An instructor who was watching the aircraft as it entered the circuit estimated that the aircraft was about 200 feet too low on the downwind leg. The base turn was conducted at about 50 feet and during the turn onto final the wing of the glider struck the boundary fence. A subsequent examination indicated that the altimeter was over-reading by some 200 feet. The altimeter had been set to indicate zero prior to departure. In the following four and a half hours pressure changes had occurred which resulted in the apparent over-reading. During the circuit, the pilot had been concerned with other traffic about to take-off, and had attempted to alter the flap setting in order to modify the circuit. However, he had inadvertently applied the dive brakes and the glider lost height rapidly until the situation was corrected. A landing straight ahead was considered, but the pilot elected to try and reach the strip. It was likely that he was suffering a degree of fatigue after a long flight.

The aircraft was being operated on a Permit to Fly pending issue of a Certificate of Airworthiness, and was being ferried to Coolangatta for avionics maintenance and to be statically displayed at an airshow. The pilot reported that after a normal landing on runway 35 in a 12 knot crosswind, he encountered slight nosewheel shimmy and the nosegear collapsed almost immediately. A tubular engine mount frame, which supports the left hand trunnion bearing block, had failed. This allowed the left hand trunnion to become dislocated and the nosegear collapsed. Excessive nosewheel shimmy had been reported on a previous occasion. The nosewheel shimmy-damper washers had been lubricated. This may have reduced their effectiveness leading to excessive nosewheel shimmy and possible damage to the tubular frame.

The operator of the aircraft had contracted to spray 160 hectares of barley with weed killer. On arrival over the property, the pilot flew an inspection orbit and commenced spraying the first paddock towards some tall trees and a powerline. After this first pass the aircraft was pulled up into a procedure turn before diving steeply over the same obstacles, in the reciprocal direction. When the aircraft was clear of the obstructions, the pilot attempted to level the aircraft for the next spray run. However, the aircraft continued along its established flight path until striking the ground in a pronounced nose high attitude. The impact damaged the propeller, spray booms and landing gear. Chemical sprayed over the windscreen depriving the pilot of forward vision, and he was unable to control the subsequent landing run sufficiently to prevent the aircraft from broadsiding. The aircraft was being operated at a weight in excess of the Agricultural Gross Weight and at a relatively slow airspeed. During the pullout from the dive, the load factor ("G" loading) applied to the aircraft caused an aerodynamic stall. The pilot was unable to effect a recovery at such a low altitude.

Circumstances:

The aircraft was engaged in spraying operations. Several days prior to the accident the starter motor had failed. Since then, the engine was started by hand swinging the propellor. On this occasion the pilot attempted a start with the cockpit unoccupied. The engine started and immediately accelerated to a high-power setting. The parking brake was unable to prevent the aircraft from moving off and the pilot was unsuccessful in his attempts to board the aircraft. The aircraft completed a 180 degree turn, collided with a motor vehicle and then proceeded across a road where it collided with an earth bank and a tree. The pilot said he may have inadvertently bumped the throttle control to the open position whilst setting the cockpit controls prior to engine start.

The aircraft was engaged on a night freighter service from Cairns to Brisbane with intermediate stops at Townsville and Proserpine. In the morning the aircraft had been positioned in Cairns by the same crew, who had spent the day in a local motel. The flight departed Cairns at 1847 hours. After arriving at Townsville the aircraft was refuelled and additional freight loaded before departing for Proserpine at 1947 hours. The aircraft was cleared to track direct to Proserpine on climb to Flight Level (FL) 250. At 2008 hours the pilot reported that the aircraft had left FL250 on descent into Proserpine and requested a clearance to track to intercept the 310 omni radial inbound for a DME (Distance Measuring Equipment) Arrival. This request was approved and a short time later the aircraft reported established on the radial. At 2016 hours, in answer to a question from Townsville Control, the aircraft reported at 2600 feet and was instructed to call Townsville Flight Service Unit. The aircraft complied with this instruction, and after the initial contact no further transmissions were received from the aircraft. The wreckage was located approximately 4 kilometres north-west of the threshold of runway 11 and in line with that runway. The aircraft had been destroyed by impact forces and the ensuing fire. A witness, who lived near the final approach path of the aircraft, reported that she observed the aircraft when it was on final approach. Analysis of her observations indicated that when she sighted the aircraft it was at a lower height than normal for the type of approach that the pilot reported would be flown. At the time of the sighting she did not notice anything unusual about the operation of the aircraft. Other persons at the Proserpine Aerodrome at the time of the accident reported rainstorms and strong winds in the vicinity. An inspection of the aircraft and its systems did not reveal any defect that could have contributed to the accident. Despite the extensive investigation, no evidence could be found to indicate why the aircraft was below the normal glide path during the approach.

