The pilot, who had just purchased the aircraft, had little experience on tailwheel types although he had completed two hours of training the previous day. On the following morning he intended to further familiarise himself with the aircraft, by carrying out a number of circuits. During an attempted three-point landing the left wingtip struck the runway and directional control was lost. The aircraft veered off the runway and came to rest outside the flight strip. The landing on which the accident occurred was conducted in gusting crosswind conditions. The recent training received by the pilot did not include any instruction in crosswind landing techniques.

Prior to the commencement of the spraying operation, the pilot carried out an aerial survey of the area noting the position of all wires. On the first run, the aircraft was flown under both sets of wires. When the run in the opposite direction was commenced, the pilot intended flying the helicopter over the first set of lines and under the second set of lines. However, the helicopter collided with the second set of lines and impacted the ground 70 metres beyond the wires. The pilot stated that he had forgotten about the second set of wires and was flying the aircraft higher above the crop than normal. The previous night the pilot had had a disturbed sleep and was probably suffering some fatigue.

During the landing flare the aircraft ballooned and assumed a nose-high attitude. The pilot attempted to take corrective action but the tail contacted the ground before the mainwheels. The aircraft bounced and on the subsequent touchdown the tail again struck the ground. The pilot was inexperienced on the aircraft type and had used an approach speed below that recommended in the Aircraft Flight Manual. The aircraft was flared too high and incorrect recovery action was taken by the pilot after the aircraft ballooned.

The pilot reported carrying out a normal approach to runway 34 in light and variable wind conditions. The aircraft bounced on first touchdown and then landed heavily on the nosewheel. Several more bounces occurred before the aircraft came to rest. The pilot taxiied the aircraft back to the parking area where he found that the propeller blades had been bent. After the initial touchdown the pilot had attempted to correct the bounced landing by pushing the control column forward.

The pilot was carrying out a series of practice circuits and landings. On this particular approach the aircraft bounced after touchdown. The pilot applied some power in an attempt to cushion the subsequent touchdown, however the aircarft struck the ground heavily and bounced again. A go around was conducted and was followed by a normal landing. Post-flight inspection revealed damage to the nose strut, the engine firewall area and the propeller.

Circumstances:

The pilot stated that he was conducting low flying practice for fence inspection when the left wing hit a tree. The aircraft returned for an uneventful landing at Longreach. The wing leading edge outboard of the strut was badly dented, and the rear spar was creased. The pilot considered that he misjudged his height whilst conducting a left turn.

Circumstances:

The pilot had flown to his property during the morning to find that his airstrip had a herd of cattle grazing on it. He had previously inspected an adjoining paddock on a neighbour's property, as an alternate airstrip and he considered that it met all the requirements for an ALA. He elected to use it rather than attempting to frighten the cattle off his own airstrip by "buzzing" them. That afternoon the pilot prepared to depart. The airstrip situated 2800 feet above sea level, and 390 metres in length was marginal. He believed that he would not have any trouble because the aircraft was lightly loaded, the airstrip had a slight downhill slope with short grass, and the take-off would be into a 10-15 knot headwind. The density altitude at the time was almost equivalent to the pressure altitude. The pilot had only recently purchased the aircraft and was not completely familiar with its operation and performance. He had not studied the performance graphs in the Flight Manual until some time after the accident. As some plug fouling had been experienced on previous flights, he carried out a thorough pre-flight check and engine run-up. During the take-off run the pilot thought that the engine did not appear to be developing full power, but it was running smoothly. The aircraft became airborne in 320 metres, accelerated to about 60 knots, but was unable to climb out of ground effect before colliding with the fence along the boundary of the paddock. A witness reported that the wind strength had decreased to almost calm conditions when the pilot commenced the take-off run. The aircraft struck the fence with the right hand wing, slewed to the right and came to rest on the other side of the fence, with substantial damage. This accident was not the subject of an on-site investigation.

During the circuit, the pilot and passenger were discussing fires near their property. The aircraft was subsequently landed with the gear up. The gear and its warning systems were serviceable. The pilot's attention was diverted from the operation of the aircraft by the fires and the pre-landing checks were not correctly completed.

The aircraft was cruising at 500 feet above some Sydney area beaches. Following an ATC instruction, the pilot applied full power in order to climb to 2000 feet. The engine ran roughly for a short period then lost all power and the pilot was committed to a forced landing in shallow water. Touchdown occurred about 5 metres from the shore-line and the aircraft came to rest inverted in the water. No pre-existing fault could be found with the aircraft engine or ancillaries. Atmospheric conditions were conducive to the formation of moderate carburettor icing. Carburettor heat had not been applied when the engine began to run roughly and lose power.

Following a report of engine rough running a section of an exhaust valve was found to have broken away. A new cylinder assembly including an exhaust valve was fitted, but on take-off for a test flight the engine suddenly suffered a substantial loss of power. During the subsequent forced landing the aircraft ran through a fence and came to rest in a ditch. Two cylinder assemblies were found to have suffered internal damage and pieces of the missing section of the previously replaced exhaust valve were found within the induction system. Although the engine had been ground run by the engineers it had not been tested to full power. As the pilot was asked to limit taxiing and idling times to avoid overheating the new cylinder, engine run-up and pre-flight checks were conducted whilst taxiing. Take-off was commenced 230 metres along the 1900 metre runway and this was the first full power demand made on the engine since its repair. At about 250 feet agl a power loss was experienced, full flap was not used for the forced landing attempt and the aircraft struck the ditch which was 274 metres past the end of the runway.