The pilot was performing a take-off in crosswind conditions of about 15 knots. When the aircraft had reached a speed of about 40 knots it suddenly veered to the left, and despite corrective action the pilot was unable to maintain directional control. With full power still applied, the aircraft ran off the side of the strip. It then passed over an embankment, and travelled a further 200 metres before colliding with trees which were some 60 metres from the edge of the strip. The initial loss of directional control was associated with a wind gust in excess of the maximum for the capabilities of the aircraft. The pilot had persisted with the take-off attempt after the aircraft ran off the strip, because he considered that to have reduced power would have caused the aircraft to ground loop. He had endeavoured to dump the load, but had initially inadvertently applied the spray handle. As a result, only about 10 of the load had been dumped before the collision with the trees.

The pilot had been practicing low level aerobatics near a road junction. There had been a fatal car accident at the intersection and the pilot had been requested to terminate the exercise. The pilot decided to land the aircraft on a nearby strip. An approach was carried out with a quartering tailwind. Two witness on the ground who observed the approach and landing, stated that after touch down the aircraft bounced and began to drift sideways. They observed that the aircraft touched down again while still drifting, nosed over and came to rest inverted, 80 metres prior to the airfield boundry fence. The strip chosen by the pilot was not suitable for the operation of his aircraft. The first touchdown occurred well down the length of the strip and a go-around was not attempted.

On arrival in the destination area the pilot was unable to obtain a down and locked indication for the landing gear. An inspection from another aircraft indicated that the left gear was only partially extended and the pilot elected to divert to Bankstown. All further efforts to lower the gear fully by normal or emergency means were unsuccessful, and the gear ultimately jammed in the mid-position. A safe landing was subsequently made, with the aircraft touching down on a grass undershoot area and sliding to a stop on the selected runway. The pilot had been unable to extend the gear electrically because of a rigging fault in the nosegear mechanism. Manual extension had not been possible because of chipped edges on the tooth and slot of the hand cranking mechanism. The damage to the tooth and slot was considered to have resulted from some previous occasion, when the manual handle had inadvertently been left engaged during electrical operation of the gear. The crank handle, rotating at high speed, had probably come into contact with an object on the cabin floor.

The pilot had flown the aircraft to Hungerford to attend a Field Day. The following morning he adjusted the aircraft brakes and apparently decided to take the aircraft for a test flight. After taking off from the local racecourse, the aircraft climbed to about 150 feet above the ground before descending to fly just above the tops of the trees. The flight continued at this altitude until the aircraft struck a single wire power line and spun to the ground. The pilot had discussed the presence of the wire with the owner of the aircraft prior to taking off. However, the wire was of small gauge and not easily discernible from the air.

Prior to the flight the pilot ascertained that the strip was serviceable although rain had fallen in the area. The previous aircraft had landed without difficulty. However, as the pilot of VH-ENU applied braking after touchdown the aircraft began to slide. The pilot considered carrying out a go-around but elected to continue with the landing. The aircraft overran the strip and travelled 67 metres before stopping. Touchdown was made over halfway along the 820 metre-long strip and mainwheel skid marks were evident over the last 120 metrs of the strip. The pilot's decision not to carry out a go-around after landing was influenced by the length of strip remaining after touch down.

The pilot was undertaking a cross country training flight and was forced to make an outlanding. On late final for a ploughed paddock it became apparent that the area was inundated with rocks up to 200 mm in diameter. During the landing roll extensive damage was caused to the undercarriage frame and doors and to the wheel and tyre. Witnesses indicated that more suitable landing areas were available to the pilot. This accident was not the subject of an on-site investigation.

Towards the end of a spraying operation, the pilot manoeuvred the aircraft for a clean-up run. This required flying between two trees, before diverting around another tree and pulling up over a power line. The first part of the manoeuvre was accomplished , but as the pilot applied rudder to yaw around the single tree, his left foot slipped off the rudder pedal. He then tried to lift the right wing over the tree, but the outer section of the wing struck a large branch. The pilot was able to maintain limited control of the aircraft, which touched down heavily in a nearby paddock. The pilot had experienced some discomfort of his left leg, possibly due to his wearing of shoes with lower heels than those on the boots he normally wore. To alleviate the discomfort, he had placed his foot on the side of the left rudder pedal, from which it had slipped when pressure was applied to yaw the aircraft.

Towards the end of a 4 hour competition flight, the pilot realised that the aircraft would not reach the finishing line and that an outlanding would be necessary. After establishing the aircraft on final approach to the selected paddock, the pilot noticed a pile of stones obstructing the target touchdown area. While manoeuvring to avoid this obstruction, the left wing of the aircraft struck the ground and a ground loop ensued. The pilot had been suffering the effects of a head cold and sinus infection, and had probably become fatigued during the flight in demanding conditions. He had persisted in his efforts to reach the finish until the glider was too low to allow a more suitable paddock to be selected for the outlanding. This accident was not the subject of an on-site investigation.

As the pilot was about to flare the aircraft for landing, a sheep ran onto the strip. It struck the left landing gear, and the pilot carried out a go-around. The aircraft continued to perform normally, and a decision was made to land in the opposite direction, which gave a distance of about 1000 metres to the body of the sheep. During the landing roll the left gear progressively collapsed and the aircraft swung to the left. The propeller dug into the ground as the aircraft nosed down, before coming to rest in an upright position. The presence of sheep was a known operational hazard at the strip. The pilot was aware that damage had probably occurred to the left gear, but had elected to conduct another landing at the strip, where no facilities or persons were available to render assistance if required. An aerodrome with full emergency facilities was available 10 kilometres from the strip.

The pilot stated that a characteristic of the strip in use was that there existed off the north-eastern end an area of downdraught caused by prevailing wind blowing over the adjacent terrain and trees. To counteract this downdraught it was necessary to climb to at least 150 feet above the ground level prior to overflying the end of the strip. On this occasion, the pilot believed sufficient altitude had been gained after takeoff, and turned to the left to take advantage of the upgoing air. However, the aircraft encountered a downdraught and the pilot reported that he allowed the airspeed to get too low and the aircraft enetered a spin to the left. During the recovery attempt the aircraft entered a spin to the right and complete recovery was not achieved before ground impact.