The privately operated Cessna 172 was being used to muster
cattle on a station near Halls Creek in Western Australia. One of
the station workers said that the pilot reported by radio that he
had found some cattle in timber country that he could not move. The
worker, who was not aviation qualified, advised the pilot to "bomb
them". He meant the pilot should fly low and scare the cattle.
About 2 minutes later, he heard a bang and saw a cloud of dust
about 500 m to the east, but did not see the accident. The pilot
was fatally injured. The ATSB did not conduct an on-site
investigation into the accident.
The wreckage trail extended about 22 m from where the aircraft
had hit a tree and just 12 m from where it first hit the ground. An
inspection of the wreckage revealed no pre-existing mechanical
fault that may have contributed to the accident.
The pilot was inexperienced; having a total of just over 400
flying hours, acquired over about 10 years. He had about 330 flying
hours in aeroplanes, of which about 125 hours were in command or in
command under supervision. Although the pilot finished training for
the mustering qualification about 1 month before the accident, at
that time he had insufficient in-command flying hours to apply for
an approval from the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA).
Subsequently, the pilot conducted several flights with the station
manager, who was a qualified mustering pilot, to gain sufficient
flying hours for the approval. He applied for a mustering approval
8 days before the accident, but the CASA representative advised the
pilot that there would be a delay in processing the paperwork and
issuing the approval. The CASA representative reported that she
also advised him not to conduct mustering until the approval was
issued. The station manager reported that the pilot did not tell
him of the CASA advice.
According to the station manager, the pilot began flying
mustering operations as the pilot in command the day after the
documentation was submitted to CASA. The station manager also said
he thought that the pilot had received sufficient guidance and
training to operate in the conditions on the day without
supervision.
The approved pilot who trained the pilot to conduct mustering
operations reported that the pilot was an excellent student who
seemed eager to please. He also reported that during training, the
pilot appeared to be overly concerned about achieving required
standards within a certain amount of time. The station manager also
reported that the pilot appeared to be very eager, with an
unquestioning approach to learning the job.
The weather report indicated that wind conditions at the time
were fresh and gusty from the east with a significant wind shear in
the lower levels. The wind speed at 2,000 ft above sea level was 22
kts, and at 3,000 ft was 46 kts. The surface wind at the time of
the accident was reported to be about 15 kts, but had become
blustery and gusting to about 35 kts within about an hour of the
accident. Consequently, it is likely that the wind strength and
direction were variable and unpredictable at the heights at which
the pilot was operating.
In the absence of any associated aircraft mechanical fault, the
evidence was consistent with the pilot losing control of the
aircraft while manoeuvring at low level in adverse wind conditions.
The pilot's eagerness and lack of experience may have influenced
him to operate the aircraft in a manner inappropriate for the
weather conditions at the time.