The pilot reported that he departed Mareeba in company with another R22 helicopter at approximately 1645 EST. The flight was intended to proceed from Mareeba to Cairns via Stoney Creek. The pilot stated that approaching Stoney Creek (5NM west of Cairns aerodrome) they landed to assess the weather further. After consultation with Cairns approach they were advised that Stoney Creek was visible from the control tower. Both helicopters then took off to continue to Cairns. The pilot said that shortly afterwards, and before reaching Stoney Creek the weather ahead deteriorated suddenly, and the pilot decided that they would return to Mareeba. A turn to the right was commenced, and shortly afterwards the helicopter began to yaw uncontrollably to the right and descended into trees. The passenger was uninjured and was able assist the pilot from the aircraft. The pilot then used his mobile phone to call for assistance and guide the Queensland Emergency Services rescue helicopter to the crash site. The passenger and pilot were winched from the site and flown to the Cairns Base Hospital.

Subsequent examination of the helicopter revealed no technical defect which may have contributed to the accident. The pilot described the control loss as an uncommanded yaw to the right, indicating loss of tail rotor authority. The pilot said the last time he observed the indicated airspeed it was 40 knots and was unable to explain the uncontrolled yaw right. Although there was no discernible horizon at the time, the pilot said he was flying towards a clear area, was visual with the ground, and was clearly visible from the other helicopter which was slightly higher and to his right.

The helicopter was being flown in support of geological drilling operations and had just been used to externally sling-load a pump into a creek bed. The refuelling point and landing area were located about 20 m from the edge of a ravine which was approximately 30 m deep and 100 m wide. A tree was growing from a point below the top of the ravine and the tree's tops protruded approximately 3 m above the ravine's edge. When the pilot flew the helicopter to the landing area to refuel, he lowered the external sling to the ground and then flew the helicopter backwards approximately 1 m, intending to land next to the fuel drums.

As the pilot was landing the helicopter, evidence indicates that the left skid became caught on a rock. When the pilot attempted to fly the helicopter clear, the left skid suddenly broke clear of the rock. The helicopter rolled right as it climbed, and the right skid impacted a pump housing protruding from the top of a fuel drum before striking the top of the tree located on the ravine's edge.

The helicopter continued drifting and began yawing right as it descended into the ravine. The pilot reported that just as he was regaining some control of the helicopter, it landed, upright, on a rock shelf approximately 2 m from the ravine floor. It appears that at this stage, the main rotor impacted the helicopter's tail boom. The helicopter then rolled and fell off the rock shelf to the ravine floor. It came to rest on its right side with the engine still running and main rotor turning.

The pilot reported that he then closed the throttle, turned the fuel switch off and exited the helicopter through the front windscreen, having suffered minor injuries. He also reported that he turned off the emergency locator transmitter beacon although it did not appear to be operating.

During the landing, evidence indicates that the left skid became stuck in the rock. When the pilot attempted to reject the landing, it is likely that he would have used a combination of up collective and right cyclic as the helicopter pivoted around the left skid. It appears that the rock then broke. The sudden release of the left skid, associated with the cyclic and collective control positions probably caused the helicopter to rapidly roll and drift right. As the helicopter climbed, rolled and drifted, it was likely that the pilot could not have quickly regained control due to the subsequent impacts with the fuel pump and tree. It was probably fortunate that the helicopter entered the ravine, giving the pilot time to recover some control before the landing on the rock ledge. The forces and imbalance generated by the main rotor strike on the tail may have then caused the helicopter to rollover, fall off the shelf before finally coming to rest on the ravine floor.

The pilot was conducting a charter flight from Moorabbin to French Island and return. He was carrying 3 passengers with light luggage. On arrival at French Island, he landed to the east on the grass strip. While taxying after landing the nose wheel became bogged in sandy soil near the eastern end of the airstrip. The pilot shut down the engine and the passengers helped him push the aircraft to a parking position facing west at the eastern end of the strip. This location enabled the pilot to use the full length of the grass strip for a take-off to the west later in the day. Later, when the group returned to depart the outside air temperature was approximately 14 degrees Celsius, the wind was calm and the QNH was approximately 1021 mb.

