When the pilot arrived at his destination it was after last light and there was no strip lighting available. The pilot nevertheless decided to land, and although he believed he had aligned the aircraft with the strip correctly, it was in fact lined-up to the left of the strip. After touchdown the aircraft ran through a washout and the nosegear and left maingear collapsed. The pilot had been aware when he commenced the flight that he would be unable to reach his destination before last light. He had been reluctant to land at an alternate aerodrome, because he had been wearing old clothes and had no money or credit cards with him.

The pilot had not been authorised to conduct the flight and had never previously operated into the strip. He had arranged to accompany another pilot to the destination but when that pilot was unable to make the flight he decided to fly the aircraft himself. He stated that he was apprenhesive about high ground on the approach and the aircraft touched down well into the 1400 metre strip. After commencing heavy braking a late decision was made to carry out a go-around. During the attempted go-around the aircraft crossed a deep gully, off the end of the strip, and the rear fuselage struck a dirt bank. The impact caused the nosewheel to strike the ground heavily and the nosegear strut collapsed. The aircraft skidded across a paddock striking several fence posts and a fence before coming to rest on a road, 208 metres beyond the end of the strip.

The pilot had been spreading in the general area of the strip for most of the afternoon. When he commenced operations to the south of the strip an area of sink was experienced on approach to the selected paddock. To allow for this, a reduced weight was uplifted on following flights, and a further six loads were spread successfully. However, as he commenced the turn to line up for the first spreading run with a new load, strong sink and turbulence were encountered. Realising that the aircraft would not clear a line of trees, the pilot continued the turn to the left but the angle of bank suddenly increased and the nose pitched down. The pilot dumped the load and applied right rudder but the aircraft struck the ground heavily. No defect with the aircraft was subsequently discovered which may have contributed to the development of the accident. It was likely that the aircraft was affected by a strong wind gust, which generated a substantial downdraft. The aircraft stalled during the pilot's efforts to avoid the trees, and there was insufficient height available in which a recovery could be effected. It was possible that had the pilot dumped the load before the aircraft stalled, the aircraft may have had sufficient performance to counteract the downdraft.

As the pilot was unfamiliar with operations at Bankstown, he had arranged to land at a strip near Hartley to pick up another pilot who would accompany him to Bankstown. The pilot inspected the strip from the air and was advised by the pilot on the ground to land uphill, into the north-east. A landing in this direction resulted in a quartering 10 knot tailwind. The aircraft bounced on touchdown and began to swing to the left. Being unable to regain directional control, the pilot applied full power to go-around as the aircraft went off the strip and over an embankment. During the go-around the tailplane struck a fence, and the aircraft came to rest against the fence, 38 metres to the left of the strip centreline and 250 metres from the initial point of touchdown. The pilot had not allowed for a crosswind component during the landing, and once the swing developed he was unable to correct it. The strip did not meet the width requirement for a private ALA.

The surface of the 795 metre strip was covered in long grass. The pilot noted that acceleration for takeoff was less than normal, and the aircraft took about 400 metres to achieve a speed of 45 knots. At this point, the pilot considered that he was committed to takeoff, and towards the end of the strip he attempted to force the aircraft into the air. The aircraft struck an embankment at the end of the strip, crossed a road, and collided with a fence before coming to rest about 200 metres further on. Calculations made from the appropriate performance charts indicated that 800 metres was required for take-off under the existing conditions. Another strip with a usable length of 850 metres was parallel to the one selected. The pilot had evidently not realised that the rate of acceleration was lower than expected until there was insufficient strip length remaining to safely abandon the takeoff attempt.

On arrival at the destination, the pilot noted that the wind was from the west-south-west, but joined the circuit for landing into the north-east. On final approach the aircraft was high and fast, and touched down with only 330 metres of the 1100 metre strip remaining. At this time the pilot realised he was landing downwind, and shortly afterwards applied full power in an attempt to go around. However, the aircraft collided with the aerodrome boundary fence and came to rest on its belly after crossing a road and striking another fence.

The pilot was spraying a crop with liquid fungicide. As he pulled up to clear trees during the third swath run, the fungicide evidently surged in the hopper, and a quantity escaped past the hopper-lid seal. It then splashed over the windscreen, severely restricting the pilot's forward vision. He elected to return to the strip to clean the screen and check the hopper seal. The strip length was about 1000 metres and the pilot did not consider it necessary to dump the remainder of the load. During the landing, which was made in light downwind conditions, the pilot experienced difficulty in seeing the strip. During the latter stages of the ground roll the aircraft began to veer to the right. Corrective action failed to redress the situation and the right wing struck the fence bordering the strip. The aircraft came to rest after sliding sideways into a ditch alongside the fence, some 315 metres from the point of touchdown. Investigation confirmed that the hopper-lid seal was defective, and had apparently been so for some time. Directional control had been lost during the landing roll shortly after the free-castoring tailwheel had settled onto the ground. The combination of restricted forward visibility, a downwind/crosswind component and the relatively heavy all up weight, had prevented the pilot from making a safe landing.

The pilot was conducting spraying operations over an irregularly shaped paddock. Power lines were located along two sides of the paddock. At the end of a clean-up run conducted parallel to one set of the lines, the aircraft struck and severed two wires which crossed its path. It then yawed sharply and collided with the other wires, before impacting the ground in a steep nosedown attitude. During the ensuing short ground slide both the engine and the rubber fuel tank were torn out. The pilot later advised that he had been aware of the power lines, but had temporarily overlooked their presence.

A witness reported that as the aircraft approached a ridge line about 5 kilometres from the DEPARTURE point he observed a marked "wing wobble". This was then seen to cease briefly, then recommence. Shortly afterwards, the aircraft collided with the top of the ridge line and cartwheeled down the slope before coming to rest against a tree. An inspection of the aircraft did not reveal any fault that may have contributed to the occurrence. At the time of the accident the wind velocity was north-westerly at about 15 knots and thus was blowing across the ridge struck by the aircraft. It is likely that the aircraft, while being flown at a low altitude, was affected by mechanical turbulence in the lee of the ridge line and collided with the ground.

The pilot was spraying a crop of peas on his own property, less than 500 metres from the strip. The aircraft was observed to finish the second swath run, but during the subsequent pull-up the left wing struck a branch of a 9 metre high tree. The aircraft veered to the left and collided with a large gum tree 235 metres further on. The aircraft came to rest inverted some 50 metres beyond this tree. A fire broke out and consumed much of the wreckage. No evidence was found of any pre-impact defect or malfunction of the aircraft which might have led to the development of the accident. The pilot was relatively inexperienced, was not qualified to conduct aerial agricultural operations, and had not received any formal training for such tasks. It was considered likely that he had mis-judged the distance from the tree struck by the left wing during the pull-up manoeuvre.