Circumstances:

The aircraft had flown from Bendigo to Mudgee where it was refuelled. After leaving Mudgee the pilot diverted from his planned route due to weather and tracked via Muswellbrook, Maitland, Gloucester, and Taree. At 1626 hours the pilot reported at Port Macquarie at 5 000 ft and requested airways clearance. The aircraft was cleared to track coastal to Coffs Harbour and to enter the control area at 4 500 ft. The pilot's acknowledgement of this clearance was the last recorded transmission from the aircraft. The estimated entry time for the control area (at 25 nm from Coffs Harbour) was 1642 hours. At 1645 Coffs Harbour Flight Information Service attempted to contact the aircraft for traffic purposes, but there was no reply. At 1807 hours a search aircraft reported an Emergency Locator Beacon signal on 121.5 MHz in the South West Rocks area. However, due to the inaccessible nature of the terrain, and mist after dark, the wreckage was not found until 0330 on the following morning. The accident site was in the Hat Head National Park, about 38 nm from Coffs Harbour, and about 4 nm east of the direct Port Macquarie to Coffs Harbour track. The aircraft had struck trees, in a wings level attitude, at a descent angle of 16 degrees to the horizontal, on a track of 021 degrees. Although subsequently destroyed, the aircraft had been intact at initial impact. Witnesses reported that a severe electrical storm with hail had passed through the area between Kempsey and South West Rocks between 1630 and 1700 hours. Based on estimated time intervals and known groundspeeds, it was considered that the accident occurred at about 1638-1640 hours. A Bureau of Meteorology analysis indicated that at this time the severe thunderstorm would have been almost over the accident site. Severe updraughts and downdraughts are known to occur in the vicinity of such large storms and the magnitude of such downdraughts could exceed the climb capability of a light aircraft.

Significant Factors:

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

1. The pilot continued VFR flight into adverse conditions.

2. Weather conditions were extreme with a severe thunderstorm.

3. The pilot encountered circumstances beyond his control and was unable to prevent the aircraft descending into the ground.

The pilot made a normal approach to land on Runway 13 with two stages of flap but at a higher than normal airspeed of about 75 knots. He recalled that the flare for landing was good but the aircraft "didn't want to sit down" even with the power off. He reported that as soon as the aircraft touched down it veered to the right and he was unable to control it with the use of rudder but he did not use the brakes. The pilot had assessed the wind for landing as being a slight crosswind from the left. As the aircraft left the runway, the pilot re-applied the power and the aircraft apparently did not climb away as expected but drifted to the right. The pilot then closed the throttle and was aware of the aircraft going up on one wheel but he was not aware of the aircraft hitting both wingtips on the ground as it slewed around and sheared off the gear. Two Civil Aviation Authority Examiners of Airmen who witnessed the accident reported that the wind at the time of the accident was 110 degrees 10-15 knots gusting 20-25 knots. Consideration of the circumstances points to the pilot having induced a wheelbarrow effect in an attempt to pin the aircraft on the runway for landing followed by the effect of a strong crosswind as the pilot attempted to go around from a loss of control situation. This accident was not the subject of a formal on scene investigation.

Circumstances:

The pilot-in-command was carrying out flying training for the purpose of endorsing another commercial pilot on the aircraft type. He was demonstrating tail rotor emergency procedures by simulating a tail rotor failure using right pedal, with the intention of making an approach and run-on landing into a cleared area. He was not happy with the approach so went around and repeated the exercise. He again set the aircraft into the simulated tail rotor failure configuration and continued the approach using about twenty degrees of left drift to maintain direction. At approximately ten feet above ground level, he reduced power and slowed the aircraft for the run-on landing. The aircraft, which was still drifting to the left, experienced a rapid sink rate and contacted the ground with its skids. It then rolled to the left and cartwheeled around its nose before coming to rest lying on its right hand side, facing back along the approach path. This accident was not the subject of an on-scene investigation.

Significant Factors:

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

1. The pilot simulated a tail rotor failure using right pedal, which was counteracted for with left drift.
2. The aircraft suffered rapid sink when the power was reduced for landing.
3. The aircraft was still drifting to the left at touch down.

