Collision with terrain

What happened

On 1 August 2026 at Narrogin Aircraft Landing Area (ALA), gliding operations were being conducted on runway 10/28. The tug aircraft being used to assist with launching the gliders for the day was an amateur-built Bearhawk Patrol.

During the occurrence flight, the tug aircraft took off from runway 10 with a glider tethered as per normal operations. After reaching approximately 175 ft above ground level in the initial climb, the tug aircraft’s engine failed, with the pilot confirming the loss of power with throttle movements. The tug pilot then made a radio call to the glider aircraft crew instructing them to release the towline when able as the aircraft was over trees. The glider crew was reported to have released the line and made a standard out-landing.

Due to the minimal available altitude, no further actions were conducted by the tug pilot to restart the engine as the pilot planned to make a forced landing in a nearby paddock. As the aircraft passed over a tree line just prior to the aiming point, the aircraft was reported to have suddenly dropped and collided with terrain. The impact resulted in substantial damage to the aircraft; this included damage to the right wing which blocked the pilot’s exit. The pilot subsequently exited from the shattered left window (Figure 1) and sustained serious injuries. At the time of publishing, the cause of the engine failure was not determined.

Figure 1: Accident site

Tug pilot comments 

After the occurrence, the pilot reported the tug aircraft still had the towline connected at the time of collision. They recalled that no stall had occurred prior to the collision and that it was possible the line had become caught while the aircraft passed over the tree line resulting in a sudden disruption to the aircraft’s flight path.

Gliding Australia comments

The ATSB was advised by the national body for the sport of gliding that an investigation into the sequence of events leading up to the collision with terrain was underway. At the time of publishing, the cause of the sudden disruption to flight has not yet been determined.

Safety message

An engine failure encountered shortly after take-off is a considerably challenging situation for pilots, no matter the type of operation. At a low height and slow speed, the time available for a pilot to troubleshoot the failure and prepare for a forced landing is limited. Pilots must maintain the best glide speed specific to the aircraft to ensure control is maintained.

Glider launching operations present unique challenges, particularly during an emergency. Pilots are encouraged to review emergency procedures outlined in Gliding Australia: Unit 20A Launch Emergencies (Aerotow). In this occurrence, the emergency actions of both aircraft crew reduced the risk of a more serious outcome.

About this report

Decisions regarding whether to conduct an investigation, and the scope of an investigation, are based on many factors, including the level of safety benefit likely to be obtained from an investigation. For this occurrence, no investigation has been conducted and the ATSB did not verify the accuracy of the information. A brief description has been written using information supplied in the notification and any follow-up information in order to produce a short summary report, and allow for greater industry awareness of potential safety issues and possible safety actions.

What happened

On 7 July 2026 at about 0809 local time, a Kavanagh Balloons EX-77 was competing in a ballooning competition with a pilot and navigator on board. During a low approach to a competition ground target located in a sports field, with a shallow rate of descent and a ground speed of around 5 to 8 kt, the balloon collided with the elevated roof fascia of a school building alongside the field.

The pilot reported that as soon as they realised they were moving toward the highest part of the building they opened the first main valve,¹ followed by the second valve and then the liquid fire valve, to put the maximum amount of heating into the envelope. When the balloon did not immediately climb as expected, the pilot believed the balloon may have encountered windshear, which, together with possible reduced burner performance from low fuel pressure due to low temperatures, may have resulted in the reduced climb performance experienced.

As a result of the impact, the navigator fell against a padded steel gas tank. The pilot checked with the navigator if they needed to land as soon as possible but the navigator advised they were okay to continue flight as they believed they were only winded from the impact. The pilot identified a safe place to land where they could avoid power lines, trees and the need for a rapid descent. A paddock with landowner permissions and access to a main road was selected and the balloon landed safely, with emergency assistance received shortly thereafter.

The balloon sustained minor damage to a piece of the wickerwork on the basket and the school building sustained minor damage to a portion of sheet metal fascia, and a crack in a sheet of fibrous cement soffit. The pilot did not sustain any injuries; however, the navigator was taken to hospital with serious rib injuries – noting that they had broken ribs on a previous (unrelated) occasion.

Safety message

This occurrence highlights the need for multi-crew balloon pilots to ensure that, when descending to a landing or competition target in a confined space (or with obstacles in proximity), crew resources are allocated and shared to ensure that the track, trajectory and ground speed of the balloon are constantly monitored. This will ensure that the pilot can take prompt and timely avoiding action if obstacle clearance is not assured.

About this report

Decisions regarding whether to conduct an investigation, and the scope of an investigation, are based on many factors, including the level of safety benefit likely to be obtained from an investigation. For this occurrence, no investigation has been conducted and the ATSB did not verify the accuracy of the information. A brief description has been written using information supplied in the notification and any follow-up information in order to produce a short summary report, and allow for greater industry awareness of potential safety issues and possible safety actions.

