The pilot was taking three friends on a local sightseeing flight. He calculated that the aircraft would be close to maximum all-up-weight and from the Aircraft Performance Chart, concluded that a strip length of 700 metres was required with 9 degrees flap selected. He had earlier used a vehicle to measure the ALA length as 900 metres. Witnesses reported that the aircraft became airborne about three quarters of the way along the strip, flew level for a time, and slowly drifted left before climbing sharply over a row of trees. At this point the left wing dropped so the pilot retracted the flap and applied right rudder. He did not retract the landing gear. The aircraft descended and struck the ground right aileron first before skidding left through some 140 degrees. The nose and right main landing gear were torn off. The investigation revealed that the aircraft was approximately 5 percent above maximum take-off weight. The Aircraft Peformance Chart indicated that for the prevailing conditions, the required strip length was 975 metres. The strip itself was 800 metres long. An inspection of the aircraft did not reveal any faults that may have contributed to the occurrence.

Circumstances:

This was the student's first session on practice forced landings. The instructor demonstrated a forced landing approach and then positioned the aircraft for the student to practice an approach. The instructor intended to demonstrate to the student the dangers of trying to stretch the glide. The approach was flown by the student into wind with full flaps set, descending to a low height with the speed reducing to 55 knots. The student failed to respond to the instructor's call to watch the airspeed. The instructor took control, applying full power, but too late to avert the descent. The aircraft port wing tip contacted a bush, and the resulted ground contact caused the nose gear to collapse. The instructor estimated the wind as from the north-west at 15-20 knots and thought there was probably wind shear at low level, which contributed to causing the ground contact.

It was reported that the flight proceeded normally until during the flare. The glider was lined up with the strip, but during the hold-off it drifted to the right and touched down on the edge of the marked, 50 metre wide strip. The landing roll continued off the runway and the starboard wing struck a tree 20 metres from the edge of the strip. The landing was conducted in 4 to 8 knot crosswind conditions. During the hold-off the student pilot applied excessive rudder when aligning the aircraft with the strip prior to touchdown.

When the aircraft became low on approach, the pilot applied power to correct the approach angle. However this resulted in a higher than recommended airspeed and the aircraft touched down and bounced. Witness reports indicate that the final touchdown occurred between 155 and 180 metres after the threshold, however, positive wheel marks were not evident until 340 metres after the threshold. When the pilot realised that insufficient strip remained for the aircraft to be brought to a stop, she attempted to carry out a groundloop. The aircraft skidded sideways off the end of the strip and down a steep incline before coming to rest against a tree. The pilot had encountered several problems prior to the accident. The aircraft battery had gone flat twice causing delays to the passengers. The passengers had become irritated by the delays and vented their anger on the pilot. The pilot stated that she was concerned about starting the engine after the landing and about the time available to complete the schedule before returning the aircraft to the base that night. She also stated that because of her preoccupation with the above matters she had not planned the approach and landing.

Circumstances:

Prior to control of the aircraft being transferred from the Brisbane Approach Controller to the Brisbane Tower Controller, the crew advised that they had the airfield in sight. The aircraft was instructed to make a visual approach to runway 01. When the aircraft crew contacted Brisbane Tower, they were given a clearance to land. However, the Tower Controller became concerned that the aircraft was aligned with the decommissioned runway 04 and not with runway 01. He asked the aircraft crew if they had the runway in sight, to which they replied that they did. The controller then instructed the aircraft to turn right, track towards the Gateway Bridge and to report when they had the approach lighting in sight. The aircraft crew reported the runway in sight, and the aircraft was recleared to land on runway 01. The landing was completed without further incident. This incident was not the subject of an on-scene investigation.

As the aircraft approached the end of the landing roll the left main landing gear leg collapsed. The aircraft swung to the left before coming to rest in a left wing low attitude. The landing gear leg had failed due to overload. The cause of the overload failure could not be determined.

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.