Initial test flying of the aircraft had been commenced the previous day. The pilot, who was a friend of the owner, had carried out a number of short hops along the 1000 metre strip. The following morning a further six hops were carried out, after which the pilot announced his intention to conduct a right hand circuit and landing. He made one further short flight along the strip, before taking off for the circuit. The aircraft passed over those on the ground at a height of about 300 feet, before passing out of sight while heading south-westerly. Shortly afterwards the engine noise level changed several times before ceasing altogether. A nearby farmer saw the aircraft in a left turn when the engine stopped. The turn tightened and the aircraft disappeared behind a hill. Sounds of impact were then heard. Investigation revealed that the aircraft had struck the ground while in a left spiral and travelling at relatively high speed. The engine was not rotating at the time of impact but no evidence could be found to suggest that it was not capable of operation. The fabric on the the left wing showed signs that it had separated along the entire trailing edge in flight. This would have resulted in a severe reduction of lift compared to that produced by the intact right wing and the subsequent uncontrollable left spiral. The aircraft did not comply with the relevant Air Navigation Orders, having an empty weight of about 210 kg, with a wing loading of about 20 kg/square metre.

The student had completed about seven hours training and was undergoing her second session of circuit training. The instructor stated that the student had previously had difficulty with the directional control of the aircraft. On this takeoff he allowed the student to manipulate only the rudder, so that she could concentrate on the directional control aspect, while he manipulated all the other controls. As the power was increased the aircraft gradually swung to the left. Approaching the left side of the strip the swing increased and the instructor applied right rudder at the same time as the student. The aircraft swung to the right and as it crossed the right side of the strip the left wheel dug into the ground and the aircraft tipped onto the left wing.

The pilot was attempting a 300km cross country flight. After release from the aerotow the glider only achieved 3000 feet above mean sea level. As the flight continued no further height gain was achieved and on descending to below 2000 feet the pilot decided to carry out an outlanding. While the glider was being manoeuvred in the circuit, at about 50 feet above ground level, the right wing dropped and struck the ground. The pilot had selected a landing field when flying with 2000 feet indicated on the altimeter. He was unaware that the terrain over which he was flying was 1000 feet above mean sea level and thus only 1000 feet below the aircraft. During the approach the aircraft became low and the airspeed decreased until the aircraft stalled at too low an altitude to allow recovery.

The purpose of the flight was to film a moving train. Prior to commencing the operation, the pilot made an aerial inspection of the area and mentally noted the various obstructions. On the second filming run the helicopter collided with power lines at a height of 33 feet above ground level. The helicopter descended and struck the ground about 50 metres beyond the point of collision. It then bounced and came to rest on its side. The pilot was highly experienced in aerial photography and survey operations. At the time of the accident, visibility was reduced to less than 2 kilometres in light rain. One of the poles supporting the power lines was hidden from the pilot's view by a large tree. It was also possible that the pilot had flown outside the area he had previously inspected, as he had not been aware of the presence of the particular set of wires.

After consultation with his passengers regarding the expected duration of the return survey flight, the pilot decided that he needed only one 200 litre drum to refuel. Just short of Karratha he advised the passengers that he would have to land due low fuel state. During the descent the engine stopped, due to fuel starvation, and the helicopter was substantially damaged in the resulting heavy landing on a dirt road, in fading light. The pilot was unfamiliar with the fuel system installed in the aircraft. The duration of the return flight was increased by a requirement to complete an extra task. However, when the pilot became aware that insufficient fuel remained to complete the flight with the required reserves, he elected to continue the flight to the planned destination. The landing was only attempted when the pilot became concerned that all the fuel would be exhausted before arrival at the destination. This accident was not the subject of an on-site investigation _

