Circumstances:

The pilot was attempting the first landing of the day on an airstrip which was about 800 metres in length. It had appreciable longitudinal slope, and the surface was covered in long wet grass. The landing direction was up hill with a quartering tail wind from the left. The pilot reported that the aircraft touched down about halfway along the strip and that he anticipated the slope would provide the necessary retardation. As the roll progressed, it became apparent the aircraft could not be stopped on the remaining strip so a ground loop to the left was initiated. The aircraft slid sideways into a Superphosphate dump at the end of the strip and damaged the right aileron, right fuselage, and tailplane.

The pilot had hired the aircraft for an extended period. When it was returned for a periodic inspection, substantial damage was discovered in the area of the right landing gear and the right wing. Investigation revealed that the damage had occurred when the right wheel had struck an anthill during a landing roll at Lawn Hill. The accident had not been reported, and a replacement landing gear leg had been fitted by the pilot and another person, neither of whom was a licensed engineers.

During a wallaby habitat survey of Bluff Mountain the aircraft entered severe turbulence and strong downdrafts. The pilot applied maximum power to avoid impact with the ground and the engine turbine failed. The aircraft entered trees, nosed over and caught fire. The forecast wind speed was 15 to 20 knots and the actual speed was generally close to this. The encounter with the turbulence and downdraft was sudden and unexpected and resulted in the pilot having to use all available engine power in order to regain control. The engine turbine temperature limits were exceeded, leading to the failure of the turbine.

The pilot purchased the aircraft the week prior to the accident. He had no aeronautical experience prior to the acquisition and had not undertaken any form of training for ultalight flying. Whilst conducting taxy tests with the control column all the way aft to feel the effects of the controls the aircraft became airborne with less than full power set. After liftoff the airspeed decayed rapidly the aircraft became uncontrollable and dived into the estuary. It is a requirement of the regulations covering the piloting of ultralight aircraft that before acting as pilot-in-command of an aircraft that the pilot undergoes specified training. This accident was not the subject of a formal on scene investigation.

Circumstances:

The pilot reported that the aircraft engine suffered a partial power loss as he was climbing out from a water hole inspection. Pumping the choke lever restored some power, however he was eventually forced to stall the aircraft into the tops of some tall trees. The aircraft fell approximately 30 feet to the ground with the pilot receiving back injuries during the fall.

Circumstances:

The pilot was engaged in spraying operations. After completing one section of the property, he decided to use the few litres of chemical remaining to treat a corner of the area which he had been unable to spray previously because of adverse winds. There was a power line running obliquely across the intended flight path, with one spur line running from it to the east, and another to the west. Only one pass was needed to spray the area. The pilot was able to maintain visual contact with the three power lines until about three quarters of the way along the pass. He then lost contact with the power line to the east, which had been directly in front of him. He immediately commenced to climb, but the tailwheel struck and became hooked on the power line, causing the aircraft to lose forward speed and preventing it from climbing sufficiently to clear nearby trees. It continued for a distance, with the power line still attached to the tailwheel, clipping a path through the tops of the trees. The pilot was able to maintain control for approximately 350 metres, and he turned the master switch, and magneto switches off just before the aircraft impacted the ground and burst into flames. The pilot, who was uninjured, was able to vacate the aircraft which was destroyed by the fire. This accident was not the subject of an on-scene investigation, and the information contained in this report was provided by the pilot.

Significant Factors:

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

1. The pilot lost visual contact with a power line across his flight path.
2. The aircraft struck the power line as the pilot initiated avoiding action.

Circumstances:

The pilot had planned the direct track for the flight from Cockatoo Island to Derby at 5500 feet above sea level. When the pilot gave his DEPARTURE call, he amended his cruising level to below 5000 feet. No further calls were received from the aircraft. The Cockatoo Island work boat was 56 kilometres north-north-west of Derby, and approximately 20 kilometres west of the direct track between Cockatoo Island and Derby. The crew of the boat observed an aircraft approaching at very low level. The aircraft passed over the boat approximately 5-7 metres above the deck and entered a right hand turn. During the turn the right wing tip struck the water causing the aircraft to cartwheel and crash about 400 metres from the boat. The fuselage broke open on impact and the occupants were subsequently rescued by the crew of the boat. The pilot declined to provide any information which might have clarified the circumstances of the accident, however, available information indicates that he carried out an unauthorized low pass over the boat. During the turn following the low pass, he misjudged the aircraft's height and the right wing tip struck the water.

Significant Factors:

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

1. The pilot was neither trained nor authorized to conduct operations at low level.

2. The pilot exercised poor judgement by operating at an unnecessarily low height.

3. The pilot misjudged his height above the water.

Circumstances:

The purpose of the flight was to carry out training in simulated forced landings. The aircraft was flown by the student to an airfield, and the instructor demonstrated a forced landing onto the airfield. During the landing roll the propeller is reported to have contacted the ground and thrown mud and water onto the aircraft windscreen. The aircraft was not inspected but was taxied back to the threshold and the instructor commenced a short field take-off. Acceleration to the mid-point of the strip was normal; however, from there on the ground was softer and acceleration reduced. The aircraft became airborne but touched down in the adjoining paddock before running through a fence. During the take-off run, the student, who was watching the airspeed indicator closely, noticed that the instructor attempted to fly the aircraft off the ground at 50 knots, the take-off safety speed being 59 knots. Wheel marks on the strip indicated that the aircraft became airborne 23 metres after the strip end. It settled back onto the ground 130 metres later and ran through the fence.

Significant Factors:

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

1. The strip was unsuitable for the operation.

2. The condition of the strip was not checked prior to the commencement of the takeoff.

3. The pilot did not abandon the takeoff.

4. The pilot mishandled the aircraft controls during the take-off.

The aircraft was being test flown following an engine top overhaul. Shortly after lift-off there was a sudden and substantial loss of power. The pilot landed straight ahead but was unable to prevent the aircraft from running off the end of the agricultural strip and colliding with a fence. An examination of the propellor revealed the failure of the pitch change actuating pin for the no. 3 blade. The aircraft logbooks indicated the no. 3 blade was damaged in a previous incident and subsequently repaired. The reason for the failure of the no. 3 pitch change actuating pin was not positively established. However, it is suspected the pin was damaged in the previous incident and the damage not detected during the repair procedure.

Circumstances:

The pilot was undertaking a 300 kilometre triangle cross-country task. A witness reported seeing the aircraft circling at about 400 feet above ground level (agl) before starting to fly a straight path. The aircraft was then seen to begin circling again at a much lower altitude after which it straightened up and flew in the direction of the home airfield. The glider was then observed to nose over and strike the ground without any apparent attempt at recovery. An inspection of the aircraft on site by a club official showed that the airbrakes were fully extended and the flaps were at plus ten degrees when the aircraft impacted. The pilot reportedly could not recall circling at a low altitude, but he believes that he was attempting to land prior to the accident. A probable explanation of the accident is that the pilot allowed the aircraft to stall at a height insufficient for recovery.