Circumstances:

During a cross-country flight, the pilot became committed to an out-landing. A suitable paddock was selected, but the pilot subsequently misjudged the final approach. The aircraft touched down well into the paddock and the pilot initiated a ground loop in order to avoid a fence. The right wing dug into the ground, the fuselage lifted, and the nose struck the ground heavily.

During the takeoff run the engine developed a maximum of about 5800 rpm, almost 1000 rpm lower than expected. The aircraft became airborne, but did not achieve the climb performance necessary to clear trees along the takeoff path. The observer called to the pilot that he was assuming control, closed the throttle and turned off the fuel and ignition systems. The aircraft collided with the trees and fell to the ground. No mechanical defect was subsequently found with the engine or systems of the aircraft. A number of reports have been received concerning induction icing in this type of engine, in which there is no provision for directing warm air to the carburettor. It was considered likely that induction icing occurred on this occasion. The pilot had not abandoned the takeoff attempt when the loss of power became apparent.

Deteriorating soaring conditions resulted in the pilot landing at a strip close to his intended destination. The landing was uneventful and the pilot arranged for an aero-tow launch. During the take-off roll the left wing of the glider dropped slightly and became caught in long grass. The glider veered violently to the left, became airborne for a few metres then swung to the right and left again before the pilot could release the tow. The glider sustained several cracks in the mid-fuselage area.

Circumstances:

The crew reconnoitred the proposed landing site from about 300 feet above the ground and sighted four powerlines. The pilot entered a hover at about 200 feet and then descended slowly. The aircraft maintained a very low forward speed and movement to the right to assist visibility, in case there were other wires yet unsighted. At 130 feet above the ground the pilot suddenly saw a single wire which was already between the cabin roof and the underside of the main rotor blades. He attempted to avoid the wire, but it was struck by the main rotors. One blade severed the wire which then slashed the top of the tail fin. The pilot carried out a controlled power-on landing. The single wire powerline was old, its metal had dulled and was unlikely to glint in sunlight. The span between poles was 404 metres. The wire was very difficult to see. This accident was not the subject of an on-scene investigation.

Circumstances:

The pilot reported that just prior to commencing descent from a cruising level of 1000 ft, he began to feel slightly ill. As the descent was commenced, he felt violently ill and dizzy. He opened the side window for some fresh air. The passengers stated that the pilot's hands then dropped from the controls and his head fell back in a faint. A passenger in the right control seat, who had some piloting experience, took control of the aircraft while another passenger seated behind the pilot tried to revive him. The flying passenger made plans to land the aircraft near the shore but after several minutes of unconsciousness, the pilot recovered sufficiently to land the floatplane. The pilot sought medical attention and was taken off flying duties until the incident was assessed. During this time, he was ill for several days with a stomach upset, as were other members of his family. The medical investigation did not reveal any underlying problem. The medical opinion was that the pilot had suffered a vaso-vagal reaction in the presence of possible gastroenteritis.

Significant Factors:

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

1. The pilot probably suffered a vaso-vagal reaction in the presence of possible gastroenteritis.

2. As a consequence, he was unable to maintain control of the aircraft. This incident was not the subject of an on-scene investigation.