The airstrip surface was slashed grass and much of the soil underlying the grass surface was sandy loam. In the take-off direction the strip was slightly up hill until about midway, and then slightly downhill. The airfield was approximately 131 ft above sea level and the surrounding terrain was gently undulating. The pilot applied full power and held the aircraft on the brakes before commencing the take-off roll. The passengers reported that the aircraft accelerated normally for about 100 metres, after which the rate of acceleration slowed. As the aircraft neared the western end of the strip and the pilot rotated the aircraft to become airborne the passengers advised that they heard a noise which they believed was caused by the tail of the aircraft striking the ground. The pilot did not recall a noise as the aircraft rotated but said that he noticed a slight change in engine note soon after liftoff.

The aircraft climbed to about 20 ft, banked slightly left and then settled back onto the ground approximately 70 m from the point of lift-off. It skidded down a gentle slope through light foliage and logs, slewed to the left and came to rest about 135 metres beyond the end of the strip. As the aircraft stopped, the pilot and passengers saw flames in the cabin. The pilot's door had jammed shut because of fuselage damage, therefore all occupants evacuated quickly through the right door. Within seconds the aircraft was engulfed in flames. None of the passengers reported hearing the stall warning horn at any stage. They reported that the engine sounded as though it was producing take-off power even after they heard the tail hit the ground. Although the aircraft was substantially damaged by fire no pre-existing fault was found with the aircraft.

Because of the fire damage, the stall warning system could not be tested. The maintenance release was issued for operation in the aerial work category which did not embrace the requirements for this charter flight. The pilot reported that he had selected 1/4 flap for the take-off. The flaps were found in the up position after the accident; the flap selector may have been knocked up during the impact. The pilot estimated that the take-off weight was 1006 kg, which included 36 litres of AVGAS. Subsequent calculations showed that the take-off weight was 1017 kg, which was 49 kg below the maximum allowable weight. The pilot reported that he had checked the aircraft performance data before the flight and assessed that a 600-metre strip would be adequate for taking off over a 50 ft obstacle in nil wind conditions. None of the performance charts included factors for degradation of aircraft performance due to wear and tear, or for the slowing affects of sandy loam underlying a grass surface.

The operator reported that prior to conducting charter operations on French Island, two company pilots had measured the strip using vehicle odometers and recorded a length of 600 metres in the company's authorised landing area register. Using a calibrated wheel after the accident, the strip was re-measured and found to be only 500 metres long.

The pilot reported that he was entering the paddock for the final spray run, a clean-up run at right angles to his earlier spray runs. The right wing struck a power line at 40 ft above the ground, and was torn from the aircraft. After a rapid roll to the right the aircraft struck the ground in a semi-inverted attitude. The pilot vacated the aircraft, which did not catch fire.

The power line had been identified by the pilot during his initial inspection of the area. He had flown parallel to the line when spraying the paddock but forgot about it when he commenced the clean-up run. This was the first time the paddock had been sprayed this year, but the pilot had sprayed the area in previous years.

An emergency locator transmitter was carried in the pilot's bag. It was not used during the recovery from the accident.

The pilot stated that he was mustering bulls approximately 5 km west-north-west of Kalmeta homestead. He said he was approximately 40-50 ft high when he hit a wire. He did not see the wire prior to impact. The pilot said that when he realised he had hit a wire he took all necessary action, but lost control of the helicopter, and it fell backwards to the ground. The pilot said that due to the impact and injuries he sustained he did not remember anything further.

The pilot of the Bushby Mustang aircraft reported that he was conducting a landing on a private airstrip at the conclusion of a travel flight. During the flare, the aircraft contacted the ground heavier than normal on a soft patch on the runway. The nose wheel broke off and the aircraft overturned. The pilot egressed the aircraft without injury and, with the assistance of onlookers, extricated the passenger.

