Loss of control

The aircraft had been parked in the open overnight. When the pilot arrived at the strip he noted that shallow fog had settled over the area. The temperature was below freezing point and frost covered the aircraft, except for the windscreen which had been protected by a cloth sheet. A pre-flight inspection was carried out, but did not include the removal of the frost from the aircraft. Because the fog had reduced visibility to about 50 metres, the pilot taxied the aircraft along the strip to check for obstructions. During this time the moisture froze on the windscreen, however by reaching from the cockpit the pilot was able to clear the left side of the screen. Shortly afterwards the take-off was commenced and the lightly loaded aircraft became airborne after a ground run of about 250 metres. At this point all forward visibility was lost because of frost re-forming on the windscreen. The pilot noticed that the aircraft appeared to be banking to the left and he elected to land immediately. The left wingtip contacted the ground, followed by the main wheels. The aircraft ran off the side of the strip and collided with a fence, before coming to rest about 100 metres from the strip. The pilot had had no disciplined instrument flying experience and had been unable to maintain effective control of the aircraft during the take-off with severely restricted visibility. The degradation in aircraft performance as a result of the frost covering the wings and tail surfaces could not be established.

Circumstances:

The student pilot had completed a period of instruction and a follow-up solo sortie on the morning of the accident. He was landing following a further period of solo circuits when the accident occurred. The aircraft appeared to touch down normally but then veered to the right without any apparent attempts at correction. The aircraft left the runway and crossed a small embankment before going through a fence into the adjoining paddock. It is possible that the pilot had reached task saturation after the third hour of flying involving stalling, incipient spins, and circuit work. The pilot was also tending to land flat and fast. It is probable that the aircraft started to "wheelbarrow" as a result of the approach technique used and the pilot did not react in time to avoid the DEPARTURE from the runway.

The pilot had completed one circuit involving a touch and go landing. As power was applied for the take off phase of the second touch and go, the aircraft swerved to the left with the left main landing gear clear of the ground. The pilot was able to arrest the left swing but the aircraft continued to track beyond the confines of the flight strip. After impacting a fence post and two drains, the nose and left main gears were dislodged and the left wing impacted the ground. The investigation revealed that the pilot had used an incorrect crosswind control technique and failed to maintain directional control of the aircraft during the ground roll. The pilot delayed abandoning the take off phase of the touch and go sequence. The position at which the power was reduced and the take off abandoned could not be determined. There were no pre-existing defects with the aircraft which could have contributed to the accident. This accident was not the subject of an on-site investigation.

At the conclusion of a parachute dropping sortie, the pilot landed the aircraft at the strip in a strong crosswind. During the landing roll the aircraft began to swing to the left and the right gear leg collapsed. The right wing, tailplane and elevator were bent after contacting the ground. The aircraft was one of four operating from the strip, when the wind backed and increased in strength, during the passage of a weak front. The pilot had been aware of the change in wind velocity before attempting the landing.

The pilot stated that just after the aircraft became airborne it encountered a strong gust of wind. The left wing tip and nosewheel struck the ground and the aircraft overturned. During the take-off run the pilot held back pressure on the control column and at 50 knots selected 10 degrees of flap, the aircraft becoming airborne after a ground roll of only 170 metres. The take-off distance required was 650 metres, however, the take-off was attempted on an unprepared salt pan with an available take-off distance of 300 metres. The pilot had operated from this area previously but on this occasion the aircraft was at a higher all up weight. The wind gust reported by the pilot was probably associated with a willy willy, encountered when the aircraft was at a low airspeed.

The pilot decided to make an unscheduled landing at an aerodrome enroute to check a problem with the aircraft. On touchdown he noticed steel pickets on either side of the runway and reapplied power. During the go-around the left wing tip struck a picket, the aircraft yawed and then collided with other pickets, before the aircraft was brought to a stop. The aerodrome had been closed for reconstruction work. White crosses were placed on the runway and adjacent to the windsock. The pilot had not advised Flight Service of his intended landing. The aircraft nose attitude on approach reduces forward visibility and the pilot did not see the white crosses on the runway. The aircraft yawed as power was applied for the overshoot.

Circumstances:

While attempting to recover from a bounced landing, the pilot lost directional control of the aircraft, and it collided with a fence.

Whilst applying brake after landing the pilot's foot slipped off the left rudder pedal and the aircraft veered to the right. The pilot replaced his foot on the pedal and applied corrective rudder and brake but the aircraft subsequently ground looped to the left and the right main gear leg collapsed. The rudder pedal surfaces were found to be worn. The pedal design was such that foot restraining capabilities were reduced as the surface became smoother from normal wear and tear. It was also determined that the brake pads on the right gear were excessively worn and this probably aggravated the pilot's problem with directional control.

The helicopter was involved in cattle mustering operations. It was being flown at about 50 to 100 feet agl when a sudden yaw to the right developed. Attempts by the pilot to regain control of the aircraft were unsuccesful and it landed heavily while still rotating to the right. Both the occupants were thrown clear of the aircraft which caught fire immediately. The extensive fire damage to the aircraft inhibited the inspection of the wreckage. As a result, no reason for the apparent loss of control could be determined.

Circumstances:

After several touch and go circuits, the pilot noticed the right landing gear was broken and swinging free. A landing was made directly into wind on the remaining wheel but on touchdown the aircraft swerved to the right before coming to rest on its nose, breaking the propeller, and damaging the right wing. The pilot said the landing gear had suffered a fatigue failure at the upper weld area adjacent to the rubber bungee attachment and this was a known problem on the aircraft type. The manufacturer subsequently issued a service bulletin to install additional landing gear restraint cables to preclude fatigue failures of this type.