Loss of control

As the pilot was unfamiliar with operations at Bankstown, he had arranged to land at a strip near Hartley to pick up another pilot who would accompany him to Bankstown. The pilot inspected the strip from the air and was advised by the pilot on the ground to land uphill, into the north-east. A landing in this direction resulted in a quartering 10 knot tailwind. The aircraft bounced on touchdown and began to swing to the left. Being unable to regain directional control, the pilot applied full power to go-around as the aircraft went off the strip and over an embankment. During the go-around the tailplane struck a fence, and the aircraft came to rest against the fence, 38 metres to the left of the strip centreline and 250 metres from the initial point of touchdown. The pilot had not allowed for a crosswind component during the landing, and once the swing developed he was unable to correct it. The strip did not meet the width requirement for a private ALA.

The pilot was spraying a crop with liquid fungicide. As he pulled up to clear trees during the third swath run, the fungicide evidently surged in the hopper, and a quantity escaped past the hopper-lid seal. It then splashed over the windscreen, severely restricting the pilot's forward vision. He elected to return to the strip to clean the screen and check the hopper seal. The strip length was about 1000 metres and the pilot did not consider it necessary to dump the remainder of the load. During the landing, which was made in light downwind conditions, the pilot experienced difficulty in seeing the strip. During the latter stages of the ground roll the aircraft began to veer to the right. Corrective action failed to redress the situation and the right wing struck the fence bordering the strip. The aircraft came to rest after sliding sideways into a ditch alongside the fence, some 315 metres from the point of touchdown. Investigation confirmed that the hopper-lid seal was defective, and had apparently been so for some time. Directional control had been lost during the landing roll shortly after the free-castoring tailwheel had settled onto the ground. The combination of restricted forward visibility, a downwind/crosswind component and the relatively heavy all up weight, had prevented the pilot from making a safe landing.

The pilot held the aircraft on the brakes and did his run up checks then commenced take off to the west with a ten knot crosswind from the left. As the tail lifted the aircraft commenced a swing to the left which the pilot was unable to control with full right brake and rudder. He closed the throttle, the aircraft swung sharply left and the right main leg and tail wheel leg collapsed. Inspection of the aircraft showed that the right brake torque plate was attached by welds, one of which failed due to poor quality and low penetration of the weld. This allowed a degree a movement of the torque plate but did not appear to impair the brake operation. One of the three left main wheel through bolts had failed, following 90 per cent progressive fracture in a manner typical of low stress high cycle fatigue cracking. This allowed the wheel halves to be forced slightly apart at this section, causing distortion of the brake disc and drag contact with the brake pads at each wheel rotation. With operation on the ground the effect would have been increased due to the weight of the aircraft and rolling contact with minor strip surface undulations. It was also established that the left brake could be applied normally but that sometimes when the brake was released the brake remained partly applied. The circumstances of the investigation were such that the reason for this was unable to be determined. The uncontrolled swing on take off most likely resulted from the combined effects of the cross wind, the failed wheel through bolt and unidentified defect which caused the left brake not to release fully after it had been applied.

Some time prior to the attempted flight problems had developed with the right wheel assembly. Another pilot had carried out maintenance on the assembly and had subsequently test flown the aircraft. A short time later the pilot concerned boarded the aircraft and prepared for take-off. During the latter stages of the take-off roll, the right wheel slewed sideways, directional control was lost, and the aircraft collided with a fence. The reason why the right wheel slewed sideways was not determined. This accident was not the subject of an on scene investigation.