Circumstances:

The pilot of the Cessna was operating in conjunction with an agricultural aircraft. As the latter aircraft was making an approach to land, the Cessna pilot indicated that he would make an inspection of a nearby strip. The agricultural pilot observed the Cessna making a low pass over the second strip, with the wing flaps selected up. He lost sight of the Cessna as he concentrated on his own landing. The Cessna was subsequently found to have collided with the ground in a left hand turn with 45 degrees of bank, with almost no forward speed and a higher-than-normal rate of descent. The flaps were retracted, and the engine was rotating at high rpm at the time of impact. The wreckage was located 50 metres to the left of the centreline and in line with the DEPARTURE end of the strip that the pilot was inspecting. The investigation did not disclose any defects with the aircraft that may have contributed to the accident. The investigation found that the aircraft was in a fully stalled condition at the time of collision with the ground. It appeared that the pilot made a low flapless inspection pass along the wet flight stip. At the end of the pass with full power he pulled up and entered a left hand turn. During the entry to the turn the aircraft stalled and there was insufficient height to complete a recovery. The factors which caused the pilot to lose control of the aircraft could not be positively determined. However, investigations of accidents that have occurred under similar circumstances, indicate that overconcentration on some aspect of the flight, e.g. the flight strip inspection or distraction by something outside the aircraft can result in a pilot paying insufficient attention to the operation of the aircraft. This in turn can lead to a loss of control at low level, often with insufficient time and height available for the pilot to recover before the aircraft collides with the ground.

Significant Factors:

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

1. The pilot probably allowed his attention to be diverted from the operation of his aircraft.

2. The pilot did not maintain sufficient airspeed for safe flight.

3. There was insufficient height available to complete a recovery from a stalled condition.

Circumstances:

The pilot was preparing to depart with a crosswind of about 15 knots from the right. At the time, the aircraft left wing fuel tank was about two thirds full, while the right tank was empty. The pilot performed a flapless take-off, rotating the aircraft at 50 knots, then climbed using a higher-than-normal nose attitude. Shortly afterwards the aircraft commenced to roll to the left, probably because of the low airspeed, and the lateral weight imbalance. The pilot attempted to raise the left wing by use of the aileron, but the aircraft stalled and struck the ground in a left wing low, 20 degree nose down attitude. The aircraft was still undergoing flight testing for type certification and its Certificate of Airworthiness. Data obtained from the test flight schedule indicated that the normal lift-off speed for this aircraft is 63 - 65 knots, with a 48-knot stalling speed in the zero-flap configuration. The pilot indicated that he had lifted the aircraft into the air at 50 knots on previous occasions, but this would have been done under more ideal conditions. The reason he attempted to take off below the recommended airspeed was on this occasion not determined. This accident was not the subject of an on-site investigation.

Significant Factors:

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

1. The pilot rotated the aircraft at a speed below the optimum take-off speed.

2. The pilot failed to maintain flying speed.

3. Loss of control with insufficient height available to effect a recovery.

The pilot had completed a number of take-offs and landings from the one-way agricultural strip prior to the final flight. On each of the previous flights the pilot had turned right after take-off, climbed out and and carried out spreading operations over ground that fell away from the strip. On the final flight the pilot was to carry out spreading on a paddock to the left and uphill from the strip. The pilot inspected the rising ground and assessed that the aircraft's performance was sufficient to outclimb the rising ground with safety. The final take-off was normal until the pilot had reduced power, raised the flaps and commenced a slight left hand turn. At that point the pilot observed that the aircraft appeared to lose height, relative to the ground, and he considered dumping the load and landing the aircraft on the up slope. He rejected both of these options as he considered that obstructions caused by a fence and a powerline would make the situation worse. Before the pilot could take any further action the aircraft's mainwheels touched down, the aircraft bounced back into the air, collided with the fence and came to a stop in a recently ploughed and planted paddock, just short of the powerline. At the time of take-off, wind conditions may have created slight downdrafts. The gradient of the rising ground was about 7 percent. With optimum conditions (airspeed control, engine performance, etc.), at the prevailing density altitude and aircraft weight, the aircraft could have been expected to outclimb the rising ground. In this case the conditions were not optimum and the aircraft flew into the ground and fence.

