As part of a club competition, the pilot was required to carry out a practice forced landing on the strip. On the downwind leg the height of the aircraft was lower than desired and the pilot adjusted his tracking in order to converge with the strip. A continuous turn from downwind to final was attempted, during which the left wing suddenly dropped and the rate of descent increased. The pilot was able to regain partial control but the aircraft struck the ground heavily and ran off the side of the strip, colliding with rocks and scrub. After misjudging the height and distance to the selected touchdown point, the pilot elected to continue the approach. During the latter stages of the turn onto final, the aircraft probably encountered mechanical turbulence, which resulted in control difficulties and an increased rate of descent. It was likely that the pilot was influenced by the competition atmosphere existing at the time.

The pilot, who was also the holder of a Private Pilot Licence, was conducting his first gliding flight for the day. The glider was aero-towed to 1100 feet above the aerodrome, but only weak lift was encountered in the area. The pilot elected to return for landing and commenced a normal circuit. On the downwind leg strong sink was encountered and the base turn was conducted at about 300 feet above the ground. Indicated airspeed at the time was reported to be about 55 knots. The pilot subsequently advised that the roll into the turn was normal, but he was unable to level the wings again, even with full opposite aileron. The aircraft continued descending in a wing-low attitude and struck the ground about 250 metres before the threshold of the strip. Investigation revealed no evidence of any pre-impact defect or malfunction of the controls, and atmospheric conditions at the time were reported as being stable. When the sink was encountered on the downwind leg, the pilot had modified his circuit by flying closer to the strip. As a result, the angle of bank required for the base turn was steeper than normal. It was considered probable that the aircraft had stalled during this turn onto base, with insufficient height remaining to allow the pilot to recover control.

The aircraft returned to its departure aerodrome after suffering a complete electrical failure. Emergency extension of the gear was attempted, but during the landing roll the nose leg retracted, which resulted in the nose and propellers striking the runway. A written checklist was not used prior to departure and the generators were evidently not switched on. The electrical panel and the generator warning lights are obscured by the control column. Emergency gear and flap extension is achieved using the same winder which is placarded "Flaps-push handle in, Gear-pull handle out". Investigation revealed that although the flaps were in the fully down position the gear was only part of the way through its extension cycle.

The aircraft was using a taxiway which had a row of cones positioned about 11.5 m from the centre-line to indicate a step in the sealed surface. The pilot saw a fuel tanker parked some distance away from the cones, but, assuming that the cones were taxiway clearance markers,continued to taxy along the centre-line. The port wing struck the top of the tanker about 15 m from the aircraft centre-line and about two metres from the wing tip. There were works in progress in the area of the occurrence. Tanker drivers were required to park their vehicles not closer than 24 m to the centre-line of the taxiway, but there was no visual delineation of this distance.

The pilot was turning into the parking area, intending to taxy between aircraft parked in parallel rows. As the turn was completed the left wing tip struck the spinner of the aircraft at the start of the left hand row. This aircraft was undamaged, however the wing tip of the taxying aircraft was pushed rearwards with consequent damage to the rear spar fuselage carry-through member. During the turn into the parking area one of the passengers interrupted the pilot's concentration by pointing out that the parking position from whence they had departed, was still vacant. The pilot did not notice that the aircraft had moved almost 2 metres to the left of the taxiway guideline until the collision was imminent.

The pilot was conducting a night cross-country exercise to maintain his recent experience requirements. On final approach he realised that the aircraft was undershooting. Some engine power was applied and the approach was continued but the pilot then saw power lines ahead, too late to take any avoiding action. The aircraft struck the wires and subsequently impacted the ground 211 metres short of the threshold. It came to rest 91 metres further on after colliding with a fence. The wires struck provided power for the airfield lighting, which was extinguished at the time of collision. The power lines struck were 28 feet agl and were 600 metres from the threshold. The pilot had been slow to realise that the undershoot situation was developing and had not taken appropriate action to either regain the normal approach path or to go-around.

The aircraft was cruising at 10,000 feet at night, when the passenger noticed the manifold pressure reducing. The engine rpm also dropped and the pilot changed fuel tanks, switched on the fuel boost pumps and moved the throttle and pitch controls to the fully forward positions. At about the same time the manifold pressure and engine rpm readings reportedly dropped to zero. The aircraft was set up in a glide and despite several attempts engine power could not be restored. The pilot tracked the aircraft towards a town and descended over the town before taking up a westerly heading in preparation for landing. At about 20 feet above the ground the aircraft struck a tree and then landed heavily on a steep bank. An inspection of the engine found that the crankshaft had failed due to a fatigue fracture initiated from a manufacturing fault. An Airworthiness Directive regarding inspections of crankshafts in this type of engine has since been introduced.

At a height of about 80 feet above ground level with little forward speed, the helicopter suffered a complete power loss. During the subsequent autorotational descent the main rotor struck trees, and the right skid was torn off on impact with the ground. Investigation revealed that two connecting rods had become detached from the crankshaft, and the engine had seized. It was likely that a previous overspeeding of the engine had stretched the big end bolts. This led to a loss of torque on the nuts retaining the bolts, which finally suffered overload failures.

Thirteen minutes after departing Brisbane the crew was instructed to "contact Brisbane Control now on 127.2" (the next VHF en route radio frequency). This message was received at 1023 E.S.T. and acknowledged. At 1039 hours, Brisbane Flight Service received a radio check call from the aircraft on HF. However, despite numerous calls from Brisbane, Sydney, and Melbourne Airways Operations units, nothing further was heard from the aircraft on VHF until 1144 hours when the crew contacted Sydney Control requesting transfer instructions to Melbourne. The aircraft's progress was monitored on radar throughout the flight and, as it appeared to behaving normally, no fears were held for its safety. In his report, the Captain stated that both VHF radios had been inadvertently selected to 127.3 MHz instead of 127.2 MHz. Both pilots had heard aircraft communicating on this frequency, which is a Melbourne-Sydney route frequency, and believed communications were normal. Neither pilot could recall transfer instructions being issued, or calling Brisbane Control on frequency transfer. Examination of taped air/ground communications did not reveal any record of the crew having checked-in on frequency 127.3 MHz following transfer, as required by standard procedures.

The aircraft was on climb towing a glider when the pilot saw smoke and flames around the left rudder pedal area. The glider was released and the pilot landed the aircraft in a paddock. He abandoned the aircraft before it was destroyed by fire. Because of the severity of damage the cause of the fire could not be determined. It was established that the fire melted fuel lines in the cockpit walls and fuel released then fed the fire which completely gutted the aircraft.