The surface of the 795 metre strip was covered in long grass. The pilot noted that acceleration for takeoff was less than normal, and the aircraft took about 400 metres to achieve a speed of 45 knots. At this point, the pilot considered that he was committed to takeoff, and towards the end of the strip he attempted to force the aircraft into the air. The aircraft struck an embankment at the end of the strip, crossed a road, and collided with a fence before coming to rest about 200 metres further on. Calculations made from the appropriate performance charts indicated that 800 metres was required for take-off under the existing conditions. Another strip with a usable length of 850 metres was parallel to the one selected. The pilot had evidently not realised that the rate of acceleration was lower than expected until there was insufficient strip length remaining to safely abandon the takeoff attempt.

On arrival at the destination, the pilot noted that the wind was from the west-south-west, but joined the circuit for landing into the north-east. On final approach the aircraft was high and fast, and touched down with only 330 metres of the 1100 metre strip remaining. At this time the pilot realised he was landing downwind, and shortly afterwards applied full power in an attempt to go around. However, the aircraft collided with the aerodrome boundary fence and came to rest on its belly after crossing a road and striking another fence.

The pilot was spraying a crop with liquid fungicide. As he pulled up to clear trees during the third swath run, the fungicide evidently surged in the hopper, and a quantity escaped past the hopper-lid seal. It then splashed over the windscreen, severely restricting the pilot's forward vision. He elected to return to the strip to clean the screen and check the hopper seal. The strip length was about 1000 metres and the pilot did not consider it necessary to dump the remainder of the load. During the landing, which was made in light downwind conditions, the pilot experienced difficulty in seeing the strip. During the latter stages of the ground roll the aircraft began to veer to the right. Corrective action failed to redress the situation and the right wing struck the fence bordering the strip. The aircraft came to rest after sliding sideways into a ditch alongside the fence, some 315 metres from the point of touchdown. Investigation confirmed that the hopper-lid seal was defective, and had apparently been so for some time. Directional control had been lost during the landing roll shortly after the free-castoring tailwheel had settled onto the ground. The combination of restricted forward visibility, a downwind/crosswind component and the relatively heavy all up weight, had prevented the pilot from making a safe landing.

The pilot was conducting spraying operations over an irregularly shaped paddock. Power lines were located along two sides of the paddock. At the end of a clean-up run conducted parallel to one set of the lines, the aircraft struck and severed two wires which crossed its path. It then yawed sharply and collided with the other wires, before impacting the ground in a steep nosedown attitude. During the ensuing short ground slide both the engine and the rubber fuel tank were torn out. The pilot later advised that he had been aware of the power lines, but had temporarily overlooked their presence.

A witness reported that as the aircraft approached a ridge line about 5 kilometres from the DEPARTURE point he observed a marked "wing wobble". This was then seen to cease briefly, then recommence. Shortly afterwards, the aircraft collided with the top of the ridge line and cartwheeled down the slope before coming to rest against a tree. An inspection of the aircraft did not reveal any fault that may have contributed to the occurrence. At the time of the accident the wind velocity was north-westerly at about 15 knots and thus was blowing across the ridge struck by the aircraft. It is likely that the aircraft, while being flown at a low altitude, was affected by mechanical turbulence in the lee of the ridge line and collided with the ground.

The pilot was spraying a crop of peas on his own property, less than 500 metres from the strip. The aircraft was observed to finish the second swath run, but during the subsequent pull-up the left wing struck a branch of a 9 metre high tree. The aircraft veered to the left and collided with a large gum tree 235 metres further on. The aircraft came to rest inverted some 50 metres beyond this tree. A fire broke out and consumed much of the wreckage. No evidence was found of any pre-impact defect or malfunction of the aircraft which might have led to the development of the accident. The pilot was relatively inexperienced, was not qualified to conduct aerial agricultural operations, and had not received any formal training for such tasks. It was considered likely that he had mis-judged the distance from the tree struck by the left wing during the pull-up manoeuvre.

After arriving overhead his destination the pilot selected the landing gear down, but received an indication that the nosegear had not locked down. When the emergency gear extension procedure failed to achieve a nosegear down and locked indication, the pilot diverted the aircraft to Roma. Following touchdown on the main wheels, the nose was lowered to the runway and the aircraft slid to a stop. The aircraft had undergone some routine maintenance at Brisbane before the flight. During this maintenance the Nose Gear Centering Spring Assembly had been changed. Examination of this assembly after the accident showed that an attach bolt, had been incorrectly installed and had fouled the nose gear door torque tube, causing the nose gear to "hang up". The correct installation of the bolt is critical, and is the subject of special mention in several Piper Service Documents and Australian Airworthiness Advisory Circular No. 143.

The aircraft was to spray a paddock of rice with a non-toxic herbicide. The pilot carried out an aerial survey of the area prior to commencing the spraying. During the survey he noted that a spur powerline ran to a pole at the north-eastern corner of the paddock, and mistakenly assumed that the line ended at the pole. No other information about the area to be treated was obtained. As the aircraft approached from the north to commence the first spray run it struck the continuation of the powerline which was strung above the northern boundary of the paddock. The aircraft remained airborne, dragging between 200 and 300 metres of powerline, and was subsequently landed in a wheat stubble paddock.

The pilot held the aircraft on the brakes and did his run up checks then commenced take off to the west with a ten knot crosswind from the left. As the tail lifted the aircraft commenced a swing to the left which the pilot was unable to control with full right brake and rudder. He closed the throttle, the aircraft swung sharply left and the right main leg and tail wheel leg collapsed. Inspection of the aircraft showed that the right brake torque plate was attached by welds, one of which failed due to poor quality and low penetration of the weld. This allowed a degree a movement of the torque plate but did not appear to impair the brake operation. One of the three left main wheel through bolts had failed, following 90 per cent progressive fracture in a manner typical of low stress high cycle fatigue cracking. This allowed the wheel halves to be forced slightly apart at this section, causing distortion of the brake disc and drag contact with the brake pads at each wheel rotation. With operation on the ground the effect would have been increased due to the weight of the aircraft and rolling contact with minor strip surface undulations. It was also established that the left brake could be applied normally but that sometimes when the brake was released the brake remained partly applied. The circumstances of the investigation were such that the reason for this was unable to be determined. The uncontrolled swing on take off most likely resulted from the combined effects of the cross wind, the failed wheel through bolt and unidentified defect which caused the left brake not to release fully after it had been applied.

After completing the first landing of the intended touch and go, the pilot readjusted the elevator trim, flap, and applied full power. As the speed increased to about 65 knots he attempted to select the climb attitude but found that the elevator control was jammed in the neutral position. The take-off was abandoned. However, the pilot was unable to stop the aircraft before it overran the strip and struck a levee bank. An inspection of the aircraft revealed that a small aerosol container had jammed the elevator control cables. Sometime prior to this flight the aerosol container had been left lying loose in the rear luggage compartment. It had rolled between the alloy mesh screen and the lower rear seat back into an area under the rear seat where it could foul control cables. When the take-off was abandoned very little braking was available, in the initial stages, because the aircraft was wheelbarrowing due to its speed and the jammed elevator.