This aircraft had only recently been acquired by the company. It had a fuel system different to other aircraft of the same type in the fleet. On the other aircraft there were three detents for each fuel selector, On, Off, Crossfeed. On this aircraft there were four detents, Off, Outboard, Inboard, Crossfeed. The pilot had not previously flown this aircraft. After a flight time of about 110 minutes the pilot reported that both engines had stopped and he was unable to access fuel from the outboard tanks. When the wreckage was located no evidence of fuel was found in the inboard tanks. An inspection of the wreckage did not reveal any fault with the engines or fuel system which may have contributed to the occurrence. It was evident that the engines had stopped when the fuel from the inboard tanks was exhausted. A quantity of fuel remained in the outboard tanks. The day prior to this flight the pilot was briefed on the fuel system of VH-FDR by the company check pilot. The briefing was carried out with the use of the Pilots Operating Manual for the aircraft. Because VH-FDR was not available at the time, the pilot was not able to study the fuel management panel in daylight hours. It is not known if the pilot familiarised himself with the panel before commencing the flight. The aircraft is normally operated with the inboard tanks selected for takeoff. Evidence was obtained from flight documentation found in the wreckage which indicated that the pilot had changed the fuel selections from Inboard, about 30 minutes before he reported that the engines had stopped. However, the exhaustion of the fuel contained in the inboard tanks indicates that the selectors could not have been correctly positioned in the detents for the outboard tanks. Tests carried out found that if the selectors were positioned between the inboard and outboard detents, sufficient fuel, to allow the engines to be operated, would still be drawn from the inboard tanks. The reason the pilot was unable to access fuel from the outboard tanks could not be determined.

Having taken delivery of a new helicopter the previous day, the pilot was carrying relatives on short flights over their property. On the second flight, descending through 200 feet for landing, the rotor low rpm warning horn sounded. The pilot applied full throttle and lowered the collective pitch control but this did not restore rotor rpm. As the horn continued to sound he turned the aircraft into wind and attempted a landing in a clear area. The aircraft struck the ground with the heels of both skids and the tail rotor. The tail boom was severed by the main rotor, and the helicopter came to rest on its right side. The passenger suffered bruising as a result of contact with the emergency locator beacon which was mounted between the backrests of the two seats. No fault was found with the engine or airframe which might have contributed to the accident. However, atmospheric conditions existing at the time were such that moderate to serious carburettor icing was probable.

It was reported by a witness that the aircraft bounced several times on landing and ran off the strip, collapsing the maingear. The accident was not reported by the pilot. The wreckage was removed from the accident site, and neither it nor the pilot could be located for some five months. The pilot stated that he had been taxiing the aircraft to keep it serviceable. Whilst taxiing with the tail off the ground, the aircraft began to bounce uncontrollably. He said, that in the interests of safety, he applied full power, took off and flew a circuit. During the subsequent landing, the aircraft bounced, causing the landing gear to collapse. Following the accident he removed the wreckage to a farm for storage. This accident was not the subject of an on scene investigation.

Because of deteriorating lift conditions, the pilot was required to make an outlanding. A normal circuit and touchdown were carried out, but after a ground roll of about 20 metres the landing gear struck a large rock, which had been hidden in the long grass.

Circumstances:

On arrival over the agricultural airstrip the pilot observed that there were cattle on the strip which prevented a landing. He made several low passes over the cattle which moved them from the approach end of the airstrip into trees adjacent to the dump site at the other end. The pilot was concerned that the cattle might wander back onto the airstrip and elected to make an approach to land as close to the threshold as possible. Touchdown occurred several metres short of the threshold and the right hand landing gear struck a rocky outcrop. The aircraft veered to the right leaving the airstrip and continued for approximately 150 metres before coming to a stop. Inspection by the pilot indicated that the right hand landing gear wheel assembly and components had suffered substantial damage and the right hand tyre was ruptured. This accident was not the subject of an on-site investigation.

Significant Factors:

The following factors were considered relevant to the development of the accident:

1. The pilot's attention was diverted by cattle on the airstrip.
2. The pilot misjudged distance and altitude during the approach.