Circumstances:

The pilot purchased the aircraft in kit form from the manufacturer when he was visiting the USA in June 1989. He completed a training course in the dual seat version comprising approximately 30 hours of dual instruction and was certified competent for solo flight on 10 June 1989. After returning to Australia, he assembled the aircraft with the assistance of an aircraft engineer and began flying it on 20 September 1989 and had flown approximately 5 hours since then. On the day of the accident, the pilot had been practising take-offs and landings at the Tully aerodrome, and after about an hour of flying stopped for a break and to check the fuel. During the break he said that he would fly for another half hour and then stop to refuel and have something to eat. During the next flight, the aircraft was seen proceeding along the runway and carrying out "S" turns to reverse direction. During the commencement of a turn to the right, whilst heading towards the southern end of the strip, the aircraft was seen to adopt a steep nose down attitude, and dive towards the ground. The aircraft impacted the ground inverted, adjacent to the strip on a heading of 200 degrees magnetic and travelled 15 metres after initial impact before coming to rest. There was no evidence to suggest that the aircraft was operating abnormally prior to the accident sequence, and no defects were found which may have contributed to the development of the accident. The aircraft pitched nose down suddenly, and the rotor blade struck the tailfin with considerable force before ground impact. The behaviour of the aircraft is consistent with that which may occur when a gyrocopter is subjected to zero or negative "g", causing normal inflight forces to become unbalanced, and the gyrocopter to become uncontrollable. The weight of the aircraft is removed from the rotor, and the engine thrust may then turn the aircraft upside down. This could be caused by levelling off from a climb too abruptly at a low forward speed and allowing the airflow through the rotor to be reversed.

Significant Factors:

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

1. The pilot was inexperienced and was teaching himself to fly the gyrocopter without the supervision of an instructor. His previous training was thorough, but its effectiveness was diminished by lack of continuity during the following 3 months.
2. The loss of control is considered to be due to misapplication of controls leading to a zero or negative "g" situation. The possibility of a wind gust or willy willy causing an upset was considered, but there was no such observation by witnesses, and the wind at the time of the accident was light and variable.
3. The longitudinal stability of the aircraft is dependent on the balance of forces, in the absence of a horizontal stabiliser. The aircraft was not fitted with a horizontal stabiliser which would have improved longitudinal stability and reduced control sensitivity.

Recommendations:

1. The Civil Aviation Authority should consider the introduction of two place gyroplanes for use in a training role. At the moment there is no avenue in Australia for such training and the number of accidents involving inexperienced pilots is significant. It is recommended that CAO 95.12 be amended to include dual place gyroplanes, and that a syllabus of training be specified similar to the FAR 61.85 requirements.
2. The Civil Aviation Authority should consider the establishment of a scheme, to assist the Australian Sport Rotorcraft Association to set up a training and checking system, which would be available to members in specified areas of each State where this activity is popular.

The pilot reported that an aerotow to 2700 feet agl seemed to be accomplished quickly. When the glider had descended to 1400 feet the pilot rejoined the circuit but then considered that the altimeter was defective. She believed that sufficient height remained to permit a landing at the strip and carried out a low, tight circuit. However, as the turn onto final was completed an immediate landing flare was required. A heavy touchdown occurred and the aircraft came to rest 175 metres after the strip boundary. Faulty alignment of the "thousands" needle in the altimeter had led to the pilot mis-setting the height of the strip prior to take-off. The indications she read from the instrument were therefore 1000 feet in error.

The pilot intended to drop a flour bomb at a local cricket ground. He subsequently advised that during the run-in to drop the bomb at 400 feet agl a downdraft was encountered. Full power was rapidly applied but the engine faltered and the aircraft collided with the top of a tree at a height of about 35 feet agl. Some 40 people were gathered under this tree at the time. The impact shattered the windscreen and the cockpit was filled with debris, and a 2 metre limb remained attached to the horizontal stabiliser. The pilot was able to retain control of the aircraft and a safe landing was carried out at the destination aerodrome. No evidence was found to support the pilot's claim that the aircraft was affected by a downdraft. It was possible that the pilot was distracted by the actions required to drop the flour bomb, and did not pay sufficient attention to the area ahead of the aircraft.

The pilot intended to land the glider as close as possible to the hangar. On final, speed was increased to make good the touchdown point, then the aircraft was held in level flight at about 20 feet above the strip. As the landing gear was selected down, the nose dropped and the glider impacted the runway heavily. The landing gear failed and the glider slid for 47 metres on its lower fuselage before coming to rest. The elevator trim had been set nose down for high speed flight, and although a trim check is required, it was omitted from the pre-landing checks. The pilot said that when he changed hands to lower the gear, he may have relaxed the pressure on the stick in his left hand which moved forward under the influence of the nose down trim, resulting the nose drop and the subsequent heavy landing.

