The pilot had intended to conduct a night freight service to Emerald. There were several thunderstorms in the Emerald area and the pilot elected to divert to Blackwater, 70 kilometres to the east. On arrival in the Blackwater area, the pilot report that he commenced holding at an altitude about 1700 feet above ground level, while he waited for the runway lights to be displayed. The aircraft then entered cloud and severe turbulence was encountered. The pilot stated that his headset was thrown from his head and that he accidently knocked the gear lever into the down position. He said he made no further control inputs. The aircraft struck the ground in a 40 degree turn to the right, at a shallow angle of descent, about 250 metres to the east of the Blackwater runway. The aircraft rotated to the right and slid for about 150 metrtes before coming to rest. The maingear, right engine, aileron and both flaps had been torn from the aircraft during the impact sequence. Reports from ground witnesses indicate that the aircraft was being flown at an altitude of about 400 feet above ground level. It was established that there were thunderstorms in the area at the time but it was not possible to confirm the pilot's report of their severity. The damage to the aircraft suggests that contact with the ground was at a relatively low rate of descent. The investigation did not determine the cause of the accident.

The pilot was taking part in a flying competition consisting of several flying sequences flown from the right hand seat and monitored by a safety pilot/adjudicator occupying the left hand seat. The sequences included a practice forced landing that was commenced from the upwind end of the strip at an altitude of 1500 feet. This sequence was to be conducted without the use of the aircraft instruments. Accordingly all the instruments, including the stall warning indicator, but with the exception of the tachometer and the vacuum gauge, were covered with a piece of cardboard. The pilot stated that he set the aircraft up in a glide for runway 29. Approaching over a tidal lake, and on late final, he realised that he had not adequately compensated for the wind and an undershoot was developing. The safety pilot said that he noticed the rate of sink increase rapidly on late final and when the pilot at the controls did not apply power, he called for a go-around and applied power. However, the mainhweels contacted the water and the aircraft nosed over coming to rest inverted in the shallow lake, 150 metres short of the runway threshold.

The pilot flew to Cervantes on the day prior to the accident to visit some friends. However, upon hearing reports of acts of vandalism at Cervantes airstrip, he inspected several areas on the farm as possible landing sites with the intention of repositioning the aircraft. The next day the aircraft was flown to the farm, where after an airborne inspection the pilot chose the second of two possible landing sites. The aircraft subsequently overshot the intended touchdown point. During the hold off over rising ground, the nose of the aircraft dropped and the aircraft impacted the ground heavily on the nosewheel. The aircraft pitched forward and came to rest inverted. The landing area was unsuitable because of the steeply undulating surface.

The pilot had arranged to meet his son at the Barooga airstrip. Although he had overflown the strip on several occasions he had never previously operated into the strip. After arrival, he was requested to take some friends for scenic flights over the local area. On final approach, on the second of these flights, the aircraft struck powerlines which were strung across the eastern end of the strip, about 85 metres prior to the threshold. The aircraft struck the ground in a nose down attitude 25 metres beyond the powerlines and came to rest inverted. The pilot was unaware of the existence of the powerlines and had not sought the owner's approval or ascertained the strip condition and dimensions before commencing the operation. The poles supporting the powerlines were adjacent to tall trees which resulted in them being difficult to see. Also, it was late afternoon and the approach was being conducted into the west.

Following a normal approach for landing during a period of solo circuits, the aircraft touched down heavily and bounced. Attempts by the pilot to recover from the bounced landing resulted in a second more accentuated bounce. Recovery from the second bounce was not effected and the aircraft impacted the runway in a nose low attitude. No pre-existing defects were found which could have contributed to this occurrence.

The pilot obtained a weather forecast that indicated that the wind at 2000 feet, in the area of the proposed flight, would be a south-easterly at 20 knots, although the surface wind was a light southerly. After receiving a favourable wind report from the launch site, the pilot and passengers proceeded there, and the pilot carried out two helium balloon flights to check the conditions. Having satisfied himself that the conditions were suitable the passengers were briefed and the balloon was launched. After about twenty minutes the wind strength increased and the pilot decided to land the balloon. The passengers were rebriefed on the landing procedures and the burner pilot light was turned off in preparation for landing. On touchdown, in an estimated 20 knot wind, the basket tipped over and was dragged along the ground for 90 metres before coming to rest. Two of the occupants let go of the grab ropes on touchdown and were thrown from the basket on initial ground impact. During the ground slide two other passengers also let go of the grab ropes, the pilot managed to restrain one and keep her within the basket, however, the other passenger was thrown out of the basket.