The pilot reported that when the landing gear was extended, prior to landing at Maitland, the gear down light failed to illuminate. The main landing gears appeared to have extended, but the nose gear could not be checked. Remedial action was unsuccessful so the aircraft was landed in the 23 direction. During the landing roll the nose landing gear collapsed, damaging the propeller and engine cowling undersurfaces.

It was later reported that an engineering examination found that the nose gear had failed to fully extend, due to the failure of the downlock hooks to travel to the locked position. This had resulted from the seizure of a pivot bolt due to corrosion. As the weight of the aircraft was applied to the nose gear the downlock hooks slipped, allowing the nose gear to collapse.

The Piper Arrow was being flown by a pilot undergoing a Commercial pre-licence check, under the supervision of a Grade 1 instructor. At a height of 3450 ft, some 2 NM west of the Wedderburn ALA, the instructor closed the throttle to simulate an engine failure. The weather was fine, with a light wind of about 10-15 kts from the west-south-west. 

The instructor reported that the pilot elected to conduct a glide approach to the ALA, joining the circuit on early downwind for a landing on runway 17. All required checks were correctly carried out, including exercising the throttle to prevent excessive engine cooling. An initial aiming point of about 1/3 of the strip length in from the landing threshold was used. The landing gear was lowered on base leg. Drag was progressively increased by extending flap and moving the propeller pitch to fine, during base and final legs, in order to bring the aiming point back to about 100 m beyond the threshold.

At about treetop level, on short final, an area of sink was encountered which resulted in the aircraft developing a high rate of descent. Although both the pilot and instructor selected full throttle, they were unable to prevent the aircraft from touching down heavily on the runway threshold.

The aircraft came to rest after a 30-40 m landing roll. The nose landing gear had been dislodged, the main landing gears had been bent rearwards, and substantial buckling of the wing was evident. Both occupants were uninjured and were able to vacate the aircraft normally.

The aircraft was landing towards the south-east on a sealed runway, with a 10-knot southerly wind blowing. Toward the end of the landing roll the pilot experienced difficulty in keeping the aircraft centred on the runway, with the result that it veered off the runway and nosed down in the soft ground off the sealed area. The propeller and engine area were damaged. The pilot reported that the left main tyre had deflated, probably because of the tyre not rotating during the landing. He considered that he had held his heels too high on the rudder controls, inadvertently applying brake to the left wheel during the landing flare and initial roll.

At 0252 EST, the pilot of VH-UZQ informed the tower that he had aborted the take-off and that he was returning the aircraft to the hangar. He then requested cancellation of his flight plan. Approximately one hour later, the pilot telephoned the tower and indicated that a runway light may have been damaged. The safety officer inspected the runway and reported no apparent damage. At about 11 am EST that morning, personnel from the company which operate the aircraft telephoned the tower and reported damage to the aircraft indicative of it having run off the runway and impacted with ground equipment. A second inspection of the runway revealed significant impact damage to two sets of T- Vasis boxes.

The pilot later reported that soon after he had advanced the power levers for take-off, he realised that one propeller was probably still on the start locks. He immediately brought the power levers back and while the aircraft was still rolling, he pulled the left power lever into reverse in an attempt to remove that propeller off the locks. The aircraft then departed the runway to the left. The aircraft sustained minor damage to one engine and propeller.

The on-site investigation confirmed that the aircraft departed the runway to the left approximately 150 metres into the take-off roll. The wheel tracks indicate the right propeller struck the first T- Vasis box soon after the aircraft entered the flight strip. The aircraft then passed over a taxiway before re-entering the main runway. The second T- Vasis was struck either by the main landing gear or right propeller as the aircraft was turning right to re-enter the runway. The pilot who was the sole occupant, was not injured and the aircraft was taxied to the company facilities without further incident.