1. ^    The main (vapour) valve, or blast valve, is the main burner. This is operated by pulling a trigger or lever on the burner unit which then sends a flow of propane that gets burned off to create heat, resulting in the balloon rising.

What happened

On the morning of 18 March 2026, the pilot of a Grumman American Aviation Corporation G-164B conducted a private ferry flight from Emerald to Charters Towers, Queensland. 

As the aircraft was established in cruise to the south-west of the Charters Towers aerodrome at 5,000 ft AGL, the engine lost power and the pilot observed a significant RPM reduction with an associated oil pressure reduction. After trimming the aircraft for best glide speed to land at Charters Towers Airport, the pilot selected carburettor heat on and increased the throttle in an attempt to restart the engine. The engine momentarily restarted, but lost power again.

As the aircraft was descending through 2,000 ft, the pilot determined that the aircraft was losing altitude too quickly and would not be able to safely make it to the aerodrome. The pilot then manoeuvred the aircraft to approach and conduct a forced landing in an open construction area located to the north-east of Charters Towers township.

As the aircraft approached 500 ft, the pilot secured the engine and applied a sideslip technique to wash off height. During the forced landing, the aircraft struck a construction fence and came to rest inverted. The aircraft sustained substantial damage to the propellor, engine and fuselage.

At the time of writing, the third party maintenance organisation had not yet determined the cause of the engine failure. 

Figure 1: Aircraft wreckage

Safety message 

This accident highlights the importance of emergency procedures training, such as engine power losses requiring a forced landing. Being familiar with the forced landing technique for the particular aircraft type allows the pilot to concentrate on the task of successfully flying the aircraft and focusing attention outside the cockpit to avoid obstacles.

About this report

Decisions regarding whether to conduct an investigation, and the scope of an investigation, are based on many factors, including the level of safety benefit likely to be obtained from an investigation. For this occurrence, no investigation has been conducted and the ATSB did not verify the accuracy of the information. A brief description has been written using information supplied in the notification and any follow-up information in order to produce a short summary report, and allow for greater industry awareness of potential safety issues and possible safety actions.

What happened

On the morning of 12 July 2026, the pilot of a Cameron Balloons Sport‑90 hot air balloon took off from Rainbow, Victoria, for an extended solo recreational cross-country flight. The prevailing conditions following launch carried the balloon in a north-easterly direction and across the Victoria–New South Wales border at an average ground speed of 37 kt (67 km/h). After around 4 hours flight and a ground track of about 149 NM (268 km), the pilot descended for a landing in an open and uncultivated agricultural area near Hay, New South Wales.

The pilot reported that the wind speed (and thus the balloon speed) was around 13 kt (23 km/h) on contact with the ground, with the basket laying over and dragging for some distance as the remaining buoyancy was vented and the envelope deflated. The pilot noted that during the landing, the dragging phase continued for longer than anticipated, resulting in the balloon overrunning the intended area and the envelope being pulled across a barbed wire fence (Figure 1). The envelope sustained substantial damage, with large tears/holes in 27 fabric panels and small holes in 2 panels. The envelope’s polyester load tapes, basket, burners and equipment were undamaged.

The pilot dislocated a finger of one hand during the landing but was otherwise uninjured.

Figure 1: Balloon envelope at rest across the barbed wire fence

Safety message

Hot air balloon landings that result in a basket lay-over and dragging phase are common with elevated windspeeds at ground level. Such landings require special precautions that begin with the selection of landing sites that have an extended clear and unobstructed surface in the direction of travel. Allowance should be made for an appreciable landing overshoot, should higher than anticipated speeds at ground level or delays in the envelope deflation prolong the dragging phase.

When operating with elevated windspeeds, landings should be planned early to allow for the safe discontinuation of multiple landing approaches, should the initially selected area/s not fully provide the needed obstacle-free pathway for the expected landing drag plus an allowable margin.

About this report

Decisions regarding whether to conduct an investigation, and the scope of an investigation, are based on many factors, including the level of safety benefit likely to be obtained from an investigation. For this occurrence, no investigation has been conducted and the ATSB did not verify the accuracy of the information. A brief description has been written using information supplied in the notification and any follow-up information in order to produce a short summary report, and allow for greater industry awareness of potential safety issues and possible safety actions.

What happened

On the morning of 28 September 2025, the pilot of a Murphy Rebel light utility aircraft departed from a private airstrip in the Northern Territory for a solo local flight. Returning after about 45 minutes, the pilot reported that the approach was uneventful, however during the landing flare, the aircraft ballooned and subsequently touched down further along the airstrip than usual.