The owner pilot had recently recovered his aircraft with new fabric, and is reported to have taxied it up and down the strip for approximately one hour before taking off. About 15 minutes after the aircraft became airborne, a witness reported that he heard a loud bang, followed by the engine noise stopping, and then observed the aircraft spiralling toward the ground from an estimated height of 600 feet. The aircraft impacted in an inverted attitude in a creek. The investigation revealed that the propeller had fractured in flight. It is considered likely, that due to the severe vibrations associated with the loss of part of the propeller blade, the pilot would have shut the engine down. The reason for the propeller failure could not be positively established. A modification to the engine installation had raised the aircraft thrust line and the pilot had carried out a number of additional modifications which moved the centre of gravity rearwards. It is considered probable that when the engine was shut down, a rapid pitch up occurred. Before the pilot could regain control, the aircraft stalled and fell into a spiral dive, from which there was insufficient height to recover.

During a cross country flight the glider encountered an area of sink. The pilot was unable to find any updraughts and selected a paddock in which to land. As the glider was on short final, it suddenly lost height and collided with the boundary fence of the paddock. The pilot was inexperienced on type and also lacked recent experience of outlandings. The paddock selected gave a shorter landing distance than desirable and the pilot aimed for a lower than normal height to cross the boundary fence. When sudden sink was encountered in the hot, turbulent conditions the pilot was unable to prevent colliding with the fence.

The landing gear was selected down during the downwind leg of the circuit, and the gear down lights were illuminated. The aircraft touched down normally, but as soon as the nosewheel contacted the runway, the gear warning horn sounded and the nose-gear retracted. The aircraft slid to a halt on the centre-line of the runway. Inspection confirmed that the landing gear system was serviceable. However, the cause of the gear collapse was not positively determined.

Circumstances:

The pilot reported that he was making his first flight in his ultralight which he had just completed building. After a 30-minute flight around his farm he made a landing approach to a grass strip. The intention was to overfly the strip and make a left circuit. However, as he crossed the threshold, he judged that he was in the right "slot" for a landing and the approach was continued. But when the aircraft was in the flare, he sensed the heading to be 10 degrees right of the strip direction. Because of lack of recent flying experience, he decided at that point that the safest thing to do was to abandon the landing attempt and go around. Confident that he had plenty of reserve power he did not use full throttle for the go-around. As power was applied, the right wing dropped gently, not responding to aileron. The pilot assumed a control malfunction and was not prepared to open the throttle any further. The aircraft continued to turn to the right, now heading toward a power line that was running parallel to the landing strip. The pilot instinctively applied backstick to clear the power line, but the aircraft continued the uncontrolled gentle turn to the right. The pilot said that "resigning himself to the inevitable" he began closing the throttle. The aircraft gently descended into a stubble paddock. The pilot advised that he later realised that a mild stall had developed on the right wing and had proper stall recovery technique been applied, the situation would have been corrected. The pilot subsequently critically self-analysed the accident and identified a number of factors that resulted in him being under significant stress while performing this first flight in his aircraft. In hindsight he believed that he should not have flown the aircraft at all until he had completed some dual flying.

Circumstances:

The pilot stated that after becoming airborne he lowered the nose of the aircraft to gain airspeed, but the aircraft sank back onto the water, then veered to the left. The pilot closed the throttle and attempted to steer the aircraft away from the riverbank. The floats struck a rock retaining wall and the aircraft nosed over. The take-off attempt was towards the lee of trees near the riverbank. The local wind conditions produced approximately five knots of crosswind component from the right. The aircraft may have encountered a sudden decrease in headwind component during the take-off causing it to sink back onto the water. Loss of directional control may have occurred because the aircraft was not correctly aligned at touchdown.

FACTORS

1. The aircraft sank back onto the water after becoming airborne possibly due to an unexpected wind gust.

2. The pilot was unable to maintain directional control after the aircraft touched the water.

The pilot was participating in a local club competition the task being Benalla - The Rock - Rennie - Benalla. The pilot reported that he was attempting an outlanding in a paddock west-south-west of The Rock township on the eastern side of The Rock range. He started a right hand circuit at about 500 feet above ground level (agl). At about 200 feet agl as he was turning from the downwind to a base-final position the aircraft experienced very rapid sink. He attempted to recover with full forward stick but the aircraft went into a dive. Back stick had no effect so he maintained forward stick. Close to the ground as he was apparently recovering from the dive the aircraft struck some small branches and a wire fence. In order to avoid a large tree the pilot banked the aircraft to the left but the right wing struck the top of the tree. The aircraft rolled inverted and struck the ground upside down 50 metres beyond the tree. This accident was not the subject of a formal on-scene investigation.