Circumstances:

The flight was normal in calm conditions until about 30 minutes from the destination. At that point, the pilot encountered what he described as severe turbulence and found maintaining control of the aircraft difficult. The pilot reported that in the circuit area the strong turbulence persisted, with up-drafts and apparent wind shear. The windsock had been blown away the previous night, but the pilot, using forecast winds and observations, assessed the wind as 350/20 and made an approach for a landing into the north. Reduced flap and increased approach speed were used to counteract the effects of the turbulence. On short final the aircraft encountered a change in wind direction, accompanied by strong gusts and shear, causing it to swing viciously to the right. The pilot attempted to continue the approach for landing, maintaining the aircraft's attitude with elevator and correcting for the swing using opposite rudder, without increasing the power. The stall warning began to sound and the right hand wing dropped. The aircraft entered a descending right hand turn, rotated through approximately 180 degrees and impacted the ground with its right hand wing tip and nose, before rolling inverted. Local inhabitants reported that severe wind shear can occur in this area when strong northerly winds mix with the afternoon southerly sea breeze. This accident was not the subject of an on-scene investigation.

The pilot reported that an approach was being made in light crosswind conditions. Touchdown was normal, but the aircraft then became airborne again. A series of bounces then followed, each larger than the last. At some point during this phase the nose strut oleo collapsed and the propeller struck the ground. The aircraft swerved off the runway and slowed to the point where the pilot was able to regain control. Subsequent examination revealed damage to the engine firewall and lower fuselage structure. The pilot was evidently surprised by the speed and severity of the bounces, and had apparently not considered making a go around. This accident was not the subject of an on scene investigation.

The right engine had been replaced as part of a routine maintenance program. During two subsequent flights the engine lost all power. Extensive ground checks failed to reproduce the symptoms and an air test was then carried out. During the test the right engine failed and while various techniques were being employed by the pilot to restore power, the left engine also failed. The pilot was committed to a gear up landing in a paddock and damage was sustained during the ground slide when a mound of dirt was struck. Faulty seals in the right engine fuel shut off valve allowed air to be drawn into the fuel lines, causing the power losses experienced. The left engine failed from fuel exhaustion and when the pilot selected crossfeed from the right tank, air was drawn through the defective valve, preventing further running of the left engine.

After the student pilot had completed 1.2 hours of dual instruction in the circuit, his instructor assessed the pilot was ready for his first solo flight. The aircraft was brought to a halt on the grass runway 09 where the instructor alighted. The subsequent takeoff roll appeared to be proceeding normally when the aircraft suddenly veered to the left, departed the runway and collided with a boundary fence. The student pilot advised that the right cabin door had opened and he lost directional control when he lent over and attempted to close the door. The instructor reported that the right hand door lock was operating normally at the time of the accident. The accident was not the subject of an on scene investigation. This report is based on information supplied by the pilot.

The helicopter was engaged in cattle mustering on Ivanhoe Station. The pilot in command was training the other pilot in aerial mustering techniques. While the helicopter was being flown at about 50 feet agl, one main rotor blade grip failed. The associated main rotor blade separated from the helicopter and the resulting imbalance caused the other main rotor blade and transmission to be torn from the helicopter. The aircraft then fell to the ground, landing on its right side. The main rotor blade grip failed due to a combination of fatigue and overload forces. Examination of the aircraft records revealed that because of a error in the recording of component hours, the 5000 hour service life of the grip had been exceeded by 687 hours. During the investigation inspections of the blade grips on several other helicopters were carried out. Fatigue cracking was revealed in a significant number of the blade grips inspected. As a result, the manufacturer of the aircraft has recommended a reduction in the service life of the component.

On final approach for his first solo circuit and landing, the pilot carried out an overshoot because the aircraft was above the desired profile. On his second approach the pilot commenced a normal flare, but the aircraft climbed gradually to about 15 feet above the ground. The pilot made no attempt to apply power for a go-around. The aircraft stalled and struck the ground heavily. The nosewheel was detached and the aircraft bounced. On the subsequent touchdown, the nosegear strut dug into the ground and the aircraft overturned, coming to rest 77 metres from the point of initial touchdown. The pilot misjudged his height above the ground after the landing flare. He is employed as a Flight Engineer on Boeing 747 aircraft, and is therefore used to looking out of a cockpit which is much higher off the ground than the cockpit of a Cessna 152. This accident was not the subject of an on-site investigation.

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.