Upon arrival in the circuit, the pilot assessed the conditions and approached to land into wind on runway 04. When the nosewheel was lowered onto the runway, the aircraft veered to the right and did not respond to the application of left rudder. A go-around was initiated, but soon after becoming airborne, the aircraft rolled to the right until it reached a bank angle of about 60 degrees. The pilot attempted to counter the roll with the application of opposite aileron but the aircraft continued to roll right until the starboard wingtip touched the ground. The auxiliary wingtip tank ruptured and caught fire. The nose of the aircraft dropped and the aircraft struck the ground heavily in a wings level attitude. The aircraft ran along the ground for 18 metres before the nosegear collapsed. It then slid to a halt 250 metres beyond the runway markers with flames now emanating from the engine bay and right wing. The occupants evacuated the aircraft successfully. The pilot reported that after exiting the aircraft he sighted the windsock which indicated a wind direction of approximately 310 degrees and estimated the speed to have been 35 knots. During the early part of the landing roll the wind backed to a 35 knot crosswind from the left. This wind change was unforecast and unexpected by the pilot. It is probable that the wind change caused the left wind to lift and as a result the aircraft turned downwind. During the attempted go-around, in what was now a 35 knot tailwind, the aircraft stalled and the right wing struck the ground.

Shortly after the student had made a normal touchdown, a sheep ran across the strip in front of the aircraft. The instructor had not been looking forward, and he was taken by surprise when the student applied a considerable amount of nosewheel deflection in an effort to avoid the animal. The aircraft ran off the side of the strip and struck an earth run-off water vane. It was reported that the strip was 37 metres wide and this width is less than that required for a training authorised landing area. This accident was not the subject of an on-site investigation.

Before commencing spraying operations, the pilot discovered that the left maingear tyre was deflated. The tube was patched, however about half way through the spraying task the pilot noticed that the tyre was partially deflated. Air was added to the tyre, and the operation was continued. On the last landing for the day the left gear commenced to vibrate and the aircraft veered to the left. The pilot was unable to maintain adequate directional control, and the aircraft entered the crop at the side of the strip before ground looping to a halt. The left main tyre was found to be flat.

The pilot and his passengers had arranged to fly to Wagga Wagga to attend an agricultural seminar. He had flown the aircraft from his home base to spend the night at Melrose, with a friend, before departing the following morning. Prior to DEPARTURE, the pilot obtained a weather forecast for the route to be flown. He then submitted flight details that indicated the flight would be conducted in accordance with visual flight rules. The aircraft was later observed to take-off and head towards the north-east. Approximately 40 minutes after the aircraft departed the wreckage was sighted by a passing motorist. Ground marks indicate that the aircraft had struck the ground while heading in a north-westerly direction. Both the forecast and actual weather conditions at the time of DEPARTURE and the time of the accident indicated the presence of low cloud, poor visibility and rain in the area. These conditions were below those required for flight in accordance with visual flight rules. An inspection of the wreckage revealed that the aircraft had struck the ground at a relatively low forward speed between two areas of rising terrain. No fault was found with the aircraft that could have contributed to the occurrence.

Two photographers chartered the aircraft to fly them to a white tropical beach. Enroute to Hope Island, the passengers asked the pilot to land near a beach at the mouth of the Daintree River. After making a water landing on the river, the pilot found that he could not get his passengers and their photographic equipment to the shore because the hull of the aircraft grounded on a sandbank, some 50 Metres from the beach. A decision was then made to takeoff from the water and land on the beach. During the landing , the pilot lost control of the aircraft when one of the mainwheels ran through shallow water. The aircraft nosed over and came to rest inverted.

The pilot had diverted to Wellington because of thick bushfire smoke on his intended track. Take-off was initiated after the smoke had cleared, however shortly after becoming airborne the aircraft sank towards the ground. The pilot subsequently advised that although the engine was developing full power he was unable to prevent the sink from continuing until the aircraft struck the ground heavily, 210 metres beyond the boundary fence of the strip. The 05 strip was used for take-off into a north-easterly breeze. However a witness about 2 kilometres away, along the take-off path, reported that the wind there was from the south. It is likely that at about 200 feet agl the aircraft experienced a head to tail wind change. The pilot attempted to regain airspeed by lowering the nose but the low altitude and rising ground ahead prevented sufficient airspeed to be recovered.