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.

The helicopter was engaged in a medical evacuation operation. A crewman was positioned on the ground to anchor a tag line, which was attached to a Stokes litter and was designed to prevent the litter from spinning during winching. The nature of the terrain was such that the line could not be positioned at the correct angle. Shortly after the winching operation commenced, the litter commenced to spin. As it neared the helicopter, the winch operator attempted to stop the spinning to enable the litter to be lifted on board. His right arm was broken when it became entangled in the litter straps.

The pilot was attending a fly-in to display his aircraft. Because he was concerned about the length of the strip he was endeavouring to touchdown at the threshold. During the final approach, he became aware that the airspeed was reducing below the optimum and applied some power, however, the aircraft struck the ground heavily about 10 metres before the strip threshold. The pilot applied full power and carried out a go-around. As a result of the ground contact the nosewheel was torn off. The pilot was advised of the situation by ground observers and elected to divert to Parafield. During the subsequent landing the nosegear leg collapsed.

Circumstances:

The pilot inspected the strip from the air and elected to land towards the west because of high ground and obstacles on the opposite approach. The aircraft bounced on landing and then floated for some distance before braking could be applied. The pilot remained confident adequate strip remained to stop the aircraft. There was, however, a slight hump in the strip and as the aircraft reached it the pilot saw a fence about 100 metres ahead. He applied heavy braking which had little effect on the loose surface. To avoid the fence, the pilot attempted to ground loop the aircraft. The left main landing gear leg entered a small ditch and was torn from the aircraft. On exiting the aircraft, the pilot noted that he had landed with a tailwind of about 5 knots.

After selecting gear down, a safe indication could not be obtained for the left main gear. The pilot diverted to a more suitable aerodrome, where further attempts to lower that gear also failed. The gear was retracted and a wheels-up landing carried out. The pilot subsequently advised that a similar left gear unsafe indication had occurred 3 landings prior to this particular occurrence, but on that occasion after recycling the gear a normal extension was obtained. The left gear had not been rigged or lubricated in accordance with maintenance instructions, and the left gear uplock roller had seized. A check that the rollers are free to rotate is part of the normal pre-flight inspection. Indications were that neither of the maingear rollers had rotated for some time. There was some doubt that the pilot had been advised of the gear roller check requirement when he was undergoing endorsement training on the aircraft.