After arriving at the strip at about 0700 hours, the pilot assembled the aircraft and inspected it before carrying out three taxiing runs along the strip. He then rechecked the aircraft before conducting a short, apparently uneventful, flight in the vicinity of the strip. After landing the pilot taxied the aircraft back to the start point and commenced another takeoff. When the aircraft became airborne it was observed to turn left and shortly afterwards the right wing struck a tree. The aircraft spun to the ground and the pilot was fatally injured by the impact forces.

The glider was being winch-launched from strip 36. During the launch, the left wingtip dropped into lush vegetation covering the strip. The glider rolled rapidly to the left around the wingtip, until it was inverted. It impacted heavily in this attitude and came to rest 96 metres from, and 15 metres to the left of the take-off point. A 15-20 knot north-easterly wind was blowing at the time and the right wing was seen to lift as the left wing contacted a reasonably heavy cover of dandelions which were 30-40 centrimetres tall. The pilot had activated the manual release and the winch operator stopped the launch when the glider adopted the acute roll angle, but both of these actions were too late for recovery to be achieved prior to impact. Due to soggy conditions, the gliding club had not used the strip for the previous 2 months, and had not mown the surface prior to recommencement of operations.

During a period of dual training, the instructor noticed that the oil temperature was rising to an undesirable level and that the oil pressure was falling. He elected to carry out a precautionary landing on a short, disused agricultural strip, rather than flying 20 minutes back to the aerodrome. The student was to carry out a short field landing under the supervision of the instructor, who was to talk her through the exercise. At about the point of touchdown, the press-to-talk switch in the rear pilot compartment failed and the student was unable to hear any further instructions. She became apprehensive about the length of strip remaining and applied heavy braking, which the instructor was unable to overcome, and the aircraft nosed over. An inspection of the aircraft revealed that a cleaning rag, which had been missed during the daily inspection, had partially covered the oil cooler, rendering it less effective.

The pilot was carrying out a practice circuit. Although the approach was good, the flare was initiated too high. The pilot attempted to correct by lowering the nose, however he was late in initiating the second flare. The aircraft struck the ground and bounced into a nose high attitude. The pilot again lowered the nose which resulted in another bounce. The gear finally collapsed after the third ground impact. The instructor assessed that the pilot's performance on earlier dual flights that day was of a sufficiently high standard to authorise him to do a solo circuit. However, on this circuit the flare height was misjudged and the technique used to recover from the bounced landing was incorrect.

The aircraft was being used to assess the effects of recent heavy rain and associated flooding in the area. The wreckage of the aircraft was found several hours after DEPARTURE, directly below an array of power lines which spanned a river valley. The aircraft had collided with the lines at about 265 feet above ground level, before striking the ground in a vertically nosedown attitude. It was determined that the pilot had flown in the vicinity of the power lines on numerous occasions. Where the lines crossed the river, the distance between the supporting towers was 934 metres. Hazard markers were attached to the lines, but they were small and inconspicuous. It was likely that on this flight, the pilot had been directing his attention to the flood damage, and had overlooked the presence of the wires.

The pilot reported that during a crosswind spray run along a fence line the left wing struck a tree. Despite extensive damage to the wing the aircraft remained airborne and the pilot was able to land the aircraft at the DEPARTURE strip, some three kilometres away. This accident was not the subject of an on-site investigation.

As the aircraft was cruising at 2500 feet above mean sea level the pilot noticed a vibration in the airframe. He reduced the manifold air pressure setting slightly and the vibration stopped. A short time later the aircraft lost directional control and began to spiral to the right. The pilot was unable to stop the rotation and when the helicopter landed it rolled over. Investigation showed that the lower vertical fin attachment brackets had failed, which caused the fin to separate in flight and strike the tail rotor. The tail rotor assembly and gearbox then completely detached from the tail boom. The fatigue failure of the fin was caused by vibrations emanating from worn components and bearings in the tail rotor and its gearbox. These parts were recently taken from another helicopter and fitted to the subject machine, their previous condition could not be determined. A recent service inspection failed to detect the worn components or the weakened lower fin. The wear in these components was also not noticed during the pre-flight inspections that were carried out between that service and the accident flight.

About 5 minutes after his estimated arrival time the pilot reported that he was uncertain of his position. Attempts to locate the aircraft were unsuccessful until the pilot climbed to 6000 feet and 22 minutes after the initial call the aircraft was radar identified 78 kilometres north of Sydney. The aircraft was vectored towards Bankstown but about 9 kilometres from the aerodrome the pilot advised that the aircraft was out of fuel. A forced landing was carried out onto a suburban street, during which power lines and a power pole were struck. The aircraft had departed with adequate fuel to conduct the flight. The pilot had only limited experience with night operations and had not maintained a detailed navigation log. He had apparently not been aware of the critical fuel state of the aircraft until about 10 minutes before the engine failure, which occurred 56 minutes after the position uncertainty was reported.

The pilot was engaged in spreading fertilizer on a forest. The airstrip being used was in a valley and to fly to the area of operation the aircraft had to cross a ridge line. As the aircraft approached the ridge the pilot stated that he noticed that the aircraft was descending, he applied full power and jettisoned the load. However, the stub wing of the aircraft struck some tall trees below the top of the ridge and a short distance later the forward flight of the aircraft was arrested when it collided with a large tree. The aircraft slid down the tree and became wedged between it and two other trees. The pilot was able to evacuate himself from the wreckage and walk to the airstrip. The pilot had taken 19 loads across the ridge line en-route to the treatment area prior to the accident flight. He had been clearing the tree- tops on the ridge by 30-60 feet on each run and planned to do the same this time. However, as the aircraft approached the ridge line the pilot reported that it encountered a downdraught. The presence of downdraughts in the area could not be substantiated by either other pilots or meteorology reports.

During the approach the pilot became aware that the aircraft was going to undershoot the intended landing area. He adjusted the approach, however, the aircraft landed short of the aerodrome in a cultivated field and struck an earth bank. Witnesses reports indicate that the air brakes had been deployed prior to the glider turning final. It is possible that the pilot was distracted by the other aircraft and forgot that the air brakes had been deployed during the approach. This accident was not the subject of an on-site investigation.