When the pilot arrived at the destination, he noted that the wind direction indicator showed apparently calm conditions. Almost immediately after touchdown the aircraft began to swing to the right. Attempts to correct the swing were unsuccessful and the left gear leg collapsed. After vacating the aircraft the pilot noticed that there had been a quartering tailwind of about 10 knots during the landing. The pilot was inexperienced on the operation of tailwheel type aircraft, this being his first flight on such a type following a two hour endorsement. This accident was not the subject of an on-site investigation.

During the daily inspection prior to a series of glider towing operations, the pilot noticed that the brake linings were worn. During the landing roll following the third of these operations, the right brake failed and the aircraft ground looped before coming to rest. The brake had failed following the loss of hydraulic fluid from the seal for the brake caliper piston. This was caused by excessive piston travel, associated with severely worn brake linings. When the assembly was dismantled, it was found that the linings had worn completely off the backing plate, and those on the pressure plate were only 1.1 millimetres in depth. Both brake discs were pitted from the effects of corrosion, which would have caused the excessive wear in the linings.

The pilot decided to land on the shorter of two strips, using a short field technique. Touchdown was made 75 metres into the 470 metre strip, but the pilot was undecided whether to apply maximum braking or to initiate a go-around. Full power was applied and the aircraft became airborne for a short time before touching down in rough terrain. It came to rest with both main gears collapsed, 282 metres beyond the end of the strip. The pilot had not obtained data on the strip and therefore had not checked the landing performance chart which would have indicated that the strip was too short for the aircraft weight and prevailing conditions.

After a normal touchdown a swing to the right developed. The swing was controlled initially with rudder, but when the brakes were applied the pilot was unable to maintain directional control. After the aircraft had swung through about 120 degrees the left wheel was dislodged. The left main axle assembly had separated from the leg because a bolt had failed and a section of the broken bolt had jammed between the brake unit and the brake disc, locking the left wheel. The locked wheel caused the remaining bolts to fail. The bolt that failed was found to have been worn by fretting. The aircraft had only operated 20 hours since servicing was carried out to the gear legs. The failed bolt had not been changed at that service.

The pilot carried out a normal approach and landing. The nosewheel was kept off the ground until the speed had reduced to a suitable figure. However, almost as soon as the wheel contacted the runway it became detached, and the aircraft skidded to a halt 97 metres further on. The nosewheel assembly had failed from overload, which had probably resulted from a recent heavy landing. There was ample evidence to indicate that the damage had not occurred on this particular landing, and the date and circumstances surrounding the heavy landing could not be established.

CICUMSTANCES The pilot and his passengers were touring in the north-west of Australia. For a number of landings after the DEPARTURE from Parafield the aircraft displayed a tendency to veer to the left side of the runway. The aircraft was checked by a licenced aircraft maintenance engineer and no defects were found. However, the pilot continued to experience the same problem. For the landing at Erong Springs, the aircraft was landed with a slight crosswind from the left. Shortly after the nosewheel was gently lowered onto the runway, the aircraft once again veered to the left. The pilot did not regain control of the aircraft, which ran off the runway and collided with a tree. A thorough inspection was made of the aircraft following the accident but no fault could be found that may have affected the landing performance. The reason for the aircraft diverging to the left during the landing roll could not be determined.

During the flight there were indications that the wind may increase in strength, so the pilot elected to cut short the trip and selected an area for landing. A low flat approach was made to a large grassed field and the balloon touched down with little rate of descent in an 8 to 10 knot wind. When the basket first touched the ground, one of the passengers let go of the hand rope and was thrown forward over other crouching passengers and out of the basket. The balloon lifted off again and finally came to rest after dragging for about six metres. The ejected passenger was found to have a broken left collar bone. This accident was not the subject of an on-site investigation.

Spraying operations were planned to be conducted on two paddocks. A briefing on the operation was passed to the pilot by telephone by one of the owners of the property the previous evening. The briefing indicated that a particular power line was strung outside the boundary of the smaller of the paddocks, clear of the likely swath run approach path. Based on the information supplied, the pilot drew a map of the area. In fact, the line cut across the corner of the paddock. Before commencing operations, the pilot carried out an aerial inspection of the area. However, he failed to detect the actual position of the power line. While descending for the first run over the paddock, the aircraft struck the line. The impact partially severed the left wing, and a fire broke out behind the engine firewall. The pilot was able to complete a semi-controlled landing in the adjacent paddock, and the fire was extinguished by the ground party.

During the final approach, the pilot observed kangaroos near the edge of the strip. He continued the approach, expecting the animals to take fright at the approaching aircraft and clear the strip. However, just prior to touchdown, one of the animals bounded towards the aircraft. The pilot attempted to carry out a go-around but the animal struck the right elevator causing substantial damage to the empennage and rear fuselage. The go-around attempt was abandoned and the aircraft was landed. No means was available to prevent animals from entering the flight strip. This accident was not the subject of an on-site investigation.

The maingear uplock assembly had just been fitted with a new seal and the aircraft was flown to ensure the correct operation of the system. The gear retracted normally but could not be lowered and a gear up landing was made. Inspection revealed that the unit had been incorrectly reassembled after the seal was changed. The maintenance had been performed by an unlicenced engineer who had not previously completed a similar task. When carrying out the work he did not refer to either the aircraft maintenance manual or a licenced engineer. On completion of the job no retraction tests were carried out. The engineer believed that the work he had performed would only effect the operation of the gear doors, and not the retraction and extension of the landing gear.