On 1 July 2010, at 1003 Eastern Standard Time, a breakdown of separation occurred between an Airbus Industrie A320-232 aircraft and Boeing Company 767-338 aircraft, about 40 NM (74 km) to the north-west of Tamworth, New South Wales. The aircraft were operating on crossing tracks, with an angular displacement between the tracks of about 50°. Both aircraft were operating at standard cruising levels. The enroute air traffic controller first identified the confliction about 2 minutes before the separation breakdown occurred, when both aircraft were maintaining FL360 and there was 26.2 NM (48.5 km) between their lateral positions. An instruction to climb to FL370 was issued to the flight crew of the 767. When there was 14.6 NM (27.04 km) between the aircraft, the controller subsequently instructed the flight crew of the 767 to expedite their aircraft's climb. Shortly before a 1,000 ft separation standard between the 767 and A320 was established, the radar data indicated that longitudinal separation had reduced, below the required standard of 5NM (9.26 km), to 3.8 (7.04 km) NM.

This incident highlighted the importance of the provision of timely and appropriate traffic information to flight crew by air traffic control, in that it can significantly enhance pilots' situational awareness.  It also supported the opportunity for flight crew to enhance the situational awareness of air traffic control, such as in providing direct information regarding individual aircraft performance.

Airservices Australia (Airservices) has advised that they are conducting a systemic review into the number of breakdown of separation occurrences. Outcomes from that review will be considered in terms of further safety improvement. In addition, Airservices has implemented a Compromised Separation Recovery training module for enroute air traffic control groups.

On 30 June 2010, a Grob - Burkhaart Flugzeugbau G-115C2 (Grob) aircraft, registered VH-BDP, and an Avions Pierre Robin R-2160 (Robin) aircraft, registered VH‑JXY, were conducting flying training north-west of Mandurah, Western Australia (WA). On board both aircraft were a flight instructor and student.

At about 1400 Western Standard Time, the Robin was travelling to the south-west, maintaining about 3,500 ft. The instructor in the Robin reported that he had just cleared the area in preparation for conducting a manoeuvre when he saw the Grob on a reciprocal heading, at about the same altitude. The aircraft was sighted too late to take any action. The instructor in the Grob also sighted the Robin, slightly to the left, and immediately initiated a steep turn to the right. It was estimated that the distance between the aircraft was about 50 m horizontally and 150 ft vertically, with the Grob positioned above the Robin.

As a result of this incident, the operator of the Grob has modified their operating procedures so that flying training will only be conducted in the designated training area. The operator of the Robin has implemented a procedure requiring pilots to request traffic information or flight following from air traffic control prior to commencing aerial work.

On 1 July 2010, an Aeronautica Macchi S.P.A. AL60 aircraft, registered VH-ELI (ELI), departed Devonport, Tasmania (Tas.) for Portee Station, South Australia (SA) with planned refuelling stops at King Island, Tas. and Hamilton, Victoria (Vic.).

While enroute from King Island to Hamilton, the crew observed low cloud along the track and   diverted to Mount Gambier, SA to refuel. After departing Mount Gambier, the crew observed that the left fuel tank gauge was indicating half full. The crew discussed the situation and elected to continue the flight. Also, the directional gyro had to be aligned twice by the crew due to gyroscopic precession. As a result, the aircraft diverted to the left of the planned track by about 2-4 km. The crew commenced correcting the track when an inbound Pilatus Aircraft Ltd. PC-12/45 aircraft, registered VH‑FDK (FDK), passed to the left in close proximity.

It was estimated that the distance between the two aircraft was between 5 and 15 m horizontally and about 20 ft vertically.

While the operator of FDK determined that their pilot had complied with the required procedures, they advised the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) that they will be conducting an internal education to remind pilots that maintaining a lookout and the use of radio telephony procedures are the primary tools used for traffic separation, supported by the traffic alert and collision avoidance system (TCAS).

On 22 June 2010, a Saab 340B aircraft, registered VH-KDQ, was conducting a passenger charter flight from Adelaide to Ceduna, South Australia (SA). After departure, the copilot notified the pilot in command (PIC) that he was feeling unwell. The copilot's condition deteriorated to the point where he was unable to continue the flight to Ceduna. Shortly after reaching the top of climb, the pilot in command (PIC) decided to return the aircraft to Adelaide due to the copilot's deteriorating condition.

During the event, air traffic control (ATC) was not made aware of the reasons for the aircraft returning to Adelaide. Had the wellbeing of the copilot deteriorated further during the return to Adelaide, there may have been unnecessary delays in medical help being available.

On 30 June 2010, a Cessna Aircraft Company 172H (C172), registered VH-RZV, with one pilot on board, was engaged in cattle spotting, about 21 km NNW of Cunnamulla, Queensland (Qld.).

While orbiting a water trough at about 500 ft, the pilot lost control of the aircraft. Damage to the aircraft was consistent with the right-wing colliding with a tree branch, followed by the aircraft impacting the ground inverted, with a steep nose-down attitude

The pilot sustained serious injuries, and the aircraft was severely damaged. The pilot reported that the most likely reason for the accident was an inadvertent stall. This probably occurred while the pilot was performing a steep turn, with his attention divided between flying the aircraft and looking for cattle.

