Circumstances:

The aircraft was taking off from an Authorized Landing Area for a local flight. The weather was fine and calm, with a temperature of 16 degrees Celsius. The pilot reported that after a take-off run of 300 metres the engine lost power. The take-off was abandoned and wheel braking applied. At the same time, in a further attempt to reduce speed, the pilot steered the aircraft towards the right side of the strip, where the grass was longer. The nose wheel entered soft ground, resulting in the propeller striking the surface and the aircraft gently overturning. The reason for the loss of power was not determined.

Circumstances:

A weather front was approaching Rottnest Island from the north-west. The pilot departed before the weather arrived, climbing to 1500 feet whilst intercepting the south easterly track to Jandakot. Shortly after reaching 1500 feet, the weather closed in, and the pilot was unable to avoid entering cloud. The pilot did not request assistance from Perth Air Traffic Services. Instead, he turned towards the island and commenced an instrument descent expecting to descend clear of the cloud and land at Rottnest without difficulty. The aircraft exited the cloud at a low height above the sea, to be suddenly confronted with boats and land. During the sharp left hand avoidance turn, the left wing struck the water. The aileron was torn off and the wing and fuselage were damaged by the impact. The pilot retained control and carried out an emergency landing at Rottnest Island airport.

The pilot was conducting a pleasure flight from Australia to the Solomon Islands via various aerodromes in Papua New Guinea. He reported that shortly after take-off the engine lost power and he was forced to ditch the aircraft, which subsequently sank in 100 metres of water. Investigation of this accident is the responsibility of the PNG authorities. The investigation indicated that the take-off attempt had been made with the aircraft loaded in excess of the maximum recommended for the length of strip available.

Circumstances:

The student pilot had completed a period of instruction and a follow-up solo sortie on the morning of the accident. He was landing following a further period of solo circuits when the accident occurred. The aircraft appeared to touch down normally but then veered to the right without any apparent attempts at correction. The aircraft left the runway and crossed a small embankment before going through a fence into the adjoining paddock. It is possible that the pilot had reached task saturation after the third hour of flying involving stalling, incipient spins, and circuit work. The pilot was also tending to land flat and fast. It is probable that the aircraft started to "wheelbarrow" as a result of the approach technique used and the pilot did not react in time to avoid the DEPARTURE from the runway.

Circumstances:

The aircraft was in normal cruising flight when the propeller suddenly went to fine pitch. A check of the instruments showed that the engine oil pressure gauge as reading low. The pilot immediately altered course in an attempt to reach a nearby airstrip. However, the engine then seized completely, and the pilot was forced to carry out an emergency landing on a roadway. During the landing roll the right wing hit a tree, slewing the aircraft off the road and into a ditch. A subsequent inspection revealed that the external line which carries oil to the propeller governor had burst. It was found that this pipe had for some time been chafing against a clamp which secured another oil line.

Circumstances:

The pilot planned to take two members of his family flying while conducting some local refresher flying in the circuit and local training area. On the ground it was very hot, but the wind was calm. The pilot loaded the first passenger and conducted two circuits without incident. He then loaded the second passenger and departed the circuit for the training area. Upon return to the aerodrome the pilot noted that there was a light wind from the west and planned his circuit entry to land on runway 31. The circuit appeared to be normal until on final when he felt that he was too high and too fast. However, he selected full flap and continued the approach touching down beyond the halfway point of the runway. The aircraft landed heavily nose wheel first and then bounced approximately two metres into the air. The tail cone and lower rudder also struck the ground as the aircraft bounced two more times before coming to rest off the right side of the runway.

Significant Factors:

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

1. The pilot failed to initiate a go-around when he became unhappy with the approach.

2. The pilot exercised an improper recovery from a bounced landing.

Circumstances:

The pilot reported that he encountered windshear on final approach. He had made allowance for the gusty turbulent conditions and was approaching with full power when the aircraft began to sink towards a power line which was strung across the approach path. The pilot stated that he managed to avoid the wire with the main wheels, but the tailwheel struck the wire and arrested the forward motion of the aircraft. The aircraft then crashed to the ground from a height of about 50 feet. The pilot was aware of the presence of the wire on the approach path prior to the accident.