Applying firm braking to reduce the risk of a runway overrun, the pilot encountered directional control issues and the aircraft veered left, leaving the prepared airstrip and striking a tree with the left wing about mid-span. The remaining momentum subsequently spun the aircraft around and carried it into an adjacent pile of logs and tree branches (Figure 1).

The combined impacts substantially damaged the aircraft’s left wing and landing gear, with associated damage to the fuselage and propeller. The pilot was uninjured and able to safely evacuate.

Figure 1: Aircraft following the runway excursion and obstacle impacts

Safety message

The onset of directional control issues on landing can rapidly result in runway excursions and obstacle impacts if approach instabilities are allowed to continue into undesirable aircraft positioning, attitude or speed late into the landing sequence. 

Attempting to control and correct for a long, misaligned or overspeed landing significantly increases the likelihood of control loss and subsequent obstacle/terrain impact – particularly in narrow, confined or rough landing areas.

Pilots must remain ready to discontinue an approach or go-around without hesitation, should any aspect of the aircraft’s state be not as expected or unfamiliar. 

Similarly, flight planning must always allow a pilot to comfortably make the decision to discontinue an approach, go around, or even divert to another landing area, at any time they may judge that the prevailing conditions might not be within their (or the aircraft’s) handling limits.

About this report

Decisions regarding whether to conduct an investigation, and the scope of an investigation, are based on many factors, including the level of safety benefit likely to be obtained from an investigation. For this occurrence, no investigation has been conducted and the ATSB did not verify the accuracy of the information. A brief description has been written using information supplied in the notification and any follow-up information in order to produce a short summary report, and allow for greater industry awareness of potential safety issues and possible safety actions.

What happened

On the morning of 18 June 2026, a pilot was preparing to conduct commercial aerial agriculture spraying operations in a Bell 206B helicopter near Glenn Innes, New South Wales. This was the fourth and final day of the operation which spanned over a 690‑hectare property. The helicopter loading site was close to the property’s main structures in the north-western corner of the area. 

Prior to commencing the operation, the pilot identified several overhead wire hazards in the property boundaries and reported being familiar with their locations during the operation. Of note was a single‑wire earth return (SWER) that ran in the north-south direction along the western side of the property. This wire ran through the property’s main structures and turned 45 degrees in the north‑west direction. The height of the SWER line varied due to differing pole heights (Figure 1). The pilot had observed this characteristic, verbally identifying the wire while conducting previous spray runs in its vicinity. 

The spray run that ended in the accident was conducted in the east-west direction and required the pilot to cross the SWER line. At times, the helicopter passed over it with a slight roll¹ to follow the curved sections of the area being sprayed. After completing a run from east to west, the pilot turned the helicopter around to complete the next run. The helicopter passed over the wire with a slight bank angle and the pilot then observed the powerline’s slight rise on the right side (Figure 1). The pilot had misjudged the proximity to the wire resulting in initial contact with the helicopter’s spray boom.² Due to the location of the strike, the wirestrike protection system was ineffective, and the wire became stuck between the spray equipment and wire cutters. 

Figure 1: Area of operation

The pilot reported hearing a loud noise and immediately identified a wirestrike had occurred. The helicopter was travelling at approximately 35 knots at the time, and the pilot slowed the aircraft to a hover. As the wire had not cut on contact, the tension was preventing the pilot from freeing the helicopter. The pilot decided an attempt at landing was the best course of action and the helicopter was lowered to 3 ft above the ground. However, as a result the wire tension increased, effectively acting as a pivot point for the nose of the helicopter to roll forward in a similar manner to dynamic rollover.³ At this point in time, the pilot lost control of the helicopter as it continued to roll forward before colliding with the ground. The helicopter subsequently rolled onto its left side sustaining substantial damage to the airframe and major components (Figure 2). The impact activated the emergency locator transmitter which alerted the Joint Rescue Coordination Centre of the accident.

Figure 2: Aircraft damage

The pilot was uninjured and was wearing a flight helmet as per standard operating procedures. After cutting off fuel and power supply, the pilot quickly exited through the front windshield and reported staying alert to the possibility of the powerline still being energised. 

Safety message

Powerlines and other wires are an ongoing hazard to low-level agricultural operations. As outlined in the ATSB education booklet, Wirestrikes involving known wires: A manageable aerial agricultural hazard (AR-2011-028), 63 per cent of wirestrike accidents occurred with pilots aware of the wire position. Therefore, it is essential for pilots to maintain vigilance and adequate separation when crossing in the vicinity of known wires.

This occurrence also highlights the potential threat of struck powerlines remaining energised during the post-accident actions – particularly in cases where the line becomes tangled with the aircraft. Care must be taken when evacuating an aircraft after a wirestrike as the powerline’s location to the aircraft may be difficult to determine.

