Shortly after take-off the pilot's door opened. The passenger became very agitated and the pilot elected to carry out a low level circuit and landing. The passenger's condition deteriorated to the extent where the pilot was experiencing difficulty in concentrating on the approach. The aircraft touched down in a paddock 22 metres short of the aerodrome boundary fence, ran through the fence and came to rest near the strip threshold. Atmospheric conditions at the time were conducive to the formation of downdrafts and willy-willies. It was possible that the aircraft was affected by such a disturbance at a time when the pilot was distracted by his passenger's condition.

The pilot had only limited flying experience and had not flown at all for more than 12 months. He had owned the aircraft for about 5 years. On the day preceding the accident, the pilot carried out a number of short hops along the strip in the aircraft, but did not attempt to conduct a circuit. Other pilots who were watching reported that the aircraft porpoised during the hops, although the type was regarded as being stable and easy to fly. On the following morning, the pilot commenced a flight in company with two other aircraft. Shortly after take-off, he turned left and tracked towards the north, while the other pilots flew south. His aircraft was last observed to be flying at about 50 to 100 feet above the ground. The wreckage of the aircraft was discovered about 15 minutes later. The subsequent investigation failed to reveal any defect or malfunction of the aircraft which might have led to the accident. Weather conditions were fine and warm and were not considered to have been a factor. Although it was probable that the pilot had mis-handled the flight controls, the precise reasons for the accident could not be determined.

When preparing for the return leg of a charter flight, the pilot discovered that the engine starter motor would not engage. He elected to hand-start the engine, and briefed the passenger on the operation of the controls. No wheel chocks were employed. When the engine started, the aircraft commenced to move and the passenger's efforts to control the aircraft were ineffective. After travelling about 20 metres the aircraft ran into a ditch and the engine stopped after the propeller struck the ground.

After arriving at the property that morning, the pilot commenced mustering operations. The operations were conducted between 50 feet and 300 feet above ground level throughout the day and all manoeuvres performed appeared normal to ground observers. Later in the afternoon a witness reported that he observed the aircraft perform a steeper than normal climb before diving towards the ground. The aircraft subsequently impacted the ground in a steep nose down, wings level attitude, bounced, then slid forward for 13 metres before the left wing struck a tree. Examination of the wreckage did not reveal any defect with the aircraft that could have contributed to the accident. It is probable that the pilot was fatigued after a long day and that he inadvertently allowed the aircraft to stall at the top of the climb. Insufficient height was then available to allow a recovery to be effected.

The pilot was conducting the return leg of a charter flight, when weather conditions deteriorated about 130 kilometres from the destination. Thunderstorms were evident on either side of track and converging ahead of the aircraft. The pilot elected to return to the DEPARTURE aerodrome, however approaching this strip the weather again deteriorated to the point where flight in visual conditions was not possible. After searching for over an hour to find a clear route to another aerodrome, the pilot elected to land in what appeared to be a suitable paddock. During the landing roll, the nosewheel sank into the soft surface and the nosegear was dislodged. The pilot had only limited experience in operating in the Northern Territory during the wet season, and had probably not received sufficient training and supervision from the aircraft operator.

During the pre-landing checks, the pilot noted that no pressure was available from the left brake pedal. The strip has a slight slope, and the pilot elected to land up the slope in light quartering tailwind conditions. The aircraft bounced twice after touchdown and the pilot commenced a go around. The aircraft veered off the strip and collided with several trees before coming to rest 50 metres from the centre of the strip. The left brake had lost pressure because a worn seal had allowed air into the brake line. The pilot advised that the brake problem did not affect the selection of landing direction. It was considered that directional control was lost during the attempted go around, when the aircraft was affected by a wind gust at a critical stage of the flight.

Witnesses reported that after take-off in hot and gusty crosswind conditions the aircraft did not climb away normally. It passed over the boundary fence at a low height and then remained at about tree-top height for about one kilometre. The aircraft was then seen to turn sharply to the left before disappearing from view. It was subsequently discovered to have struck the ground while in a steep nose-down attitude, and been completely destroyed by a post impact fire. No evidence was found of any pre-impact defect or malfunction of the aircraft which might have contributed to the accident. The take-off had been attempted with the aircraft approximately 20 above the maximum allowable weight. It was considered that the combination of aircraft weight and ambient weather conditions caused a significant reduction in the aircraft climb performance. The available performance was insufficient to allow the aircraft to clear rising ground beyond the aerodrome boundary.

After completing an instrument flight at night, the pilot reported his arrival in the circuit area of the destination aerodrome. The aircraft did not land and a search was commenced. The burnt out wreckage was located the following morning. A detailed techical examination of the wreckage did not reveal any evidence of a defect or malfunction which might have contributed to the accident. operation, the pilot did not hold an Instrument Rating. Weather conditions at the destination were suitable for visual operations, but it was a very dark night with no ground lighting other than the runway lights. There was a strong crosswind in the landing direction and moderate turbulence in the area. The post-mortem examination of the pilot indicated a significant level of blood alcohol concentration. It was likely that the pilot lost control of the aircraft while manoeuvring to land in difficult conditions.

At the conclusion of a dual check flight, the student landed the aircraft into a light north-westerly wind. The landing roll was completed about half way along the 853 metre strip, and the pilot turned the aircraft around preparatory to taxying back to the upwind threshold. The instructor left the aircraft at this point, after briefing the student on the solo sequences he wished him to practice. Shortly afterwards, full power was applied as the student commenced a take-off downwind. The aircraft failed to become airborne, collided with a fence and overturned. The student was subsequently unable to give any reason for his decision to commence the take-off roll from other than the threshold of the strip.

The flight was intended to be a revision exercise in cross-wind circuits and landings. The first landing was completed satisfactorily and the student subsequently advised that the flaps were raised to the take-off setting and full power was applied. However, the instructor reported that only partial power was applied and he said to the student "I've got the flaps". The student believed the comment was "Take it off", and she responded by closing the throttle. The instructor took control and continued the take-off, but the tail tie-down ring struck the boundary fence and the aircraft then collided with mounds of soil beyond the fence. The investigation was unable to resolve the apparent confusion which existed in the cockpit with regard to the amount of power the student applied or the phraseology which was used by the instructor. At the point where the student closed the throttle, the instructor considered that insufficient strip distance remained to stop the aircraft.