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.

Circumstances:

The aircraft had been involved in asymmetric training, and the landing gear had been cycled two or three times during the flight. On the final down selection, a green light was obtained for the mainwheels but not for the nosewheel. The landing gear was recycled with the same result. Emergency landing gear extension was carried out, again with the same result. The aircraft was landed with the nosewheel in the retracted position. Inspection of the nose landing gear system revealed that the forward pivot arms of the door operating mechanism had moved through the over-centre position. This condition, about which there is a warning in the Beech 76 Maintenance Manual, will cause the nose landing gear not to extend. Damage inside the nosewheel well indicated that, during the last retraction cycle, the landing gear drag brace pin became positioned outside the slot in the door actuating fork, forcing the forward pivot arms into the over-centre position. No fault was found with the rigging of the of the nose gear/door mechanism and extension/retraction of the landing gear was normal, apart from some stiffness in the nose gear door hinges. The fault could be duplicated during ground tests by applying side loads, such as might have occurred during unbalanced flight, to the nose landing gear doors. The stiffness in the door hinges might also have been of significance. In 1983 Beechcraft issued Service Instruction 1209 to reduce the possibility of binding in the door hinges or the landing gear linkage which could prevent nose landing gear extension. The records of VH-JKE indicated that the instruction had not been carried out.

Significant Factors:

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

1. Malfunction of the nose gear assembly may have been caused by aerodynamic side-loads on the nose landing gear doors, stiffness in the door hinges, or a combination of these influences.

2. The nose landing gear could not be extended.

Circumstances:

The pilot had borrowed the aircraft to fly to Medlow Bath to visit his brother who resided on the Blue Mountains. He was accompanied by his father and a friend. The pilot had not previously flown from the Medlow Bath airstrip but had inspected it from the ground. After landing, the pilot and his passengers spent about 90 minutes on the ground. The wind appeared to be light and variable, so the pilot decided to take off in the 24 direction. He said he lifted off at an indicated airspeed of 50 to 55 knots, but after the aircraft became airborne it did not accelerate or climb. The tailplane struck the branches of trees at the south-western end of the strip. Because the terrain fell away sharply at the end of the strip, the pilot said he lowered the nose of the aircraft in an attempt to increase airspeed. However, the left wing dropped, and the aircraft entered an uncontrollable descending turn to the left. The aircraft impacted scrub covered terrain about 300 metres from the end of the strip. A passenger suffered a fractured arm as a result of ground impact. The pilot did not have the owner's permission to operate into the airstrip.

Significant Factors:

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

1. The pilot had not previously operated from the airstrip.
2. The pilot attempted to lift off at too low an airspeed and adopted an excessively high nose attitude.
3. The pilot used a flap 10 setting. The Flight manual specifies flaps up for take-off.
4. The pilot attempted a take-off in a direction where the overall slope is 1.5 degrees up.
5. The airstrip was surrounded by tall trees which, when combined with the undulating longitudinal surface of the strip, could create a visual illusion as the pilot was attempting to set pitch attitude.

Circumstances:

The pilot made one local flight and a short time later departed on another with a club student pilot as passenger. His intention was to go to the training area but soon after departing the circuit he became concerned by rain showers close to the aerodrome and decided to return. As on DEPARTURE, runway 18 was used and the surface wind was light and variable. Rain was encountered and on final approach it became heavy, significantly reducing forward visibility. The pilot's landing technique on the aircraft type was to flare fairly high on the approach and adjust power for the final descent. The aircraft suddenly dropped from about 40-50 feet above the runway, contacting the surface very heavily. Aircraft damage was sustained as a result of the heavy landing. It is considered probable that the heavy landing was the result of the aircraft stalling on final approach.

Significant Factors:

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

1. A rain shower reduced forward visibility during the final approach.
2. The pilot used an incorrect technique for landing.

Normal landing gear down indications were obtained before landing. When the nosewheel was lowered late in the landing roll, the nosewheel leg collapsed, allowing the nose and propeller blades to contact the ground. The aft rod end fitting on the nose gear actuating rod had failed. The rod was apparently of outdated design. New rods are constructed of thicker gauge metal. This accident was not the subject of an on-site investigation.