Loss of control

The pilot and passenger were undergoing a full time flying training course to Commercial Licence standard, and had both recently obtained their restricted Private Pilots Licences (i.e. restricted to flight within the flying training area). On the day of the accident the pilot had spent the morning at lectures, and preparing for navigation exercises. After lunch he approached the Chief Flying Instructor and asked if he could take VH-FLF to the training area for an hour. This was approved and the pilot signed the flight authorisation sheet and entered the time 1340 hours on the sheet. There was no indication on the authorisation sheet that he intended to take a passenger, nor did he mention this to the Chief Flying Instructor. The pilot was later seen sitting in the aircraft, apparently awaiting the arrival of his passenger. There appears to have been no prior arrangement, other than a spur of the moment decision by the passenger, to go on the flight. The pilot called Archerfield Tower at 1351 hours and reported taxiing for the southern training area. At 1359 hours VH-FLF was cleared for takeoff. This was acknowledged by the pilot, and no further radio transmissions from the aircraft were heard or recorded. At approximately 1415 hours, witnesses heard the aircraft flying overhead. The aircraft was seen flying in a south-easterly direction in apparently normal flight, when the engine noise suddenly ceased. The aircraft was then observed descending in a steep spiral or spin from a altitude of about 2000 feet. The spiralling motion appeared to cease momentarily before the aircraft dived into the ground. The aircraft impacted the ground in a steep inverted nose down attitude. Indications are that the aircraft may have been recovered from the spiral briefly, before stalling and becoming inverted during the recovery at a very low height. No mechanical defects were found which may have affected the airworthiness of the aircraft, or which may have contributed to the development of the accident.

As the pilot rotated the aircraft for takeoff he heard several bangs and felt there was an accompanying power loss, so he aborted the take-off. When it appeared he would be unable to stop in the strip remaining he deliberately ground looped the aircraft. The nosewheel leg was damaged and the propeller struck the surface of the strip, necessitating an engine strip - the propeller was not damaged. An inspection of the aircraft did not find any fault with either the engine or the braking system. The blacksoil strip was found to be very soft and it is considered that the retarding action of the strip caused the pilot to believe a power loss had occurred. The bangs heard by him were probably caused by clods of dirt hitting the fuselage.

During circuit training, the aircraft suffered a complete engine failure. The pilot was unable to reach the flight strip and landed the aircraft amongst trees. One of the two pistons of the two stoke engine had seized in the cylinder, probably due to lack of lubrication.

Circumstances:

The pilot was carrying out a survey flight of his property to locate a vehicle. The aircraft was observed by ground witnesses, near the vehicle, to commence a descending right hand turn with the apparent intention of landing in a cleared paddock adjacent to the one in which the vehicle was located. The aircraft appeared to lose altitude suddenly after it had completed about 270 degrees of the turn and the right wing touched the ground. The aircraft cartwheeled to a stop. The pilot survived the accident but is unable to remember anything about it. It is probable that the pilot was concentrating his attention on either the ground party or the intended landing area and he allowed the aircraft to either stall or unintentionally lose height. The wing struck the ground before the pilot was able to take action to recover the aircraft to level flight.

Significant Factors:

The following factor was considered relevant to the development of the accident:

1. Possible pilot distraction leading to loss of control and ground impact.

The aircraft was observed to head in a northerly direction after take-off. About 20 minutes later, the witness saw the aircraft, which was flying at an altitude of about 80 feet, returning. As he watched, the aircraft appeared to turn to the right and roll inverted, before disappearing behind trees and buildings. The aircraft struck the ground in a steep nose down attitude. The aircraft impacted the ground at about the base turn position. An inspection of the aircraft did not reveal any fault which may have contributed to the occurrence.

Circumstances:

The pilot landed the aircraft on a strip near the lake and visited a group of friends on the shore with his passenger. It was arranged that the pilot would return in the aircraft and fly past for some photographs to be taken. The first run past the group on the shore was made in an easterly direction. The aircraft was then seen to turn onto a westerly heading and position for a second flypast. The height of the aircraft above the water on the two passes was estimated to be about 60-80 feet although photographs of the event show it to be much lower. After passing over the observers on the last run, the aircraft was seen to turn towards the east and start a steep climb. Witnesses reported that the speed of the aircraft reduced rapidly, and, at about 150 feet above ground level, the engine noise apparently reduced or stopped. The aircraft then dropped the right wing and dived into the water. The aircraft was seen to sink rapidly and only the passenger extricated himself from the wreckage. He clung to the tail and was recovered quickly by rescuers in a power boat. Despite repeated dives, the pilot could not be reached, and his body was removed after the wreckage was towed to shore. Detailed investigation did not reveal any faults or anomalies in the aircraft which could have contributed to the accident. Damage to the propeller was consistent with a strike under power. It is considered that the reduced power at the top of the steep climb was pilot induced during the attempted execution of a stall turn type manoeuvre. Discussions with witnesses and club members revealed that the pilot was overconfident in his attitude to flying the ultralight and would not readily accept advice or counselling on his handling the aircraft. It was further revealed that the pilot was prepared to perform in front of an audience and the events on the day of the accident support the conclusion that the pilot was engaged in an impromptu display in front of friends at the lake shore.

