Circumstances:

The pilot under check advised the tower controller that the pilot in command wished to demonstrate an engine failure after take-off from runway 33 and that they would land on runway 15. The controller gave approval for this sequence and issued a take-off clearance. Four minutes earlier, a Dash 8 aircraft had been cleared for take-off (this aircraft was making an intersection DEPARTURE) from the same runway. VH-CES was observed to turn back towards the runway and descend normally but contacted the ground adjacent to the runway right wing low and sideslipping to the right. The landing gear collapsed, and the aircraft came to rest facing north-east. Wind at the time was from 030` at 5-10 kts. The pilot reported that the aircraft had experienced a bump similar to that when encountering wake turbulence. The bump was encountered shortly after the aircraft commenced the turn back to the runway, and after the throttle was closed. The aircraft then experienced windshear and downdraft to the extent that the rate of descent could not be arrested before ground impact. VH-CES took off some 2-3 min after the Dash 8. Because the Dash 8 weighs less than 25,000 kg, no wake separation standard was required to be applied by the aerodrome controller. The wake produced by the Dash 8 right wing would, in nil wind conditions, travel away from the runway at about 5 kts. Under the crosswind conditions prevailing at the time, however, the wake could have remained in the vicinity of the runway. This, along with the significant weight difference between the two aircraft, could have led to the flight path of VH-CES being adversely affected.

Significant Factors:

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

1. Crosswind conditions prevailed.

2. Wake turbulence was generated by a departing aircraft.

3. The aircraft was probably affected by wake turbulence during approach.

The pilot reported that, following landing gear retraction after takeoff, the landing gear unsafe light remained on. He reselected the gear down and obtained three green lights but the unsafe light again remained illuminated when the gear was selected up again. Suspecting that the problem was related to a microswitch, the pilot continued the flight. However, the nose gear collapsed during the landing roll. The nose gear drag brace strut connected to the landing gear strut had failed, allowing the gear leg to hang free. There was evidence that the part had been cracked for some time until it failed on gear retraction on this flight. The initial crack was induced by excessive forward load on the gear leg. However, the actual source of this load was not established. No specific inspection of that part of the aircraft was required, nor was the area easy to see during maintenance or preflight inspections. This accident was not the subject of an on-site investigation.

On arrival in the circuit at the destination, the pilot estimated the wind strength at 5 to 15 knots blowing directly across the strip. He elected to land towards the north east with the crosswind from the left. After landing the pilot reported the aircraft was hit by a wind gust which tipped it onto its right wing. The aircraft then weather cocked and ran off the mown section of the strip into long grass where it overturned. This accident was not the subject on an on scene investigation.

The pilot was briefed by the client's agent immediately before the flight which involved spraying four paddocks. After spraying two paddocks the pilot decided to check the wind drift by activating a smoke generator before spraying the third paddock. He had sprayed this paddock on two prior occasions at ten day intervals. He aimed the aircraft at the centre of the paddock with the intention of being at spray height halfway down the paddock. While crossing the paddock boundary at about 30 feet above the ground on descent, there was a loud bang. The aircraft began to display a tendency to roll to the right. The pilot controlled the aircraft, jettisoned the hopper load and flew to the airport without further incident. After inspecting the aircraft, the pilot realized that it had collided with wires. He drove to the client's property and was informed for the first time that the Hydro Electricity Commission had installed a new powerline across the paddock to a dam the previous day. The dam was outside the area to be sprayed. There were no poles in the area to be sprayed; the wires spanned the paddock.

Circumstances:

The aircraft was on a flight from Bandana Station Authorised Landing Area (ALA) to Gunnedah in company with two Airtourer 150 aircraft. Landings were planned at Roma, St. George, and Moree. VH-MVL took off first into a moderate south-westerly wind. After a long take-off roll the aircraft became airborne and, at low altitude, maintained runway heading for some considerable distance. During the completion of a 90-degree left turn, the aircraft failed to climb then entered a steep descent and crashed two kilometres south-west of the strip. Impacting the ground in a level attitude, the aircraft was destroyed and the two occupants seriously injured. The pilot's head struck the instrument panel when his shoulder harness restraint failed. The Bandana ALA is 820 metres long, aligned 04/22, and slopes two percent down toward the south-west. The surface is uneven and covered with long grass. About 3.5 kilometres to the west is an escarpment, almost 2000 feet high. The escarpment forms part of the eastern edge of the Carnarvon Range. In conjunction with the escarpment, the fresh, cool, and stable south-westerly airstream produced appropriate conditions for significant leeside downdraughts or standing waves. The pilot was very familiar with VH-MVL, having logged most of his experience on type in that aircraft. He had recent experience in operating from ALAs and had expressed some concern about take-off performance from Bandana. He considered flying VH-MVL to nearby Ingelara to load his passenger and baggage and then depart from its 1250 metre grass strip. He subsequently decided to depart from Bandana. The aircraft had been refuelled to 108 litres (24 Imperial gallons) at Emerald before the 74-minute flight to Bandana. Combined with the weights of occupants and baggage, the aircraft was 33 kilograms over maximum gross for take-off. Even at the highest rate of fuel consumption, the weight of the remaining fuel was sufficient to result in the aircraft being marginally over maximum gross weight for take-off from Bandana. The aircraft had been operating from other airfields with the two occupants, the baggage and fuel loads up to 108 litres. It seems likely that the critical terrain and meteorological conditions requiring performance beyond the aircraft's capability were not encountered until this flight. With their additional power the two Airtourer 150s were able to climb safely in the prevailing meteorological conditions. Examination of the aircraft and engine failed to reveal any pre-existing mechanical abnormalities which could be considered as factors contributing to the accident. Examination of the failed shoulder harness restraint cable revealed that one third of its steel wire strands had been broken or partially fatigued before the accident. The broken strands had paint on the fracture surfaces, indicating that they were broken before or when the aircraft interior was last painted. The number of intact strands was insufficient to absorb the loads in the impact, causing failure of the cable and serious head injury to the pilot.

Significant Factors:

The following factor was considered relevant to the development of the accident:

1. The aircraft, marginally above maximum gross weight, probably encountered downdraughts in the lee of the escarpment after take-off and was unable to establish a safe climb.

At the conclusion of a property inspection the pilot decided to practice a glide approach in 15 knot wind conditions, which gave a light crosswind on the selected strip. Initial touchdown was on the tailwheel and the aircraft bounced. After the next touchdown the aircraft commenced to run off the side of the strip. The pilot applied power to go-around but the propeller struck the ground and the aircraft came to rest on its nose in a paddock adjacent to the strip. When the aircraft bounced, the pilot had not maintained the control inputs required to compensate for the crosswind, and after the subsequent touchdown the aircraft had commenced to weather-cock. Having applied power to go-around, the pilot had progressively pushed forward on the control stick, in the belief that the tailwheel was still on the ground.

Circumstances:

When the survey aircraft failed to arrive at the destination, and on expiry of the SAR time, a search was commenced. Wreckage of the aircraft was subsequently found on the eastern slope of Mt Barren Jack, to the north west of the mouth of Carrolls Creek, and on the planned track for the survey operation. Observers at the Burrinjuck reservoir near the mouth of Carrolls Creek described the weather in the accident area at the time as black clouds spilling over and obscuring the mountain tops. The aircraft collided with trees on the side of the mountain, while banked steeply to the right and in a tail low attitude. The pilot was thrown from the aircraft during the impact sequence. Medical opinion held that there was no evidence of body trauma consistent with the seat belt being fastened at the time of impact. Because of the destruction of the aircraft by the ensuing fire the status of the seat belt assemblies were unable to be determined. The investigation revealed that both engines were operating at high power at the time of impact. No malfunction or defect could be found with the aircraft which could have contributed to the accident. The survey task required the pilot to adhere strictly to a particular track and the target height for the flight was 500 feet above ground level while maintaining visual contact with the ground at all times. The pilot was suitably qualified to act as pilot in command of survey operations down to a height of 200 feet above ground level. The investigation concluded that the aircraft was being operated at a height substantially lower that 500 feet above ground level prior to the accident. Impact marks, wreckage and mechanical evidence suggest that the aircraft impacted terrain at a time when the pilot was attempting to carry out an evasive manoeuvre to remain clear of terrain. The reason why the aircraft was being operated at such a height and why the pilot delayed turning away from the steeply rising terrain could not be determined.

