After a normal approach in calm wind conditions the aircraft bounced following the initial touchdown. A number of bounces then occurred before the pilot was able to regain control of the aircraft. At this time he assessed that there was insufficient strip remaining to stop the aircraft or to safely go-around. A ground loop was attempted, during which the right landing gear collapsed. The strip length was about 120 metres longer than that required for a normal landing. The aircraft was being operated in excess of the maximum permitted landing weight. After the initial bounce the pilot persisted with the landing attempt and evidently did not consider carrying out a go-around until the aircraft was too far along the strip for this manoeuvre to be performed with safety.

When the aircraft was at about 50 feet above ground level after take off, the engine lost power, recovered to full power, then lost power again. The pilot commenced an approach for a landing, straight ahead. During the approach the engine again recovered power, the pilot closed the throttle and landed the aircraft in a tree strewn paddock. The left wheel struck a dead tree lying in the paddock and the aircraft groundlooped before coming to rest. The loss of engine power resulted from a design defect within the aircraft fuel system. Wear in the internal valves of the engine driven fuel pump caused valve seats to move off centre and stick open. This allowed fuel under pressure to be recycled back to the inlet of the electric fuel pump and resulted in a loss of fuel pressure to the carburettor. The loss of fuel pressure may have also resulted in fuel vapour locks forming downstream of the electric fuel pump which had been selected on prior to take-off.

The more experienced pilot was occupying the rear control position, which did not have tail rotor control pedals, while another pilot flew the aircraft. During the approach to land the pilot in the rear seat became concerned when the airspeed decayed and he pushed the cyclic control forward to initiate a go around. The aircraft yawed to the right, control was lost and the aircraft struck the ground heavily, coming to rest on its right side. The inexperienced pilot occupying the front seat had been surprised when the rear seat pilot had taken control during the approach. Although he had been instructed to apply left pedal, it is likely that his delay in doing so, prevented control from being regained before the helicopter struck the ground. Inspection of the aircraft revealed that forward cyclic control movement was limited by incorrect rigging. This may have also contributed to the loss of control.

The pilot was carrying out an inspection of water points on his property. The inspection was flown at an altitude of about 500 feet agl and involved sustained turns at an angle of bank of about 40 degrees over the water points. Just after the recovery from one of these turns, the engine began to lose power. After unsuccessfully attempting to rectify the problem, the pilot decided to land on a cleared area. The aircraft landed heavily short of the area and collided with trees. At the moment of engine failure, the engine was drawing fuel from the right hand tank and the corresponding fuel gauge indicated less than a quarter full. An inspection of the aircraft did not reveal any mechanical reason for the loss of power. However, it is probable that the turns were uncoordinated and the fuel tank outlet became uncovered because of the low fuel quantity, in the right tank, resulting in a loss of power from fuel starvation.

Circumstances:

The pilot was completing the pre-take-off checklist as he taxied the aircraft for take-off. A passenger drew the pilot's attention to an approaching tree however despite heavy braking the aircraft's wing collided with the tree.

After the helicopter had been transitioned to forward flight, the pilot felt a vibration through both the collective and cyclic controls. During his attempts to stop the vibration, the helicopter was allowed to descend. As he then selected a climb attitude the helicopter yawed to the right. The pilot was unable to correct the yaw and the tail struck a tree which slowed the yawing and allowed the pilot to land the helicopter. Initial inspection revealed that the intermediate flexplate in the tail rotor drive system had disintegrated. A metallurgical examination of the flexplate indicated that it probably failed due to overload. The examination also revealed that prior to the application of the overload that resulted in the ultimate failure, the flexplate had been cracked and weakened by another previous overload. The cause of the overload that resulted in the pre-existing crack could not be determined. However, examination of the tail rotor indicated that the ultimate failure most likely occurred as a result of a minor tail rotor strike whilst the helicopter was transitioning into forward flight.

The pilot was familiar with the destination aerodrome, having landed there on several previous occasions. On arrival, rain showers were in the area and the pilot held until the showers had cleared. After an apparently normal approach, the aircraft floated beyond the target touchdown point. The short grass surface was firm but wet, and the pilot was unable to stop the aircraft in the remaining strip length.

The pilot had completed spraying operations for the day. He decided to proceed via a friend's property at Sprent to pick up some mail. There is an agricultural strip located on the property but it is some distance from the house. Instead of using that strip he decided to land in a paddock close to the house to save himself a walk. He had used this paddock previously and considered it suitable. The distance from fence to fence in the landing direction that the pilot chose was approximately 250 metres. The first 200 metres had a steep upslope and the last 50 metres was approximately level. Late in the final approach the pilot realised that the speed was high and that he had misjudged the approach. He forced the aircraft onto the ground some 95 metres beyond the approach end fence. The aircraft bounced and touched down again 40 metres further on. From this point heavy braking marks were evident. When the aircraft came to the top of the steep slope the pilot realised that he was not going to be able to stop before the fence at the end of the paddock. There was insufficient room to groundloop and the pilot decided against attempting a go-around as there was a power line beyond the end of the paddock. The aircraft ran through the fence at the end of the paddock, across a driveway and came to rest straddling a fence on the other side of the driveway. When the pilot vacated the aircraft he noted that there was a 10 knot tailwind. The pilot believed that he had a crosswind for landing but there was no windsock at the paddock. It was established that he had been spraying very small paddocks in hilly country, requiring a high degree of concentration. With the day's spraying operations over he had relaxed and did not give his full attention to flying an accurate approach and landing.

Circumstances:

The pilot was spraying a 120 acre field of wheat. When the main area was finished the pilot started clean-up runs around trees and the fence. One fence line was in the form of a vee, and a clean-up run was made along this with the intention of ruddering the aircraft around at the bend in the fence. As this was done the left wheel contacted the fence and the pilot was unable to stop the aircraft hitting the ground and sliding to a stop.

After landing the aircraft was taxiied along a taxiway to the general aviation parking area. In preparation for a 90 degree turn in the taxiway the pilot moved the aircraft to the right of the taxiway. The nose wheel struck a steel gable marker, which was positioned 500 millimetres off to the the right of the taxiway. As a result of the collision the nose gear collapsed. The pilot was not concentrating sufficiently on the taxiing of the aircraft, which was being operated at a high speed.