Significant Factors:

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

1. The pilot engaged in an impromptu flying display for friends.

2. The pilot attempted a manoeuvre at an altitude that provided insufficient height for recovery.

3. The pilot was probably complacent and overconfident in his ability to handle the aircraft.

Circumstances:

The aircraft was scheduled to conduct three round trips between Townsville and Cape Richards, with a stop at Orpheus Island on some legs, during the day. The pilot involved in the accident flew the first and third trips and another pilot flew the second. After the first trip the pilot reported that he pumped the floats out and considered that the quantity of water removed was normal. On the third trip he picked up a "standby" passenger at Orpheus Island. On arrival at Cape Richards the scheduled six passengers were loaded. A witness employed by the resort to handle the aircraft and passengers on the island reported that the floats appeared to be sitting in the water such that the water was above the normal water line on the floats. Examination of the aircraft loading indicated that the aircraft was overweight, and the centre of gravity was just inside the rear limit. The pilot reported taxiing at 1613 hours with eight persons on board. At 1624 hours he reported that he was returning to unload one passenger. In that time two take-off attempts into the north-east were made. The wind in the bay where the attempts were made was a light northerly. The pilot again reported taxiing at 1634 hours with seven persons on board. A further two take-off attempts were made. On the final attempt the pilot did not taxi as far into the bay as on previous occasions. The take-off was continued well out beyond the shelter of the island into an area where the wind was easterly at about 10 knots, and the swell was 1 to 1.5 metres. The pilot reported that the aircraft had attained an indicated airspeed of 55 knots, and he intended to fly it off the water at 57 knots. The right float had lifted from the water, and it hit a wave which pushed the right wing up. The pilot was unable to lift the left wing which hit the water, causing the aircraft to cartwheel.

Significant Factors:

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

1. The pilot selected the incorrect take-off direction for the wind conditions prevailing.

2. The pilot continued the take-off into an area of unsuitable swell. This accident was not the subject of an on-scene investigation.

The student glider pilot had carried out three previous flights during the day. Her instructor had informed her that she was at a suitable stage of training to be introduced to practice emergency procedures. After sighting her training log book, the instructor for the final flight left the glider to speak to the pilot of the tug aircraft. The instructor returned to the glider and preparations for take-off were then continued. Witnesses observed that the tug and glider became airborne and subsequently carried out normal turns to position the aircraft on a downwind leg at about 500 feet above ground level. The tug aircraft was then seen to waggle its wings sharply three times. Almost immediately this aircraft assumed a steep nose-down attitude, its tail apparently being pulled into a vertical position by the tow rope which was still attached to the glider. The glider then also assumed a steep nose-down attitude and both aircraft spun or spiralled towards the ground. The tow rope was released from both aircraft, but neither pilot regained control before impact with the ground. The subsequent investigation did not disclose any defect or malfunction with either aircraft that might have contributed to the development of the accident. During glider towing operations when the pilot of the tug waggles the aircraft wings it is a signal to the glider to immediately release from the tow. This "wave-off" signal would normally be given when the tug pilot detects some malfunction or when the glider is sufficiently far out of position behind the tug to affect the tug pilot's control of his aircraft. On this occasion it was considered possible that the instructor in the glider had arranged for the tug pilot to simulate an emergency by giving a wave-off signal. The wave-off signal was observed to be given in the normal position relative to the strip for such training manoeuvres to be performed. The reason for the subsequent loss of control of both aircraft could not be determined, however it was evident that when the aircraft released the tow rope there was insufficient height remaining to permit recovery to normal flight.

Upon arrival at Mitta Mitta the pilot performed a touch and go on the 1000 metre long gravel strip, before approaching for the full-stop landing. After touchdown, the aircraft veered to the right but was repositioned on the centreline within a short distance. However, it again veered to the right and departed the hard packed gravel surface of the strip and entered an area of long, damp grass. The pilot was unable to control the direction of travel and the aircraft encountered a drainage ditch, an earth mound and a fence before coming to rest with its noseleg collapsed. No fault was found with the aircraft systems that may have contributed to the accident. The pilot had not flown the aircraft for 18 months and it is probable that the veer was caused by differential braking in combination with the damp, slippery grass on the sides of the strip. Weather conditions were fine and calm and were not considered a factor.

At the conclusion of a local flight the pilot carried out a practice touch and go landing, and then positioned the aircraft for a full stop landing. Wind conditions at the time were light. Shortly after touchdown the aircraft commenced to veer to the right. The pilot was unable to stop the swing, and elected to go around. However, the aircraft was no longer aligned with the strip and during the attempted go-around the aircraft struck an embankment and a small tree. The pilot closed the throttle and the aircraft came to rest about 100 metres to the right of the strip.