Circumstances:

The aircraft began the outbound flight with full tanks and an anticipated endurance of 312 minutes. On the return flight, at about 90 kilometres from the destination, the low fuel warning light illuminated. The pilot landed at a property close by and added 30 litres of fuel to the helicopter before continuing the flight. However, the engine failed due to fuel exhaustion some 20 kilometres from the destination. During the subsequent forced landing, which occurred 14 minutes after last light, the helicopter rolled over.

Significant Factors:

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

1. The pilot miscalculated the fuel consumption rate.

2. The pilot did not land before last light.

3. He did not land before fuel was exhausted.

4. The engine failed due to fuel exhaustion.

5. A forced landing was conducted on unsuitable terrain.

This was to be the first time the pilot had flown an aircraft for the purpose of dropping parachutists. The right cabin door and all seats except the pilot's seat had been removed and a windblast deflector baffle had been fitted at the open doorway in preparation for the day's parachute drops. The aircraft was loaded with four parachutists. After the engine was started, the pilot completed an engine check and the pre-takeoff checks. However, the flap was inadvertently left in the fully retracted position. The pilot considered the strip fairly rough and raised the nosewheel early in the takeoff run, to save it from unnecessary stress. The aircraft became airborne at about 50 knots in an exaggerated nose high attitude. Almost immediately, the left wing dropped and the aircraft veered off the centre section of the strip. Several ground strikes occurred off the strip and the left aileron struck a post in the boundary fence. The aircraft continued at full power, occasionally flying in ground effect at low airspeed, until it struck a log in high grass well beyond the marked end of the strip. The takeoff attempt was continued until the aircraft struck another log and uprooted a large sapling before coming to rest, embedded in a large felled gum tree, 370 metres beyond the end of the strip. The investigation determined that the aircraft became airborne prematurely because the pilot overrotated on takeoff. An aft centre of gravity and lack of takeoff flap combined to make the elevator control very light and prone to overcontrol. Once airborne, the induced drag caused by the exaggerated nose high attitude, and the continual ground strikes prevented acceleration.

Circumstances:

The pilot was attempting to prevent a herd of cattle from turning towards water by flying parallel to the cattle drive and between it and a creek bed. The aircraft was 10 feet above ground level and travelling at 10 knots when the tail boom and rotor collided with the top beam of a shed frame. The pilot was unable to retain control of the aircraft and it crashed next to the frame. The pilot was aware of the location of the rust coloured metal frame, however he had temporarily forgotten about it. The cattle drive had drawn his attention away from the aircraft's flight path and possible obstacles. A fine layer of dust covered the windscreen and with the setting sun, in front of the aircraft, visibility was reduced to the point where the pilot did not see the frame which blended into the rocky background.

Significant Factors:

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

1. The pilot forgot about the frame due to his concentrating on the cattle drive.

2. The pilot's visibility was impaired by the dusty windscreen, the setting sun and the lack of contrast between the frame and the background

The aircraft's engine performed normally during the run up, taxi and take-off. At approximately 200 feet, after take-off, the engine failed completely. The pilot attempted to land the aircraft in the remaining runway length, however, the aircraft touched down in the overrun, entered a muddy area and overturned. The aircraft was last refuelled two days before the accident. Heavy rain had fallen during the two days and the pilot found a significant quantity of water in the aircraft fuel system during his pre-flight fuel check on the morning of the accident. The pilot drained fuel from the system until no water was present in the fuel sample. The pilot was not aware that it is possible for water to accumulate in the fuel tank and not be cleared by the fuel drain. Consequently he did not 'rock' the aircraft, during his preflight, to ensure that all the water was clear. An inspection of the aircraft fuel system, following the accident, disclosed that the engine had stopped because the fuel supply to the carburettor had become contaminated with water. The fuel tank cap on one tank had a defective seal. This accident was not the subject of an on scene investigation.