The aircraft was making a landing approach with full flap extended. The pilot said the aircraft floated for some distance, after the landing flare, before touching down about midway along the 614 metre strip. Brakes were applied but the braking action was reduced due to a mechanical impairment known to the pilot. When he realised the aircraft would overrun the strip end, the pilot said he purposely turned the aircraft to the right to prevent it from infringing a main road located a short distance ahead. The aircraft passed through a low wire fence and rolled down a steep slope before finally stopping, partially submerged, in a small dam.

The aircraft was undergoing its second test flight since construction had been completed. After the test sequence had been completed satisfactorily the pilot positioned the aircraft for landing. When the glider was about 150 feet agl the pilot reported by radio "something broke". The aircraft was observed to enter a steep spiral descent which continued until ground impact. The glider had been built by the owner from a kit of parts which had included the fuselage for one glider type and the wings of a different type. This anomaly was not detected until the wings were being fitted to the fuselage. The aircraft kit manufacturer then advised the builder on ways to overcome the problem. The builder had carried out the modifications but found that the flap drivers did not fit correctly into the flap ends. Plates were then added to the flap drivers to provide more engagement with the flap ends. Following the first test flight the pilot, an approved sailplane engineer, undertook to carry out work on the aircraft to correct various faults discovered during the flight. These faults included problems with the flap actuating mechanism. The alterations were carried out with the wings removed from the aircraft. When the aircraft was assembled prior to the second test flight the pilot apparently failed to notice during his inspection that the flap drivers were not adequately engaged in the flap ends. During the approach to land the left hand flap driver had become disengaged and the flap retracted. The resulting asymetric flap condition led to loss of control of the aircraft.

Circumstances:

Following a period of instruction in stalls and steep turns, the student pilot returned to the aerodrome for practice in crosswind landings. Several dual circuits and landings were carried out, and the student was authorised for solo practice. The wind was about 10 knots, and gusty. The pilot completed six circuits without experiencing any problems, making a touch and go landing each time. As the aircraft was rolling along the runway just prior to the pilot retracting the flaps and applying power for his next circuit, the aircraft was struck by a gust of wind which lifted the right wing. The aircraft then veered sharply to the right, and the pilot was unable to regain control. The aircraft came to rest in a shallow drainage ditch. The student was possibly feeling the effects of fatigue. He stated that after the touch down he had returned the ailerons to the neutral position, having forgotten to maintain aileron control into wind to counteract the gusty crosswind effect.

Following the loss of thermal activity the pilot elected to land in a paddock where the 5-10 knot wind would produce a right crosswind and downwind component for landing. During the base leg, which was commenced from a low height, the pilot realised that his groundspeed was high. The turn to finals was conducted at 60 knot indicated airspeed and up to 45 degrees of bank to avoid overshooting the final path. Dive brake was applied during the turn to increase the glider's descent angle but the glider stalled. During the recovery the glider collided with trees.

Circumstances:

During a low-level grass seeding operation, the pilot initially noticed a slight change in engine note. A check of the engine instruments revealed that the oil pressure had dropped to zero. As the pilot attempted to locate a suitable area for a precautionary landing, the engine failed, accompanied by a loud bang and smoke. The pilot landed the aircraft in the best available area, which was lightly timbered and strewn with fallen timber and anthills. The aircraft remained upright during the landing roll, but the nose landing gear collapsed.

F The pilot reported that as the aircraft descended through 300 ft on final approach, windshear and an increase in the rate of descent was experienced. He applied power to arrest the rate of descent then reduced the power setting to idle. The aircraft landed heavily and bounced, the pilot attempted to take corrective action but the aircraft again landed heavily. The aircraft was taxied to the parking area where the damage was noted. The endorsement completed earlier that day, was the pilot's first flight in a civil aircraft and this flight was his first solo in a multi-engined aircraft. Although endorsed on a heavy transport type, the pilot was projected into an environment beyond his level of experience, due to the single pilot workload being higher than that to which he was accustomed. The approach was steeper and 30 knots faster than recommended and a high power setting was used. The approach was made into the sunset and visibility was further impaired by a dirty windscreen.

The pilot was returning from a period in the local training area. Another aircraft was also returning and was advised that it would be number 2 in the landing sequence. However, the pilot of this aircraft overtook VH-MHO on the downwind leg. On final approach it was considered that insufficient separation would exist for landing, and the pilot of VH-MHO was offered the use of the parallel runway. Because the threshold of this runway was 250 metres closer than the planned runway, the pilot carried out a he pilot recovered the situation moothly, but the firewall and nosegeposed a steeper than normal approach. The aircraft landed heavily nosewheel first and bounced. The pilot recovered the situation and re-landed smoothly, but the firewall and nosegear assembly had been damaged. The pilot had probably been confused when the aircraft which was supposed to be following appeared ahead in the landing sequence, and he was offered a late change of runway. the steep approach had led to a misjudgment of the flare. The Instructor in the other aircraft, after acknowledging an instruction to position as number 2, and advising that he had the preceding aircraft in sight, did not maintain the required sequence.

Following a dual check and a short solo flight, the pilot was authorised to conduct a soaring flight of not more than one hour's duration. The glider was subsequently launched from an aerotow after take-off into a light northerly wind. It was observed soaring in the vicinity of the aerodrome within an estimated height band of 3000 to 6000 feet above ground level. During the flight the wind on the ground changed to become a gusty south-westerly at about 10 to 15 knots. The shade temperature was 36 degrees Celsius and localised areas of turbulence were reported by other pilots.

The pilot did not return for a landing for approximately two hours, despite the pre-flight briefing. When he returned, the aircraft was positioned for a landing into the north, apparently without reference to the changed wind conditions. During final approach the glider was seen to pitch down into an almost vertical dive. It struck the ground some 200 metres before the strip threshold and came to rest inverted. Subsequent examination of the wreckage did not reveal any defect or malfunction that might have affected the pilot's ability to safely control the aircraft. It was apparent that the glider had been in a normal wings level approach configuration immediately before the pitch-down which occurred at a height of about 100 feet above ground level.

It was considered possible that the aircraft could have been affected by turbulence, or that the pilot may have suffered from heat stress and fatigue. However, insufficient evidence was available to enable the precise factors in the occurrence to be determined.

Circumstances:

The pilot reported that after take-off, at approximately 200 feet above sea level, he heard a loud bang and at the same time the helicopter yawed to the right. He placed the helicopter into an autorotational descent and at the same time activated the emergency pop-out floats. This was followed by a successful forced landing on water with the helicopter remaining upright on its floats. It was later towed to the beach. The pilot's investigation revealed that the main rotor tie-down had not been stowed correctly in the rear locker by the island helicopter ground staff. The tie down had flapped in the turbulent air beneath the main rotor and wrapped itself around the tail boom and tail rotor. The tail rotor drive shaft was sheared in the process.

Circumstances:

During a period of solo circuit training using runway 11R, the pilot was advised by the tower of strengthening winds with a maximum crosswind component of 15 knots. He elected to fly another circuit to assess the conditions and on downwind decided to make a full-stop landing on runway 11C to terminate the flight. Upon touching down the aircraft commenced to bounce and veer into wind. After several bounces the nose landing gear collapsed.