The pilot was returning from a flight to the local training area and following a normal approach to land into wind, he flared the aircraft for a wheeler landing. During the landing roll the tail wheel was held off the ground until elevator control became ineffective. Before the tailwheel contacted the ground, the pilot relaxed his attention and the aircraft commenced to swing to the right resulting in a ground loop. The left main landing gear oleo fractured and the left wing impacted the ground. There were no pre-existing defects with the aircraft which could have contributed to the accident.

On completion of a lengthy pre-flight inspection of the aircraft and engine warm up, the pilot taxied the aircraft for DEPARTURE from runway 18. The take off roll was commenced following the application of full power, with the aircraft held on the brakes. After rolling approximately 150 metres the aircraft veered to the left and developed a skid before straightening as it left the runway. Shortly after leaving the runway the aircraft pitched nose up and became airborne for a short distance before impacting the ground. No defect was found which could have contributed to the pilots inability to maintain directional control of the aircraft during the take off roll. The reason for the loss of directional control during the take off roll could not be determined. It is considered that the failure of the pilot to abandon the take off prior to the aircraft leaving the runway contributed to this accident.

During the first takeoff of the day the pilot dumped the load of superphosphate when he assessed that the aircraft would not become safely airborne before reaching the end of the strip. The aircraft's tail struck rocks beyond the end of the strip but the pilot was able to continue the flight and then return to the strip and land without further incident. This accident was not the subject of an on-scene investigation.

After landing, the pilot taxied the aircraft into the vicinity of the parking bay. Nearing the area he mistook a vehicular traffic boundary line (red single line) for a taxiway guidance line (yellow single line). The aircraft collided with the steel weld-mesh boundary fence and the left wingtip was severed by a steel post. Light conditions were poor between rain showers and, with the ground wet, the pilot could not make out the colour of the line he was following. It was his first flight into the newly commissioned airport.

After becoming airborne the aircraft proceeded to fly over a nearby town before turning to head back towards the strip. Witnesses report that when the aircraft was about two kilometres south of the strip, the wings appeared to "flap" and the aircraft descended rapidly before tumbling into the ground. An inspection of the wreckage found that the fabric on the wings had decayed and was generally of low strength. It was apparent that the wings had lost their rigidity after the fabric became detached.

The pilot decided to carry out a low fly past along the strip to check the effect of the prevailing strong wind. After having flown along about a third of the strip he landed the aircraft. During the landing roll the wind lifted the left wing and the aircraft began to move off to the right of the strip. The right wheel struck a low dirt mound and was twisted rearward. The aircraft then ran through a fence before coming to rest. The particular strip is an agricultural ALA, with a length of 490 metres and restricted to one-way operations. The pilot was familiar with the strip, having landed there on numerous occasions. The first part of the strip was protected from the wind, and on encountering virtually calm conditions, the pilot had made a spur of the moment decision to land. Shortly after touchdown the aircraft had left the protected area and was subject to a strong and gusty wind.

During the landing roll, the right main gear collapsed. The right wing struck the strip and the aircraft rolled end over end, coming to rest upright. Wind conditions were light and variable and the strip surface was reported as rough. The reason for the gear collapse has not been determined. This accident was not the subject of a formal on-scene investigation.

The pilot was conducting a flight in the local training area. He reported that as he applied power to climb from 2000 to 3000 feet amsl the engine suddenly stopped completely. Efforts to regain power were unsuccessful and during the ensuing forced landing the right wing struck a dead tree. A piece of silastic material was found to be blocking the main discharge tube of the carburettor. Spectroscopic analysis indicated that the silastic was similar to that used to seal the radio inspection hatch against water ingress. It was probable that when the hatch was opened for radio maintenance some of the sealing compound fell into the engine area below. Maintenance records revealed that the carburettor bowl was removed for repair on the day preceding the accident, however it could not be positively determined whether the silastic entered the carburettor on this, or on some other occasion.

The pilot had been undergoing a course in aerobatic flying. After completing 11.5 hours of dual aerobatic instruction, she had been authorised to carry out her first period of solo aerobatic manoeuvres. She was briefed to carry out two spins, followed by other basic manoeuvres, consisting of loops, stall turns, rolls and wing-overs. The aircraft was to operate in the designated training areas. About 8 minutes after the pilot reported entering one of the training areas, the aircraft was observed to be at a relatively low height, spiralling in a clockwise direction. Shortly afterwards it struck a group of large trees and dived to the ground. The damage sustained was consistent with a relatively high speed impact. No fault was subsequently found with the aircraft or its systems which might have contributed to the apparent loss of control. It is not known which manoeuvre the pilot was attempting at the time, but assuming that the briefed sequence was being followed, it is likely that the loss of control occurred during the spinning sequence. The factors leading to the development of the accident have not been determined.

Circumstances:

A report was received from a member of the public concerning the approach flown by VH-HYC into Coolangatta. The report stated that the aircraft appeared from cloud and rain at a very low altitude, well west of the required track, and in an abnormally high nose attitude. It then commenced a rapid left bank accompanied by an increase in engine thrust to regain track and continue the approach to landing. The reporter considered that this had been a highly dangerous method of approaching Runway 14. Other reports were received alleging that the aircraft had landed heavily at Coolangatta.

Following receipt of the complaint, the aircraft technical crew was interviewed. The crew reported that the approach was flown by the First Officer and proceeded normally to the Minimum Descent Altitude of 650 feet. When visual reference to the ground was not established approaching the Missed Approach Point, the First Officer increased engine power to commence the Missed Approach Procedure. However, as he did so, the Captain gained visual reference to the ground, took control of the aircraft, and continued to landing. The crew reported that the landing was normal. A readout of the aircraft's Digital Flight Data Recorder during the period of the approach and landing was completed.

The readout showed that the approach had been flown in accordance with the published procedure for a pilot interpreted instrument approach to the runway. It also indicated that the approach was stabilised and that from the Minimum Descent Altitude, the aircraft was manoeuvred smoothly to achieve precise alignment with the runway. The landing was smooth with a light touchdown and there were no excessive deceleration forces.

The investigation concluded that there was no evidence to support the allegations concerning the approach and landing, either from the aircraft technical crew, or the Flight Data Recorder readout.