The aircraft was engaged on a charter operation from Merimbula to Moruya, Nowra and Bankstown. The aircraft operation was normal until the DEPARTURE from Nowra. After takeoff when the gear was retracting, the pilot noticed a momentary dimming of the cockpit lighting. The gear indications were that the normal retraction cycle had been completed with red light on. The flight continued to Bankstown but when the gear was selected down, nothing happened. The pilot then noticed the landing gear motor circuit breaker had tripped. All attempts to reset it were unsuccessful. The aircraft was then flown to the training area where the pilot tried unsuccessfully to lower the gear manually. The aircraft returned to the Bankstown circuit where it was verified by ground observers that the gear was still retracted. When all emergency services were in place the pilot carried out a wheels up landing on runway 29 centre. The aircraft slid for 325 metres before coming to rest on the runway centreline. Substantial damage occurred to the underside of the fuselage and both propellers were bent. Subsequent investigation revealed the landing gear dynamic breaking relay had failed in the UP position which allowed the motor to drive the retract actuator past the full UP position and jam it on the UP stop. An internal inspection of the relay found that the UP relay contact points were badly pitted and burnt from arcing.

The aircraft was making a landing approach to Sydney when the pilot observed the nose gear had failed to extend normally, after the landing gear was selected down. The aircraft was diverted to Bankstown where it was subsequently established that the nosegear trailed about 20 degrees from the locked down position. All attempts to extend the nosegear were unsuccessful. The aircraft was subsequently landed on the 36L grass strip. During the landing roll the nosegear collapsed and the aircraft settled onto its nose. Prior to making the approach and landing, the pilot said he had shut down the right engine and feathered the propeller, which was then parked in a horizontal position. On short final, the left engine was shut down and the propeller feathered. Insufficient time was available to park the propeller, which struck the ground in a vertical position. This resulted in the left engine crankshaft being fractured, at the rear of the propeller hub mounting. It is considered that the nosegear failed to extend following the failure of the aft rod end of the nosegear aft retract rod. A subsequent specialist examination determined that excessive forces were imposed on the rod end due to landing gear misrigging, following replacement of that component during a recent maintenance inspection. The aft rod end subsequently failed as a result of continued overloads.

The pilot commenced mustering at about 0500 hours, flew for three hours, then carried out routine station duties until it was time to muster another paddock. After approximately 20 minutes airborne he decided to land for a drink of water, which he carried in the helicopter. As the helicopter passed through 10-15 feet on approach, the pilot heard a loud noise, which only lasted for a moment, then the helicopter began to rotate. He lowered the collective and landed the machine upright after two revolutions. Investigation revealed that the tail rotor assembly had hit a small mulga sapling, causing the tail rotor and gearbox to separate from the helicopter. The pilot could not recall having sighted the sapling as he approached to land. Outside air temperature at the time of the accident was plus 38`C.

The pilot was completing a 50 hour test flying program on the aircraft. Two previous sorties had been flown during the day, without incident. On this occasion, the pilot was conducting a glide approach, but when power was re-applied to go around, the engine delivered some 400 rpm less than normal. The pilot attempted to conduct a low level circuit, however the engine power continued to decay on the downwind leg. The turn onto base leg was conducted at about 100 feet, and shortly afterwards all power was lost. The aircraft landed heavily in a paddock. A post accident test run and inspection of the engine found that the power loss was caused by a spark plug failure. This accident was not the subject of an on-site investigation.

During the take-off roll the aircraft had reached a speed of about 85 knots when the left engine suddenly lost power. The pilot immediately closed both throttles and applied braking, but was unable to prevent the aircraft over-running the 900 metre strip. The landing gear was torn out before the aircraft came to rest. Initial investigation revealed that the take-off attempt had been made with the fuel tanks selected to the auxiliary positions, and these tanks were about one quarter full. It is probable that the fuel ports became uncovered as a result of the take-off acceleration, allowing the ingestion of air to the fuel system. The pilot normally followed a written checklist, but had omitted to use it on this occasion. After checking the fuel system during the before take-off vital actions, he had inadvertently left the fuel selectors on the auxiliary positions.

About 30 minutes after takeoff the aircraft was observed by witnesses to be heading in an easterly direction at about 500 feet above ground level. It was then seen to turn left, head north and commence a gradual descent. The witnesses then reported that another left turn was commenced and both wings folded back. The aircraft entered a steep descent before impacting with the ground. An inspection of the aircraft revealed that the left wing front drag cable had failed, due to fatigue and overload, at the forward end near to the attachment point. The failure of this cable resulted in the wings folding. The manufacturer of the aircraft had published a technical bulletin some seven months prior to the accident recommending that owners replace all the wires on their aircraft and fit a double drag brace system. The owner pilot of this aircraft was aware of the recommendation but had not made the nesessary modifications.

