After conducting a thorough pre-flight inspection, the pilot prepared to ferry the aircraft to a maintenance organisation which was to perform a scheduled inspection. The aircraft performed normally until it reached a height of about 200 feet after take-off. At this point the engine lost a substantial amount of power and the pilot was committed to a forced landing. During the landing roll the aircraft collided with a fence and came to rest in the adjacent paddock. Initial inspection revealed that there was a serious leakage of fuel past the fuel filter bowl seal, and it was likely that air had entered the fuel system. The stirrup/clamp which held the filter bowl in place had been subjected to an unauthorised repair, which had probably reduced its overall strength. Fuel had been observed leaking from the filter bowl area several days previously, and it was possible that during the attempts to stop the leak, the stirrup had been incorrectly positioned. The fuel leak had not been drawn to the attention of a licenced engineer.

Some time prior to the attempted flight problems had developed with the right wheel assembly. Another pilot had carried out maintenance on the assembly and had subsequently test flown the aircraft. A short time later the pilot concerned boarded the aircraft and prepared for take-off. During the latter stages of the take-off roll, the right wheel slewed sideways, directional control was lost, and the aircraft collided with a fence. The reason why the right wheel slewed sideways was not determined. This accident was not the subject of an on scene investigation.

The pilot reported that gusty and turbulent conditions existed as he made his landing approach. During the flare the aircraft ballooned to about 10 feet, and after the subsequent touchdown the aircraft veered to the left before coming to rest on its nose and left wing tip. The pilot had only limited experience in tailwheel type aircraft. At the time of the accident the wind was gusty, with the crosswind component fluctuating around the maximum for the aircraft type. It was likely that the aircraft was affected by a strong gust during the flare, and the pilot was subsequently unable to maintain directional control.

Upon arrival in the circuit, the pilot assessed the conditions and approached to land into wind on runway 04. When the nosewheel was lowered onto the runway, the aircraft veered to the right and did not respond to the application of left rudder. A go-around was initiated, but soon after becoming airborne, the aircraft rolled to the right until it reached a bank angle of about 60 degrees. The pilot attempted to counter the roll with the application of opposite aileron but the aircraft continued to roll right until the starboard wingtip touched the ground. The auxiliary wingtip tank ruptured and caught fire. The nose of the aircraft dropped and the aircraft struck the ground heavily in a wings level attitude. The aircraft ran along the ground for 18 metres before the nosegear collapsed. It then slid to a halt 250 metres beyond the runway markers with flames now emanating from the engine bay and right wing. The occupants evacuated the aircraft successfully. The pilot reported that after exiting the aircraft he sighted the windsock which indicated a wind direction of approximately 310 degrees and estimated the speed to have been 35 knots. During the early part of the landing roll the wind backed to a 35 knot crosswind from the left. This wind change was unforecast and unexpected by the pilot. It is probable that the wind change caused the left wind to lift and as a result the aircraft turned downwind. During the attempted go-around, in what was now a 35 knot tailwind, the aircraft stalled and the right wing struck the ground.

During the pull up at the end of a clean up run, a small note pad fell to the floor of the cockpit. The pilot leant forward to retrieve it but almost immediately the aircraft struck the ground. The note pad was used to record spraying details that were not critical to the operation of the aircraft.

The aircraft was operating as Qantas Flight QF36 and was approaching Melbourne at the end of a flight from Christchurch, New Zealand. Air Traffic Control of the aircraft was being exercised by Melbourne Approach, which was directing the aircraft for a landing on Runway 27 at Tullamarine. While the aircraft was on track from Wonthaggi towards a radio beacon at Epping, the controller gave vectors to shorten the distance to run to Tullamarine. This track shortening, using radar, is a standard technique, used to aid separation with other aircraft and to provide a smooth flow of traffic. The controller obtained approval from the Essendon controllers to vector QF36 through Essendon airspace. The aircraft was progressively descended and when clearing the aircraft to descend to 2000 feet the controller advised the crew that the aircraft was 4 miles to the left of the runway extended centre line. The crew advised that they had visual contact with the ground and were then cleared to continue a visual approach. Shortly afterwards, the crew sighted a runway and commenced a turn to the left, during which visibility reduced as the aircraft entered a rain shower. On passing through the shower, the crew immediately realised that they had turned towards Essendon, and a right turn was carried out to continue tracking towards Tullamarine. When the premature turn was commenced, it was observed on radar by the Approach controller and visually by both the Melbourne and Essendon Tower controllers. The Approach controller queried the aircraft intentions at about the same time as the crew commenced the turn back towards Tullamarine. A normal landing was carried out about 3 minutes later. During the excursion from the expected track, the aircraft descended to a height of about 1300 feet above the ground. There was no possibility of the aircraft landing at Essendon, as a transfer to Tower frequency had not been made and consequently no landing clearance had been provided. The elapsed time from the start of the left turn to the turn back to the right was about one minute. Safety of operation was not jeopardised at any stage, and the occurrence was not regarded as an air safety incident.

Shortly after the student had made a normal touchdown, a sheep ran across the strip in front of the aircraft. The instructor had not been looking forward, and he was taken by surprise when the student applied a considerable amount of nosewheel deflection in an effort to avoid the animal. The aircraft ran off the side of the strip and struck an earth run-off water vane. It was reported that the strip was 37 metres wide and this width is less than that required for a training authorised landing area. This accident was not the subject of an on-site investigation.

Before commencing spraying operations, the pilot discovered that the left maingear tyre was deflated. The tube was patched, however about half way through the spraying task the pilot noticed that the tyre was partially deflated. Air was added to the tyre, and the operation was continued. On the last landing for the day the left gear commenced to vibrate and the aircraft veered to the left. The pilot was unable to maintain adequate directional control, and the aircraft entered the crop at the side of the strip before ground looping to a halt. The left main tyre was found to be flat.

The pilot was carrying out a session of solo circuits. The aircraft was rounded out high and subsequently landed heavily causing damage to the nosegear. The student had not made any attempt to recover from the high landing flare. It was possible that he was distracted by an aircraft which was taking off while he was on final approach, to the detriment of his normal performance.

Just after the aircraft reached the top of climb, at 1000 feet above the ground, the engine failed. The pilot was unable to rectify the problem and decided to land the aircraft on a road. During the landing roll the left wing struck a roadsign and the aircraft ran off the road, then travelled a further 100 metres before colliding with a tree. Engineering investigation revealed that the stepped dowel used to align the crankshaft timing gear had failed. This resulted in the crankshaft and camshaft timing being 30 degrees out of alignment, hence the inability of the engine to deliver any power. The stepped dowel failed due to the crankshaft timing gear retaining bolt being incorrectly torqued which allowed the gear to move on the crankshaft and eventually shear the dowel. The engine had been overhauled prior to the occurrence and it is likely that the bolt was incorrectly torqued due to oil or dirt being located between the gear and the crankshaft during engine reassembly.