The aircraft was approaching 500 feet above the ground in a climb when the pilot heard a sudden increase in engine noise and dark coloured dust spattered the windshield. He thought that the propeller must have failed and that the engine was overspeeding. He closed the throttle, turned off the ignition and entered a glide. The aircraft was landed straight ahead, into wind but onto downward sloping terrain. The slope was steeper than the pilot had anticipated, and he was forced to induce a ground loop in order to avoid a fence. During the ground loop the right maingear leg and the tail wheel assembly sustained damage. When the pilot subsequently inspected the aircraft he discovered that the muffler had partially detached from the exhaust pipe because a retaining spring had broken. The loud noise had been unmuffled engine noise and the dust on the windshield had emanated from the exhaust pipe.

On arrival at his destination the pilot was cleared to join the circuit and he requested an orbit to lose height prior to landing. He was given permission to orbit and placed number two for landing. The tower was then advised by the pilot that he was carrying out a missed approach. The pilot completed a second circuit but again advised the tower of a missed approach. In response to a query from the tower as to his operations the pilot stated that he had some concern about his nosewheel since he had touched down too heavily on it and he had heard a loud noise at the same time. The pilot expressed further concern that he may have damaged the nosegear. After an inspection by the firecrew on a low pass the pilot elected to land and achieved a safe landing without further incident. Postflight inspection revealed damage to the nosegear tyre and a slight wrinkling of the firewall. During subsequent investigations the pilot recalled that he had heard a thump on takeoff from Olympic Dam and suggested that the damage may have occurred at that time as a result of a stone strike on the nosewheel. Inspection of the tyre itself gave no indication of the mode of damage. The investigation concluded that the damage had occurred on landing at Parafield.

Circumstances:

The pilot was undergoing a ninety-day flight check. On the downwind leg of the second circuit when the landing gear was selected down, the nose gear extended and locked but both main gear legs remained retracted. Attempts to manually pump the main gear down were unsuccessful and the nose gear could not be retracted. The instructor landed the aircraft on the grass with the nose gear extended and the main gear retracted. Subsequent investigation revealed the aircraft hydraulic system had suffered a total fluid loss. The loss occurred from a hole in a hydraulic down line caused by abrasion from a rudder cable fork end.

Circumstances:

The pilot had not flown the aircraft or used the strip for about 4-5 weeks. As the strip had just been mown, the pilot walked, drove his vehicle, and taxied the aircraft over it to check for obstructions or holes. The take-off was uneventful and on the following landing roll, at about 40 knots, the pilot reported that he lowered the nosewheel onto the strip by relaxing the backpressure on the control column. Almost immediately, the aircraft reportedly became airborne again and the pilot held the control column back. On the subsequent touchdown, the nose gear leg failed, and the aircraft skidded to rest on its nose. The pilot said that he could not find any obstructions or holes in the strip which could have caused the aircraft to bounce. It is assumed that on the second touchdown, the aircraft landed on its nosewheel first, and the leg collapsed due to an overload failure. Despite promises to do so, the pilot failed to deliver the failed parts for inspection and determination of the mode of failure.

Significant Factors:

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

1. For reasons undetermined, the aircraft bounced on landing and then landed nosewheel first.
2. Nose gear collapsed on landing due to probable overload failure.

The aircraft was landed at the destination strip with the gear up. No fault was found with the aircarft or its systems that could have contributed to the accident. The pilot reported that he carried out the downwind and pre-landing checks, both of which included a gear check, but he could not explain why he did not lower the gear.

After the short flight from Argyle the pilot was cleared to descend from 7000 feet at about 20 DME. He was then cleared to land on Runway 19 behind a wide-bodied jet - he was expecting Runway 14. The pilot said he was distracted by a rather hurried descent, landing on a strange runway, an unusual (to him) approach lighting system, and the worry of wake turbulence. As a result he omitted to lower the landing gear. He had reduced power to a low setting because of the later than usual descent clearance and the horn had blown continuously during the descent. However, he had been wearing a headset, and stated that the duration of the sound and the muting effect of the headset combined to detract from its significance in time to save the situation.

A number of people in three aircraft intended to fly to Bellalie. Two of the pilots knew the area well and briefed the pilot of the subject aircraft. He was told to avoid a wet patch on the landing area but that there was sufficient distance remaining to land beyond that area. The other two aircraft departed some time before the subject aircraft. On arrival in the area the pilot could not distinguish the wet area as there was considerable growth due to the recent rain. He saw a road beside the landing area and elected to land on the road. A fence ran parallel to this road, with trees beyond. Towards the end of the landing roll the left wing hit a mulga bush. The pilot had not noticed the bush, as it blended in with the trees behind. He reported that he is short sighted and was not wearing his glasses at the time. This accident was not the subject of an on-scene investigation.

Circumstances:

The pilot reported that less than 100 metres after touchdown, four kangaroos crossed in front of the aircraft. One animal contacted the left propeller/landing gear and caused the aircraft to swerve left uncontrollably. The aircraft ran off the strip and came to rest in a drainage ditch. The accident occurred close to last light. The airport owners advise pilots to exercise extreme caution around sunrise/sunset due to birds and kangaroos on the movement area. This accident was not the subject of an on-site investigation.

The aircraft touched down normally on the 760 metre long strip and the pilot commenced braking immediately. He was then distracted by the sudden appearance of two cyclists at the edge of the strip and was concerned that they might attempt to cross the strip in front of the aircraft. This did not occur and the pilot, returning his attention to the landing roll, realised that the rate of deceleration was less than expected. Despite pumping the brakes, he was unable to prevent the aircraft from over-running the end of the strip and colliding with a large rock. Heavy rain had fallen on the strip shortly before the aircraft arrived. The grass surface was slippery and resulted in reduced braking effectiveness. When the pilot realised that the rate of deceleration was abnormal there was insufficient strip length remaining to ensure a successful go around.

On landing the aircraft bounced about four times before the nose gear broke off. The aircraft overturned, coming to rest on the runway. Gusty wind conditions prevailed at the time of landing. When the aircraft bounced on the initial touchdown, the pilot did not take suitable corrective actions and a porpoising situation developed until the nose gear failed.