Investigation revealed that the aircraft had struck the ground while in a left spiral and travelling at relatively high speed. The engine was not rotating at the time of impact but no evidence could be found to suggest that it was not capable of operation. The fabric on the the left wing showed signs that it had separated along the entire trailing edge in flight. This would have resulted in a severe reduction of lift compared to that produced by the intact right wing and the subsequent uncontrollable left spiral. The aircraft did not comply with the relevant Air Navigation Orders, having an empty weight of about 210 kg, with a wing loading of about 20 kg/square metre.

The student had completed about seven hours training and was undergoing her second session of circuit training. The instructor stated that the student had previously had difficulty with the directional control of the aircraft. On this takeoff he allowed the student to manipulate only the rudder, so that she could concentrate on the directional control aspect, while he manipulated all the other controls. As the power was increased the aircraft gradually swung to the left. Approaching the left side of the strip the swing increased and the instructor applied right rudder at the same time as the student. The aircraft swung to the right and as it crossed the right side of the strip the left wheel dug into the ground and the aircraft tipped onto the left wing.

The pilot was attempting a 300km cross country flight. After release from the aerotow the glider only achieved 3000 feet above mean sea level. As the flight continued no further height gain was achieved and on descending to below 2000 feet the pilot decided to carry out an outlanding. While the glider was being manoeuvred in the circuit, at about 50 feet above ground level, the right wing dropped and struck the ground. The pilot had selected a landing field when flying with 2000 feet indicated on the altimeter. He was unaware that the terrain over which he was flying was 1000 feet above mean sea level and thus only 1000 feet below the aircraft. During the approach the aircraft became low and the airspeed decreased until the aircraft stalled at too low an altitude to allow recovery.

The purpose of the flight was to film a moving train. Prior to commencing the operation, the pilot made an aerial inspection of the area and mentally noted the various obstructions. On the second filming run the helicopter collided with power lines at a height of 33 feet above ground level. The helicopter descended and struck the ground about 50 metres beyond the point of collision. It then bounced and came to rest on its side. The pilot was highly experienced in aerial photography and survey operations. At the time of the accident, visibility was reduced to less than 2 kilometres in light rain. One of the poles supporting the power lines was hidden from the pilot's view by a large tree. It was also possible that the pilot had flown outside the area he had previously inspected, as he had not been aware of the presence of the particular set of wires.