The aircraft was scheduled to complete a flight from Brisbane to Townsville with intermediate stops at Blackall, Longreach, Winton, Richmond and Hughenden. The weather forecasts received by the pilot indicated that an alternate destination would be required for Blackall and Longreach. Charleville was suitable as an alternate, however, the terminal weather forecast required the carriage of an additional 30 minutes holding fuel for aircraft planning to land there and the pilot flight planned accordingly. While the aircraft was enroute to Blackall, the weather forecast for Charleville was amended to require the carriage of 60 minutes holding fuel. The amended forecast also rendered Charleville unsuitable as an alternate after 1130 hours. This forecast was not passed to the pilot by either of the two Flight Service Units (FSU) concerned with providing information to the aircraft. The pilot was thus unaware of the change in forecast weather at Charleville. However, prior to landing at Blackall at 0944 hours, the pilot requested and received actual weather reports from both Longreach and Charleville. These reports indicated that Longreach was still available as a destination and Charleville was still suitable as an alternate destination. After departing Blackall the aircraft proceeded to Longreach. The Automatic Terminal Information Service (ATIS) at that station gave the the cloud base as 400 feet and the pilot attempted two instrument approaches. Both of these approaches were unsuccessful and the aircraft was diverted to the alternate, Charleville. Reports of the actual weather at Charleville, which were passed to the pilot before his decision to divert, confirmed that Charleville was a suitable alternate destination. Some 32 minutes later, while enroute to Charleville, the pilot received a report from Charleville FSU that the present weather at that station was a cloud base of 1000 feet, with some lower patches and the visibility to the north was two kilometres in rain. When the aircraft arrived overhead Charleville at the published minima, the pilot reported that it was between cloud layers with about seven eighths of cloud below. He immediately commenced a diversion to Roma and gave the total fuel endurance as 60 minutes. He was then advised that the aircraft had been sighted from the ground as it flew overhead. Prior to his decision to divert, the pilot had been advised that the pilot of another Fokker F27 aircraft, which had just landed at Roma, reported that the weather conditions there were fluctuating about the minima. While the aircraft was enroute, attempts by Charleville FSU to find a more suitable landing point were unsuccessful. Arrangements were then made with an aircraft charter operator at Roma to advise the pilot on the method of approach most likely to achieve a landing. The aircraft subsequently landed at 1227 hours after being forced to descend below the published instrument approach minima. After landing the remaining fuel endurance of the aircraft was approximately 15 minutes. At 1244 hours, another F27 aircraft diverted to Brisbane from overhead Charleville after two missed instrument approaches.

Twenty-eight nautical miles (nm) west of Cairns the aircraft contacted Cairns Tower and was cleared down to 7600 feet. At 8 nm the aircraft was further cleared to 4400 feet and to carry out a VOR (Visual Omni Range) approach. Further communications with the aircraft alerted the Cairns Tower Controller to the fact that the aircraft was not carrying out the prescribed procedure. The controller then directed the aircraft so as to ensure clearance from terrain and other traffic. A visual approach and landing was then carried out without further difficulty. An investigation was initiated, following a report received six weeks after the event. Readout of the aircraft flight data recorder and the Tower communications recording established that the initial patterns flown were oriented North-South and similar to that required for a VOR approach at Coolangatta rather than the North East-South west configuration of the Cairns VOR pattern. Further enquiry revealed that the flight crew had anticipated carrying out a visual approach and did not become aware of the requirement for a VOR approach until a short time before the aircraft first arrived over the VOR. An incorrect Instrument Approach and Landing chart was then employed because the normal approach briefing and cross-check of charts was not carried out.

The purpose of the flight was to return to Underbool after visiting friends and relatives at Kulpra Station. On DEPARTURE from Underbool the aircraft carried 136 litres of fuel, 68 litres in each main tank, the tip tanks were empty. The flight to Kulpra was conducted using fuel from the right main tank. The pilot stated that at an altitude of about ten feet after lift-off, the engine failed. The aircraft was landed back on the strip, heavily on the nosewheel, and the nosegear subsequently collapsed. The pilot reported that on inspection the fuel tank selector was positioned to draw fuel from the empty left wingtip tank instead of the left main tank.

The pilot was returning to land after a period of thermalling flight, when severe turbulence was encountered. The pilot's head hit and broke the canopy, and he then had problems with his vision. Heavy sink was also experienced. The pilot stated his last recollection of events was making a left turn towards the airfield at about 150 feet above the ground, and then regaining consciousness in the wreckage. Investigation revealed that the glider had touched down on a 5 metre wide strip between areas of cane growing to about 1.7 metres in height. The left wing caught in the cane and the aircraft slewed violently before coming to rest with the wing completely torn out of the fuselage.