Most stall/spin accidents occur when a pilot is momentarily distracted from the primary task of flying the aircraft. This accident highlights that even an experienced pilot performing a familiar task can be momentarily distracted, resulting in the loss of control of the aircraft.

On the morning of 21 June 2010, the owner/pilot of a Cessna Aircraft 172N, registered VH‑UFN, departed from a private airstrip near Woolcunda Lake, New South Wales for a flight over the pilot's property. The aircraft did not return and was reported missing that afternoon. A search was initiated and, 2 days later, the aircraft was located in Woolcunda Lake.

The investigation identified that the aircraft impacted the lake in a left banking turn. Irrespective of the reason for being at low level, it is probable that the pilot misjudged the height of the aircraft above the lake's surface or was distracted at a height from which the pilot was unable to recover before impacting the water.

Australian Transport Safety Bureau report AR‑2009-041 Avoidable Accidents No. 1: Low‑level flying addressed the dangers associated with low-level flight and in particular, the reduced time available to recover from any loss of control. This investigation provides a timely reminder of the effect on that risk of flight over expanses of flat, featureless terrain or water.

Preliminary report released 6 August 2010

On 13 June 2010, a Robinson Helicopter Co R22 Beta, registered VH-RPN, was engaged in cattle mustering operations on a station property about 257 km east-north-east of Derby, Western Australia. During those operations the helicopter collided with the ground and caught fire. The pilot, the sole occupant of the helicopter sustained fatal injuries.

Preliminary report released 15 July 2010

This preliminary report details factual information established in the investigation’s early evidence collection phase and has been prepared to provide timely information to the industry and public. Preliminary reports contain no analysis or findings, which will be detailed in the investigation’s final report. The information contained in this preliminary report is released in accordance with section 25 of the Transport Safety Investigation Act 2003.

At about 0807 Eastern Standard Time on 15 June 2010, a Piper PA-31P-350 Mojave aircraft, registered VH-PGW, with a pilot and flight nurse on board, collided with terrain in a suburban area about 6 km north-west of Bankstown Airport, New South Wales. At the time, the pilot was attempting to return to Bankstown following a reported in-flight engine shutdown. Both occupants were fatally injured, and the aircraft was destroyed by the impact forces and an intense post-impact fire.

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau has conducted a series of examinations of the propellers, engines and some associated engine and airframe components that were not destroyed during the impact and subsequent fire. The examination of the propellers indicated that, at the time of impact, the right propeller was in the feathered position and the left propeller was in the full fine position, which was consistent with low engine power. The examination of the engines did not find any evidence of mechanical failure. Impact and fire damage to the cockpit area resulted in most of the instruments and systems being destroyed or extensively damaged. The position of several cockpit switches was determined but an examination of the cockpit instruments was unable to determine any instrument indications at the time of impact.

The investigation is continuing and will include:

• an ongoing examination of operational issues including pilot training and checking
• continued analysis of recorded radar data and voice transmissions
• an ongoing human factors review.

It is anticipated that the final investigation report will be released to the public in the first quarter of calendar year 2012.

Aircraft flight path chart

On 4 June 2010, at about 1345 Eastern Standard Time, a Diamond Aircraft Industries DA40-D (DA40), registered VH-YHM, was travelling in a westerly direction towards Esk, Queensland (Qld), maintaining 2,500 ft. When passing Dayboro, Qld, the DA40 came into close proximity with a Cessna Aircraft Company 172R (C172), registered VH-RQZ, which was descending through 2,500 ft, heading to the south.

The lateral separation between the aircraft was estimated at 10 m, with the DA40 in front of, and slightly below the C172. While the pilots of both aircraft had sighted each other, there was insufficient time to respond and take any action.

The pilots both reported maintaining a visual lookout, but having been temporarily distracted just prior to the incident.

Flights conducted outside controlled airspace (Class G) are not provided with a traffic separation service from air traffic control (ATC). Consequently, maintaining separation is the pilot's responsibility. It is crucial that pilots employ a number of defences to ensure that separation between aircraft is suitably achieved. Applying unalerted and alerted see-and-avoid principles by maintaining a vigilant lookout, and providing and interpreting radio communications will assist in enhancing situational awareness.

On 2 June 2010, a Cessna Aircraft Company 172R aircraft (C172), registered VH-IMV, was cleared to line up and hold on runway 17R at Moorabbin aerodrome, Victoria. On board the aircraft were an instructor and student, with the intention of conducting a training flight to Essendon aerodrome.

After processing a number of other aircraft, the controller cleared a Cessna Aircraft Company 152 aircraft (C152), registered VH-IVT, for a touch and go on runway 17R. The C172 continued to line up and hold at the end of the runway without making any further transmissions.

A Beech Aircraft Corporation 58 then reported ready for runway 17R at taxiway Alpha 1. The controller noticed the C172 lined up and instructed the C152 on final to go around. When the C152 was upwind, the C172 was cleared for takeoff.

Although Moorabbin was a General Aviation Aerodrome Procedures (GAAP) aerodrome at the time of the occurrence, runway separation standards were required to be applied. There was a loss of separation assurance.

Airservices advised that they would introduce the use of flight progress strips for Moorabbin control tower during the second half of 2010. They also advised that they planned to conduct an ergonomic study of the Moorabbin control tower layout.