Circumstances:

The occasion of the flight was a photographic shoot to illustrate a pilot's perspective while spinning an aircraft. The pilot had recently completed a course on aerobatics and spinning. At 6000 feet he commenced the entry to a left spin, using the technique taught by the school. After about one and three quarter turns, when the spin appeared 'unusual', he decided to recover, releasing the control column and applying full right rudder. He then noticed the airspeed increasing at an alarming rate but was unable to stop the rotation. The airspeed rapidly increased through maximum permitted airspeed to 180/190 kts, at which point the pilot centralised the controls. The aircraft stopped rotating and the pilot recovered from the dive at about 700 ft agl. He then noticed severe overstress wrinkling on both wings and elected to carry out an immediate power-off emergency landing. The aircraft suffered further damage when it struck a small embankment during the landing roll. The wing damage indicated a rolling overstress consistent with a high speed spiral dive to the right. After analysis and experimentation, the pilot's chief flying instructor was able to reproduce the symptoms and concluded that control relaxation at a critical time in the spin entry resulted in a reversal of direction from a 'left spin' to a very steep and rapid spiral dive to the right. Due to the nature of the rotation, the pilot had not been able to identify the direction.

Circumstances:

An approaching front was causing the wind to swing from a 45 degree headwind/crosswind to a 45 degree tailwind/crosswind from the left. Although the pilot reported that he considered that the conditions were not suitable, he decided to attempt a take-off as he felt there was a pressing need to carry out a survey of his property. Just prior to lift off, the aircraft veered to the left and the nosewheel entered a soft area at the side of the strip. The nosewheel broke off and the aircraft cartwheeled across the paddock. The pilot had completed a rotorcraft pilot's course, consisting of 10 hours of instruction, and the first 10 hours of post course consolidation. However, the pilot had very little experience at operating a rotorcraft in fluctuating crosswind conditions. The loss of control was probably the result of a sudden wind change during the latter part of the take-off roll and pilot inexperience.

The balloon was participating in the Bi-Centennial Trans Australia Challenge. The pilot, the current French National Champion, was making only his second flight in Australian conditions. The injured crew member had positioned for landing with his legs behind the pilot. Witnesses reported that the balloon made a very positive landing from about 20 feet with the envelope well deflated on ground contact. The ensuing heavy landing caused the pilot to drop across the co-pilot's legs, breaking that crew member's left ankle. The pilot stated that he was conscious of a powerline in his landing path and that he made a steep approach to minimise the ground drag. The landing paddock, however, was large and flat and did not warrant such a steep approach for landing. It is considered probable that the pilot reverted to his technique for confined space landings which are usual in Europe and did not correctly assess the approach required for the unfamiliar terrain.

Circumstances:

The pilot took off to the west and climbed straight ahead for approximately one kilometre. At about 150 feet above the ground the complete main rotor assembly suddenly separated from the gyroplane. The gyroplane then plummeted to the ground. The main rotor assembly struck the ground about 15 metres short of the main impact site. Wreckage examination disclosed that the lower teeter stop plate was bent on both ends, probably prior to the accident. The bent teeter stops allowed the main rotor blades to flap down beyond normal limits. All teeter stops had pronounced marks indicating repetitive contact. While the main rotor was spinning, one of the blade grips and one of its blade attachment bolts contacted the prerotator horn causing overload failure of the torque tube at the hole for the main rotor assembly attachment bolt. An imprint on one side of the torque tube indicated that full aft control stick had been applied at the time the torque tube began to fail. None of the witnesses saw the gyroplane proposing or performing unusual manoeuvres before rotor separation.

Significant Factors:

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

1. The spinning main rotor contacted the prerotator horn because bent teeter stops allowed flapping of the main rotor blades beyond safe limits.

2. The torque tube suffered overload failure.

The aircraft departed the airfield in calm conditions and flew to a point about 35 kilometres to the south-east. On his return the pilot positioned the aircraft to land on runway 09. The aircraft was struck by a strong wind gust which lifted the right wing and caused the aircraft to veer to the left. The pilot was unable to regain directional control before the aircraft collided with a boundary fence. The wind was reported to be variable in direction at five to ten knots. This accident was not the subject of a formal on-scene investigation.

Circumstances:

The pilot reported that the wing tip caught in long grass at the end of the landing roll. As a result, the glider was swung around causing damage to the fuselage.

After travelling 15 metres during a winch-launch the left wing-tip contacted the ground. The instructor immediately assumed control of the glider and applied right rudder and aileron but the left wing entered an oat crop on the edge of the strip. The tip then dug into soft soil, causing the glider to cartwheel and impact heavily on its nose 120 metres from the take-off position and 35 metres to the left of the centreline. The crop on the edge of the 15 metre wide strip was about 1 metre high and the glider's wing span was 17.5 metres. The student was experiencing difficulty learning to control the aircraft during take-off and following wing-tip contact with the ground both the instructor and the student stated that they made control inputs. Conditions during the day were hot and the instructor had been on duty for nearly ten and half hours.

The aircraft was being used to transport equipment for members of an Aero Club, who were to carry out training at Goulburn. As the pilot was undergoing formation flying training, it was decided that he would lead a formation of two aircraft for the flight. A briefing on the procedures to be followed was carried out. During the flight the pilot of the second aircraft began to suspect the accuracy of his aircraft's airspeed indicator and requested that it be checked against that of the lead aircraft as the aircraft joined the circuit. The pilot of the lead aircraft extended the landing gear and flew the initial leg of the circuit at an indicated airspeed of 96 knots. At the end of this leg the pilot turned the aircraft steeply to the left, the nose dropped slightly and the aircraft flicked into a steep right turn. The aircraft then assumed a steep nose down attitude, however, the pilot was able to level the wings and raise the nose to the level attitude before impact. The impact occurred at a very high rate of sink. The pilot had not previously practiced steep turns at relatively slow airspeed and was not aware of the stalling speed in the given configuration and attitude. The pilot was subsequently unable to recall the reason for attempting a steeper than normal turn. When the aircraft stalled the pilot was unable to effect a full recovery in the height available before impact with the ground.

The aircraft was parked, with controls locked and doors unlocked, by the owner who retained the ignition key. Later, another person entered the aircraft and operated a number of controls before experimenting with a car key in the ignition switch. The engine started and the aircraft took off from the position at which it was parked. The occupant attempted a landing but this was unsuccessful as full power was still selected. Some time later the engine stopped due to fuel exhaustion and the aircraft glided into scrub near the town. The occupant was later apprehended by local Police. The thief had received no pilot training and was not capable of adequately controlling the aircraft.

Circumstances:

The pilot was attempting an aerotow take-off from a stubble covered paddock following an out-landing. During the ground roll, directional control was lost and the take-off discontinued after the wing tips contacted patches of stubble. The rear fuselage fractured during an ensuing ground loop.