Shortly after lift-off the pilot heard several loud bangs and saw pieces of fibreglass from the cowls fly past the canopy. Believing the cowlings may have come adrift he decided to land in a small paddock, just outside the aerodrome perimeter fence. The aircraft landed heavily on the soft, wet surface and the propeller struck the ground after only five metres of ground roll. The aircraft came to rest after travelling 34 metres. Investigation revealed that the upper and lower sections of cowling had come apart, following failure of the fibreglass at the connecting screw holes. This allowed the upper cowl to move forward and contact the propeller. The failure was partly due to incorrect placement of the screw holes.

Circumstances:

The pilot reported that following a normal landing the aircraft was taxied for some distance. During a left turn the right main landing gear collapsed, resulting in the right propeller and wing contacting the ground. Investigation revealed that the right main gear strut had failed at the lower welded joint. A metallurgical examination determined that the failure was due to the propagation of a fatigue crack along the weld. A weld repair had been effected in the area previously because of a crack and it appeared the crack was not completely removed during the repair procedure. This was not positively confirmed as the owner would not permit destructive testing of the component. The manufacturer's service manual limits repair of the main landing gear to replacement of parts.

The pilot was engaged in a mustering operation on his own property. During the operation he saw a truck departing from the property. He had an urgent messsage for the driver, so he elected to land on a road near the truck's route which he knew was suitable as a landing area. During the landing roll the left wing hit a steel pole which was off the edge of the road. The pilot did not see the pole because he was landing to the East and the rising sun was in his eyes.

After installing his passenger in the aircraft, the pilot hand swung the propeller, the normal means of starting the engine. When the engine fired it ran up to high power and the aircraft jumped the chocks. The pilot attempted to stop the aircraft but it continued forward and collided with the side of a hangar. The nose gear collapsed and the wooden propeller shattered as the aircraft came to rest on its nose. During the pre-start checks the pilot believes he set the throttle almost fully open by mistake. The aircraft handbrake was unservicable.

The aircraft was engaged in defining swarms of locusts as part of a control programme. The helicopter was being flown at about 35 feet above ground level, when one of the main rotor blades struck a powerline. Control of the aircraft was lost and it struck the ground in a nose down attitude, 111 metres beyond the powerline. The pilot had flown over the area earlier in the day, but had not sighted the wire. On this occasion he did not make a specific search for wires before commencing the low level operation. The span of wire between the support poles measures 610 metres and although the support poles were easy to see, the wire was not. The pilot was not aware that the helicopter had collided with the wire until some time after the accident.

The student had completed a dual check flight, and was carrying out a period of solo circuits in calm conditions. On the third landing, the aircraft bounced, then touched down in a three-point attitude, skipped, and shortly after touching down again the nosewheel leg collapsed. The nosewheel leg oleo collars had failed in overload. Investigation revealed that the failure occurred due to touchdown occurring at a higher than normal airspeed, following an incorrectly judged landing flare.

Circumstances:

The student pilot was making a touch and go landing in a five knot crosswind during early solo circuits. After a normal landing, the flaps were retracted to 10 degrees and full power applied. The aircraft veered left, departed the runway, and became bogged, damaging the left wing.

The gyroglider was being towed in alternate directions along a strip. There was a 10 knot wind component along the strip direction and the temperature was 34 degrees Celsius. During one downwind towing sequence the wind speed increased. The pilot signalled for a higher towing speed, but as the vehicle driver had been instructed to observe a limit of 80 kph, he did not increase speed further. The gyroglider subsequently landed heavily and overturned. The high density altitude conditions, coupled with the gusting tailwind and aircraft weight approaching the maximum permissible, required a towing airspeed higher than normal. Towing speed was limited by fixed ground speed limits.

After encountering navigational difficulties, the pilot became concerned that he may not reach his destination before last light. He decided to land on a road near a homestead. While the aircraft was being taxied after landing, the pilot misjudged the distance from a metal pole and the right wing struck the pole.

Prior to commencing the flight the pilot received a briefing on the meteorological situation. This briefing indicated that the flight under Visual Flight Rules (VFR) would not be possible over the route and that the conditions were unlikely to improve during the day. The pilot apparently decided to check the weather situation for himself and submitted a flight plan for a flight to Port Macquarie. The plan indicated that the flight would comply with VFR procedures. The aircraft departed Tamworth but failed to arrive at the destination before the expiry of the nominated Search and Rescue time (SARTIME). A land and air search was commenced, although the latter was initially hampered by poor weather conditions. No trace of the aircraft was found and the search was suspended after five days. Two days later the wreckage was located by an aircraft conducting a private search. The aircraft had flown into tall trees on the top of a 3500 feet high ridge line. It had been torn apart by the impact forces and the wreckage was spread over a distance of some 90 metres beyond the initial impact point. The investigation did not reveal any pre-impact defect with the aircraft or its systems which might have contributed to the accident. An analysis of the weather conditions in the vicinity indicated that the accident site was most likely covered with cloud. The pilot was probably flying in conditions of reduced forward visibility when the aircraft collided with the trees.