About this report

Decisions regarding whether to conduct an investigation, and the scope of an investigation, are based on many factors, including the level of safety benefit likely to be obtained from an investigation. For this occurrence, no investigation has been conducted and the ATSB did not verify the accuracy of the information. A brief description has been written using information supplied in the notification and any follow-up information in order to produce a short summary report, and allow for greater industry awareness of potential safety issues and possible safety actions.

1. ^    Roll: the movement of an aircraft about its longitudinal axis.
2. ^    Spray boom: the tubing and nozzles arranged span-wise below the aircraft for the aerial application of chemicals.
3. ^    Dynamic rollover: a rotors-running helicopter resting with one landing skid on the ground may, without appropriate pilot input, commence rolling around the skid. Under certain circumstances, this roll cannot be controlled and the helicopter will roll over.

What happened

On the morning of 26 June 2026, a pilot was landing a Robinson R22 helicopter in a paddock about 9 km north-west of Moree Airport, New South Wales.

The pilot reported being ‘rushed’ due to operational needs. During the landing, the helicopter's skid contacted a tuft of grass with a small amount of sideways movement while the collective was in a raised position. This resulted in a roll to the right.

With the helicopter’s skid still in contact with the ground, the main rotor blades impacted the ground. The helicopter came to rest on its right side and was substantially damaged (Figure 1). The pilot was uninjured.

Figure 1: Damaged helicopter in hangar post‑occurrence

Helicopter dynamic rollover

For dynamic rollover to occur, some factor must first cause the helicopter to roll or pivot around a skid or landing gear wheel, until its critical rollover angle is reached (Figure 2). The angle at which dynamic rollover occurs will vary based on helicopter type but is usually in the order of 15°. Beyond this point, main rotor thrust (and sometimes tail rotor thrust) continues the roll and recovery becomes impossible.

Figure 2:  Dynamic rollover 

Recovery from dynamic rollover prior to this point can be achieved by smoothly lowering the collective lever while controlling any tendency to roll in the opposite direction with cyclic to re-establish the helicopter’s weight evenly on the ground. In general, the application of smooth collective inputs is more effective in avoiding rollover issues than using the cyclic control.

Safety message

While bush landing sites and paddocks can be suitable landing areas, they are also prone to concealed hazards. Pilots need to make a conscious effort to operate in a slow and methodical manner so they can assess the environment and minimise sideways movement at touchdown.

Pilots should have a thorough understanding of the principles and contributing factors of dynamic rollover, as well as the recovery methods. This knowledge is essential to conduct safe helicopter operations, especially landing in unprepared areas.

About this report

Decisions regarding whether to conduct an investigation, and the scope of an investigation, are based on many factors, including the level of safety benefit likely to be obtained from an investigation. For this occurrence, no investigation has been conducted and the ATSB did not verify the accuracy of the information. A brief description has been written using information supplied in the notification and any follow-up information in order to produce a short summary report, and allow for greater industry awareness of potential safety issues and possible safety actions.

What happened

On the morning of 26 May 2026, the pilot of a Found Aircraft Canada FBA-2C3 planned a private flight to inspect water levels on properties near Richmond, Queensland (Qld). 

The aircraft departed Burleigh Station, Qld, with no abnormalities observed during the take-off or initial climb stages of flight. The pilot established the aircraft in cruise at 500 ft AGL and shortly thereafter during the cruise, the engine failed. The pilot immediately cycled the fuel tanks and turned the fuel pump on, then attempted to restart the engine and was briefly successful. However, without constant power restored, the pilot commenced a search for a suitable field for a forced landing. 

At the time of the engine failure, the aircraft was overhead a freshly ploughed crop field. The pilot was aware that while the landing area was open and vast, which would allow the aircraft to manoeuvre as required, the field appeared to be soft which might affect the forced landing. 

The pilot manoeuvred the aircraft into the wind and commenced the landing checks. A low-speed landing was conducted, however, once the front main wheels came into contact with the soil, the nose wheel remained stuck into the ground and the aircraft flipped over, coming to rest inverted. The aircraft sustained substantial damage to the wings, fuselage, nose wheel and empennage. 

Once evacuated from the aircraft, the pilot inspected the fuel tanks and confirmed sufficient fuel remained on board with nil contaminants evident.

Figure 1: Aircraft wreckage

Safety message

The risks associated with flying at low level are well known to pilots. Low altitude means less decision time and a lower margin for error and recovery when unexpected events such as an engine failure occur. 

Practising forced landings from various altitudes under safe conditions can assist pilots to best prepare for an emergency situation.

About this report

Decisions regarding whether to conduct an investigation, and the scope of an investigation, are based on many factors, including the level of safety benefit likely to be obtained from an investigation. For this occurrence, no investigation has been conducted and the ATSB did not verify the accuracy of the information. A brief description has been written using information supplied in the notification and any follow-up information in order to produce a short summary report, and allow for greater industry awareness of potential safety issues and possible safety actions.