Circumstances:

As part of a training exercise for type endorsement, the instructor pilot demonstrated an autorotational descent and a power-off landing. Following a flare for landing, the instructor was a little slow in levelling the attitude of the helicopter. The tail rotor struck the ground.

Circumstances:

The student was conducting a period of circuits. On his second approach, he was requested to make a full stop landing due to a problem with a following aircraft. He reported that the aircraft touched down normally on the main wheels just beyond the threshold. When he lowered the nose wheel, the nose of the aircraft seemed to sink too far. He applied braking as the aircraft pulled to the left, off the centreline, towards the grass. The aircraft came to rest with the nose landing gear collapsed rearwards. Examination showed the nosewheel tyre had been in very poor condition. It is possible that the tyre crept on the rim during touchdown, resulting in the valve stem being torn off, deflating the tyre.

Circumstances:

The aircraft was cruising at 4000 feet above mean sea level when there was a complete loss of engine power. The pilot turned the aircraft towards the Tamala Station strip and attempted to restart the engine. The restart was unsuccessful, and the pilot established the aircraft on a straight in approach to the strip for an emergency landing towards the south. The approach appeared to be proceeding safely until the aircraft entered an area of mechanical turbulence and stronger headwinds. As a result, the height loss was greater than anticipated and the aircraft touched down, in what appeared to be a smooth grassy area, 100 metres short of the threshold. During the landing roll the aircraft collided with hidden rocks causing the nose and right hand landing gear to collapse. The surface wind at the time of the accident, a sea breeze, was 180 degrees at 15 knots. This wind at 4000 feet was approximately 120 degrees at 15 knots and the difference was not visible to the pilot. The investigation disclosed that the engine failure occurred following a fatigue failure of the crankshaft between the No. 2 big end journal and the No. 2 main bearing. There was some evidence which indicated that the shaft failure was initiated by loose No. 2 main bearing crankcase through bolts although this evidence was not conclusive. It could not be determined when the through bolts may have been torqued incorrectly; however, it was found that the No. 4 and 6 cylinders had been replaced at an overseas locality on the 25 June 1989 during the aircraft's delivery flight to Australia.

Significant Factors:

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

1. It is possible that maintenance procedures used some time prior to the crankshaft failure were inadequate in that the crankcase through bolts were not torqued correctly.

2. Fatigue cracking caused crankshaft and engine failure.

3. The subsequent forced landing was not completely successful because (a) the pilot was not aware there would be a significant increase in the headwind component, near the ground, and as a result the aircraft undershot the intended landing area; and (b) although the undershoot area appeared to be acceptable for a landing it contained hidden obstructions which caused substantial damage to the aircraft.

Circumstances:

The owner/pilot was operating from his home strip which had just been regraded. He reported that, after liftoff, a power loss was experienced. He then closed the throttle and attempted to land on the remaining runway length. During the ensuing ground roll, and while attempting to avoid the windrow and stumps at the edge of the strip, the aircraft struck a windrow and ground looped. The landing gear was torn off and damage was caused to the wingtips, propeller, and fuselage. The reason for the engine malfunction was not determined.

Circumstances:

The pilot reported that he was attempting a practice glide approach onto a farm strip when during the final approach, he carried out a 360 degree turn to lose height. As a result of the turn the aircraft ended up low on the approach and although the pilot applied power to correct the glide path the aircraft touched down on a gravel road 115 metres short of the strip. The aircraft bounced, touched down in the rough alongside the road, collided with trees and came to a stop with a collapsed nosewheel.

Circumstances:

The pilot reported that he misidentified runway 01 as the runway in use.

Circumstances:

The pilot reported that the aircraft's park brake was unserviceable, but the foot brakes were serviceable on departure from Greenhills. Whilst taxiing to the parking area, after landing at Jandakot, the brakes failed completely. In an attempt to avoid a ditch and parked aircraft, the pilot started a 180 degree turn using the rudders. After approximately 90 degrees, the aircraft collided with a parked Cessna 310. At no stage prior to the collision did the pilot attempt to stop the aircraft by shutting the engine down.

The aircraft was one of a group attending a vintage aircraft fly-in. It had been engaged on a photographic flight in company with another aircraft, in an area west of the Hunter River. During the return to the strip, the two aircraft became separated. The subject aircraft was observed to descend to a low height over the river, while apparently tracking for a right base leg position. It subsequently collided with powerlines and trees before falling to the ground about 1.5 kilometres from the strip. The powerlines consisted of three cables strung on individual poles. The span which crossed the river was about 645 metres in length, and the height of the cables at the point of collision was 35 metres above the river level. The weather at the time was fine, with no restrictions to visibility. However, the wires were difficult to see against the background, and the pilot had not been aware that there were any powerlines in the vicinity.

The pilot was conducting agricultural spraying operations on a paddock 1400 metres long, with two sets of powerlines and a highway at one end. A person was deployed at each end of the paddock to provide tracking guidance to the pilot. As he approached the powerlines at spray height, the pilot observed the marker commence moving from the aircraft flight path, so he fixed his attention on the powerlines. Shortly afterwards the marker was struck on the left side of the head, by the left wing of the aircraft. The investigation revealed that the marker was not facing the aircraft at the time of the accident. He was experienced in the task, and the reason for his failure to maintain an adequate lookout, or to move out of the flight path of the aircraft, could not be established. However, it is considered possible that the marker may have turned to check for road traffic on the highway adjacent to the powerlines. In so doing, he turned his field of vision from the approaching aircraft.

Circumstances:

The pilot had been cleared to transit the Coolangatta control zone southbound at 2000 feet. He was instructed to remain east of the coast and to report abeam Jupiters Casino. The pilot subsequently reported abeam the Coolangatta Control Tower and was instructed to report again at Hastings Point which is the southern boundary of the control zone. A Bandeirante aircraft inbound to Coolangatta was descending through 2200 feet, about seven miles south of the airport, when the crew saw a Cessna on a reciprocal heading pass below the right wing. The pilot of the Cessna had not complied with the instruction to remain over water and passed in close proximity to the opposite direction traffic. The pilot of the Cessna did not see the Bandeirante and said that the radio was difficult to understand as his headphones were not compatible with radio. The Cessna was on a ferry flight to Tasmania, and the pilot who was 79 years of age said he was not familiar with Coolangatta airspace.

Significant Factors:

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

1. The pilot was unfamiliar with the local airspace.

2. The pilot misunderstood the terms of his airways clearance. The aircraft radio was not compatible with his headphones and as a result he had difficulty understanding the radio. This incident was not the subject of an on-scene investigation.