During the take-off roll the left mainwheel struck a tyre which was being used as a strip marker. The tyre deflected into the tailplane, however the pilot did not feel the impact and discovered the damage at the conclusion of the flight. An inspection indicated that the tyre had been moved from its normal position prior to the impact, and was hidden from the pilot's view by the long grass on the strip.

The student was undertaking his first instructional flight. At about 2000 feet during the climb towards the training area, the engine failed completely. A successful forced landing was carried out, however during the landing roll the gear struck a number of rocks. Initial investigation revealed a defect in the fuel cock selector mechanism, in that, irrespective of the cockpit indication, the fuel supply cock remained closed. The cable connecting the fuel shut off control in the cockpit to the fuel cock was deformed to the extent that the cock remained in the closed position. A note in the aircraft Flight Manual requires the cockpit control to be lockwired, as the manufacturer had evidently not intended that the control would be frequently manipulated. However, the instructor was not aware of the Flight Manual requirement, and had demonstrated the shut off control on numerous occasions over the past two years. He stated that he had not used the control before the flight in question, and enquiries did not reveal who might have operated the control in the period following the previous flight of the aircraft.

The pilot reported that shortly after take-off the elevator control jammed. He then noted that the horn end of the left elevator was hanging about eight centimetres below the horizontal stabiliser. The load was jettisoned as the pilot prepared to land but increasing difficulty was experienced in keeping the aircraft nose-up. On short final approach the left elevator separated from the aircraft but despite the lack of elevator control the aircraft was landed without further damage. Investigation revealed damage to the leading edge of the left elevator horn. It was probable that this area had been struck by an object while the elevator was in the full nose-up position, i.e. with the horn pointing downwards. The object which caused the damage was not identified, however the impact allowed the outboard hinge pin to become dislodged from its bearing. This in turn led to the jamming of the elevator controls and to the subsequent detachment of the left elevator.

The glider was launched by being towed behind a motor vehicle. After the glider became airborne, the pilot signalled to the vehicle driver to slow down. The vehicle driver slowed the vehicle too quickly, the tow rope slackened and the rope drogue deployed. The tow rope then released from the glider. Because of the position of the tow rope, below the glider, the pilot did not immediately lower the nose, the glider stalled at about 15 feet agl and landed heavily.

The pilot under training had recently completed a Private Pilot Licence course on Robinson R22 helicopters. This was the first flight of his conversion to the AS350-B type. After about ten minutes hovering practice the pilot carried out a successful landing. He was instructed to come to the hover again and perform another landing. The instructor stated that on touchdown the pilot made a sudden movement of the cyclic control, causing the tail rotor to strike the ground and breaking both blades. The helicopter swung to the left through 180 degrees and one landing skid was broken. The helicopter type has light and sensitive controls. The pilot had probably applied excessive cyclic inputs as the helicopter touched down. The instructor was unable to take control in time to prevent the tail rotor strike.

The pilot, who was a part-owner of the aircraft, had arranged to take some friends on a scenic flight over beaches to the north of Sydney. The aircraft made an apparently normal takeoff, into a wind of about 10 knots. About one minute later, the pilot advised that an engine failure had occurred and he requested a landing in the reciprocal direction. At this time the aircraft was at a height of about 400 feet above the ground. Witnesses observed the aircraft commence a turn with a bank angle of about 30 degrees. Height was lost rapidly, and after turning through 180 degrees the aircraft collided with the roof of a factory and burst into flames. The survivor escaped from the left rear seat shortly before the front section of the aircraft fell through the factory roof to the floor below. A number of witnesses had heard the engine splutter before the exhaust note died away, suggesting a problem with the aircraft fuel system. It was determined that the engine was delivering little or no power at the time of impact. No evidence was found of a mechanical defect or malfunction which might have caused the power loss, and the reason for the apparent engine failure was not established. At the point where the pilot commenced to turn towards the aerodrome, the aircraft did not have the necessary gliding performance to reach the runway. The terrain ahead of the aircraft in the takeoff direction afforded a greater chance of a successful forced landing. The reason the pilot elected to attempt to return to the aerodrome could not be determined.

The pilot under training was carrying out a no vector take-off, which is an emergency manoeuvre required to be demonstrated for captaincy. Following release from the ground crew, the airship is accelerated on the ground manoeuvring wheel to approximately 25 knots, then rotated by use of the elevators only. This was the second such take-off. Near the point of rotation a gust of wind caused the airship to roll to the left and the left vector contacted the ground. The left propeller broke, and pieces of the propeller blades punctured the envelope, causing a loss of helium. The pilot-in-command immediately assumed control, put the airship back on the ground, and initiated an emergency helium rip to deflate the envelope. On-site investigation revealed that the take-off was being conducted over rising ground which had a left to right downslope.

The owner/pilot had been designing and building ultralight aircraft for a number of years. This particular aircraft had been designed for a nosewheel landing gear system, however after flying the aircraft the pilot decided that he did not like this particular configuration. He decided to modify the aircraft to a tailwheel design, and had spent a considerable time over the preceding weeks on the rebuilding program. After completing the work the pilot was forced to wait for several days for suitable weather conditions in which to carry out the first flight. On the morning of the accident the pilot carried out a pre-flight inspection before taxying to the end of the strip in use. He was observed to exercise the controls prior to commencing the take-off. The aircraft became airborne after a ground run of about 125 metres, and the angle of climb was seen to progressively increase. At a height of about 80 feet above the ground the left wing dropped and the aircraft dived steeply to the ground. An inspection of the wreckage revealed that the ailerons had been incorrectly designed and were operating in the reverse sense. It was considered possible that the pilot may have been momentarily confused when the aileron response was not as expected, and may not have noticed the steepening nose attitude in time to take corrective measures. In this design the pilot sat in a totally exposed position at the front of the aircraft, and had only limited pitch references. The pilot had not flown a totally open cockpit aircraft for some considerable time, and was not wearing goggles. Apart from the aileron problem no other faults were found during the investigation. During his pre-flight checks the pilot had evidently not detected that the ailerons operated in the reverse sense.

Circumstances:

The aircraft departed for a local parachute dropping sortie. Thunderstorms had been forming to the south-west and north-west, the nearest being about 12 miles from the aerodrome. The surface wind for take-off was 340 degrees at 10 knots. During climb, the pilot was advised to abort the sortie due to increasing wind. On his return to the field, the windsock was indicating a consistent wind from 230 degrees at 20 knots. No turbulence or rain had been encountered during the descent to runway 23, until final approach, when increasingly severe turbulence was experienced together with light rain. At a height of about 100 feet, the pilot initiated a baulked approach using maximum cruise power with landing gear and flap retracted. The aircraft began to climb away normally but then experienced zero climb followed by heavy sink. The pilot increased power to maximum and adopted best angle of climb speed but was unable to prevent the aircraft from settling onto the ground. The pilot subsequently learnt that the aerodrome had been affected by sudden winds gusts estimated to be in the vicinity of 50 knots, resulting in substantial damage to parked aircraft and other objects.

Circumstances:

The pilot reported that he had obtained forecasts and actual weather reports for the intended route. The forecasts indicated low cloud, rain showers and drizzle along the coast, but actual reports indicated that he would get through. After waiting some time for the weather to improve, he departed, following shortly after another aircraft along the same route. In the Batemans Bay area he was unable to proceed further south and found the weather closing in behind. After circling for some time, and with darkness approaching, he elected to carry out a precautionary landing on a beach. During the landing run, the aircraft struck patches of soft sand, resulting in the nose landing gear collapsing and right main gear being torn off.