The aircraft was one of a number conducting a "fly-in" to the property. On arrival overhead the farm, the aircraft was observed to make a low pass over the homestead, during which the pilot attempted to drop flour bombs on the building. While the pilot was attempting to drop the bombs, the right wing of the aircraft stuck a tree about five metres above the ground. The aircraft rolled to the right and collided with the ground beyond the tree. An inspection of the wreckage did not reveal any defects that could have contributed to the accident. The pilot had recently been counselled by members of his Association regarding previous instances of low flying.

The aircraft departed from runway 16 at Melbourne and after becoming airborne the gear was retracted normally. A left turn was commenced at 500 feet which placed the aircraft on right base for runway 17 at nearby Essendon Airport. The gear selector was placed in the DOWN position as part of the pre-landing procedures but the aircraft subsequently landed with the gear retracted. Minor damage was sustained to the under-fuselage skin, gear doors and various aerials. Inspection revealed that the shear pin located in the forward door actuating linkage had failed. This pin is designed to shear if the doors attempt to operate out of sequence. The pre-impact rigging position of the doors could not be confirmed due to damage caused by the landing. The pilot reported that on short final he checked the gear lights, which were selected to dim. Because he failed to see the gear door warning light, which was the last and most conspicuous in the sequence, he assumed that he had a gear down indication.

The pilot had been carrying out a solo cross-country training flight, when deteriorating lift forced him to make an outlanding. The approach to the paddock selected involved passing over a line of high trees. Severe sink was encountered and the pilot realised he would not clear the trees. He therefore applied full spoilers and attempted a landing short of the planned area. During the landing roll the glider collided with a flock of sheep, killing five of the animals on impact. The pilot was a Japanese national who was visiting the area. Before DEPARTURE he had advised the soaring club that he wished to undertake a local flight. As a result, he was not briefed on cross-country procedures and outlandings. When thermals were encountered after take-off, he had elected to conduct a longer flight. When the outlanding became necessary, the pilot had misjudged the strength of the wind and had continued downwind beyond the point where a successful approach to the selected paddock could be made.

Circumstances:

The aircraft was engaged in superphosphate spreading operations. An aerial survey of the property had been conducted by the pilot in company with the property owner. Power poles in the valley ahead and to the left of the airstrip were marked. When operations started the wind was a light north-easterly and ambient temperature was 16 degrees Celsius. By the time the aircraft had refuelled and was ready for the thirty-sixth flight of the day, the ambient temperature had increased to 28 degrees Celsius, and the wind direction had changed to a south-westerly. Shortly after take-off, the aircraft was observed to sink after overflying the high-voltage powerlines between the marked poles. On the next flight the aircraft was observed to make a tight left turn and fly down the valley adjacent to the left marked power pole. On the next and final flight, the aircraft was apparently attempting to follow the track of the previous flight. While crossing the powerlines south-west of the marked power pole, the aircraft's landing gear and left wing tip struck the powerlines. With the broken powerline jammed behind the left aileron washout plate, the aircraft impacted the ground 100 metres beyond the power pole. Ground impact forces destroyed the aircraft and reduced the cockpit area to non-survivable dimensions. On-site examination of the aircraft and subsequent laboratory examination and testing of components did not reveal any pre-existing mechanical defects or abnormalities which could be considered as factors in, or contributory to, this accident. Powerline impact marks on the aircraft were consistent with the aircraft being in a left banked attitude when it struck the wire. The investigation revealed that the loader driver's truck bucket load gauge had no conversion/calibration chart, and that the aircraft was being operated in excess of the maximum allowable weight for take-off. It is considered probable that the pilot had elected to fly down the valley, (thus taking advantage of the downslope), to compensate for a degradation of aircraft performance whilst operating overweight in the changed ambient conditions. The absence of a superphosphate trail before wire impact indicates that the pilot did not dump any of the load and was either unaware of, or had forgotten about, the existence of powerlines to the south-west of the marked power pole.

Significant Factors:

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

1. The aircraft was being operated in an overweight configuration for take-off.

2. The pilot did not adjust the take-off weight of the aircraft to give an acceptable climb performance.

3. The pilot was unaware of, or had forgotten about, the powerlines to the south-west of the marked pole; or,

4. the pilot misjudged the clearance between the powerlines and the aircraft whilst trying to overfly them.