Significant Factors:

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

1. The pilot encountered windshear.
2. The pilot was unable to avoid a power line on final approach.

The pilot had completed one circuit involving a touch and go landing. As power was applied for the take off phase of the second touch and go, the aircraft swerved to the left with the left main landing gear clear of the ground. The pilot was able to arrest the left swing but the aircraft continued to track beyond the confines of the flight strip. After impacting a fence post and two drains, the nose and left main gears were dislodged and the left wing impacted the ground. The investigation revealed that the pilot had used an incorrect crosswind control technique and failed to maintain directional control of the aircraft during the ground roll. The pilot delayed abandoning the take off phase of the touch and go sequence. The position at which the power was reduced and the take off abandoned could not be determined. There were no pre-existing defects with the aircraft which could have contributed to the accident. This accident was not the subject of an on-site investigation.

The pilot reported that he made an approach to land on the 675 metre long level grass strip in calm wind conditions. Approach speed was 70 knots and the aircraft passed over the approach end fence at about 20 to 30 feet above the ground at an airspeed of 65 knots. The aircraft touched down about a quarter of the way down the strip. The pilot said that he allowed the aircraft to settle, raised the flaps and applied the brakes. The aircraft started to slow down but then the brakes seemed to lose effectiveness. The pilot decided not to go around because of considerations of aircraft weight, speed and strip remaining. Instead, he attempted to turn off the strip to the right where there was plenty of room to stop but he got no response from the nosewheel steering or right brake application. The aircraft finally ran into the fence at the end of the strip which resulted in the nosewheel breaking off. The pilot said the strip surface at the time was short grass which was still very damp due to a frost the previous night. After the accident he inspected the nosewheel assembly and reported that there may have been a broken part on the steering assembly which could have resulted in no steering to the right. However, he did not report any problem with the nosewheel steering prior to this landing. This accident was not the subject of a formal on scene investigation.

Circumstances:

Following a preflight inspection the pilot departed from his property airstrip, climbing to approximately 1000 feet above ground level before setting heading for Mudgee via Tayar Peak. The pilot reported that the weather conditions were fine with a surface temperature of 6 degree Celsius and an estimated relative humidity of 75 per cent or greater. Shortly after passing Tayar Peak the engine began to run roughly and the pilot applied carburettor heat for approximately one minute. At the same time, he changed his heading slightly towards Rylstone airstrip. The aircraft had now entered a natural basin surrounded by steep ridges, some up to 1500 feet above ground level. The engine returned to smooth running for a short time, then again commenced to run roughly before losing power completely. With the propeller only windmilling the aircraft then descended below the surrounding ridge lines. Full carburettor heat was reapplied, but this failed to restore the power as the engine would have now cooled down, causing a lack of hot air through the carburettor heat system necessary to melt any ice accumulations. The pilot located a suitable area to carry out a landing, and during the approach sighted a power line, parallel and to the right of his track. On short final, with one stage of flap selected, he observed a branch power line which had previously been hidden by trees. It had a low, single wire spanning between poles across his flight path at 90 degrees. He attempted to descend beneath the wire, but the right wing and strut collided with the wire causing the aircraft to rise and assume a steep nose down attitude before impacting the ground. The nosewheel assembly separated at initial impact and the aircraft continued for about 15 metres before coming to rest. The pilot, who was uninjured, evacuated through the left hand cockpit door which had sprung open. There was no evidence of any pre-existing defect which could have caused the engine to fail. The Carburettor Icing - Probability Chart, which has been published in the Aviation Safety Digest, indicated that the prevailing atmospheric conditions would have been conducive to serious carburettor icing at any power setting.

Significant Factors:

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

1. The pilot did not recognise that the ambient conditions were conducive to serious carburettor icing.
2. Pilot in command did not apply carburettor heat for a sufficient period of time.
3. Carburettor icing was sufficient to deprive engine of correct fuel/air mixture and thus cause the engine to lose power.