Significant Factors:

1. The pilot continued the flight into adverse weather conditions.

2. The pilot flew the aircraft towards steeply rising terrain at a height substantially lower that 500 feet above ground level.

On completion of superphosphate spreading operations, the pilot had flown the aircraft to a new strip located 4 kms south of Michelago. The aircraft touched down 290 metres beyond the threshold and despite heavy application of brakes late in the landing roll, the pilot was unable to bring the aircraft to a full stop before it overturned at the end of the strip. Investigation revealed that the tailwind at the time of the landing was considerably stronger than estimated by the pilot, and the approach speed was higher than optimum for the weight. No defect was found with the aircraft which may have contributed to the accident. It is considered that the combined effects of the strong tailwind; the aircraft not being flown at optimum approach speed; the long landing; and the late application of braking, together contributed to the accident.

The pilot was employed as an aircraft salesman. He had previously been employed in the field of aircraft sales in the United Kingdom and the United States of America. During his time in the United Kingdom the pilot claimed to have performed flying displays at three air shows. After joining the company the pilot received training from another company aircraft salesman and was initially approved only to demonstrate aircraft to customers but not at airshows. When it became evident that several airshows were in the offing, the company had one of its experienced check and training pilots fly the planned airshow flying sequence with Mr Eberbach.

This check flight was completed to the check pilot's satisfaction on the afternoon of 4 February 1983 in VH-TBC. On 6/02/1983 the pilot completed the flying sequence at the Welshpool Air Show.The Maroondah Air Show was conducted at Lilydale on 13 February 1983 and 14-2-83. On 13 February 1983 after the completion of the air show briefing involving all participants, Mr Eberbach and another company pilot returned to the company caravan with the company's marketing manager. All three then conducted a detailed briefing on the sequence to be flown by Mr Eberbach, confirming heights and speeds for all manoeuvres to be flown. The display was then completed without any evident problems. On the morning of 14 February 1983 the pilot attended the air show briefing but as the same manoeuvres were to be flown as on the previous day no individual briefing was held. The weather conditions on the day were not ideal for display flying, with a temperature of 36 degrees Celsius and a northerly wind of about 10 knots with gusts up to 20 knots.

The turbulence was reported to have been moderate from the effect of thermals and trees on the airfield boundary. The pilot taxied VH-TBC to the holding point about ten minutes before his planned take-off time. After taking off, the display sequence was flown normally up until the final steep turn manoeuvres. The aircraft approached the airfield from the southwest at a height of approximately 200 feet above ground level and commenced a left turn at an angle of 60 degrees. The turn was continued through 360 degrees and then the aircraft was rolled into a turn to the right at a similar angle of bank. The aircraft appeared to climb slightly in the initial part of the turn to the right and after turning through 90 degrees the angle of bank increased to 100 degrees and the nose of the aircraft began to drop below the horizon. The aircraft then recovered to a wings level attitude, the nose of the aircraft was raised above the horizon, but the aircraft impacted the ground heavily on all three wheels. The wheels and right main plane broke off and as the aircraft slid forward the engine was torn from its mountings and lodged underneath the fuselage. The aircraft slid for a distance of 90 metres and turned through 180 degrees before coming to rest. Subsequent investigation did not disclose any fault with the aircraft that would have contributed to this accident.

The aircraft was to operate a passenger carrying flight to Townsville. Witness reports indicate that the aircraft was aligned on runway 14 in preparation for takeoff. Power was applied and the takeoff run commenced. At the beginning of the takeoff run the aircraft veered to the right and the right mainwheel ran off the sealed runway onto the grass. The aircraft then veered sharply to the left, crossed the runway and ran onto the grass beyond the gable markers. The aircraft then collided with a concrete culvert, crossed a roadway, and came to rest in trees 315 metres from the runway threshold. Comprehensive examination of the aircraft did not reveal any defect or failure that may have contributed to the development of the accident. The weather at the time of the accident was not contributory. The flight crew declined to make themselves available to the investigators for interview. The crew were issued with summonses but did not answer the summons, apparently under direction from their industrial association. This action by the crew hampered the investigation and resulted in no causal factors being determined.