The aircraft was being operated at between 500 feet and 1000 feet above ground level. The pilot was in frequent communication with motor cyclists on the ground. After about two and a half hours one of the motor cyclists observed the aircraft enter a shallow descent and a slight left turn. The aircraft continued in this attitude until the left wing struck a tree, it then rolled rapidly to the right before the right wing and nose struck the ground about 25 metres beyond the tree. An inspection of the aircraft did not reveal any faults which could have contributed to this occurrence. The pilot was recovering from an upper respiratory tract viral infection at the time of the accident. It is possible that his physical condition combined with the relatively high workload involved in sheep spotting caused a degredation in perception which resulted in an inadvertent loss of altitude.

Following a dual check on circuits and landings, the pilot carried out some upper air work before returning for circuit practice. The weather conditions were fine, with light and variable winds. A normal approach was flown but the aircraft bounced slightly on the initial touchdown, and this was followed by two further bounces of increasing magnitude. The pilot persevered with the landing attempt, but the propeller struck the ground and the nosegear collapsed before the aircraft was brought to a halt. This accident was not the subject of an on-scene investigation.

A simulated forced landing exercise was planned by the instructor as part of an endorsement onto the type. The exercise was commenced at about 2800 feet above ground level, but because of distractions relating to radio transmissions, engine clearing checks were not conducted during the descent. The student misjudged the approach and was instructed to go-around. When the throttle was opened at about 500 feet, there was no response from the engine. The instructor took control, but was unable to prevent the aircraft touching down about 90 metres short of the selected strip. The gear was torn off and the right wing was severed by a collision with a fence post. Inspection of the wreckage did not reveal any defects with the engine or its systems that could have contributed to the occurrence, and the reason for the reported loss of power was not determined. On detection of the power loss, the aircraft manufacturer's loss of power checks were not attempted, nor were changes to the aircraft configuration conducted which would have improved glide performance.

Circumstances:

The pilot was positioning for a spray run and the aircraft was in the last third of the procedure turn at an angle of bank of about 45 degrees. The aircraft was reported to have overshot the alignment of the next run slightly. One witness said he saw the nose of the aircraft go down. Another witness indicated that the aircraft then rolled under in the turn and struck the ground. The aircraft hit the ground inverted and travelled only about another 20 metres. An explosion occurred on impact and only the left wing and main gear remained unburnt. The pilot was wearing a full helmet, and his harness was correctly worn and fastened. No apparent attempt to egress had been made. Subsequent investigation could find no faults or anomalies with the airworthiness of the aircraft that might have contributed to the accident. Advice provided to the investigation indicates that the Pawnee, at or near the stall in a turn, will stall the lower wing and roll under if aileron alone is used to try and pick up that wing. It was likely that while the pilot was manoeuvring to regain the alignment of the spray run, the aircraft was inadvertently stalled. A draft of this report was addressed to interested parties for consideration prior to release.

Significant Factors:

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

1. The pilot was relatively inexperienced.

2. In an attempt to regain the spray, run alignment, the pilot probably stalled the aircraft.

3. Loss of control occurred at an altitude insufficient for recovery.

The student had been briefed to carry out a series of solo circuits and landings. The instructor observed the first circuit, and reported that it appeared to be normal. On touchdown, the aircraft bounced then pitched nose down. The subsequent touchdown was heavy and the nosegear was torn off. The student had accumulated 1.5 hours of solo operations on 4 previous flights, and had received a dual check on her last flight, which was 8 days prior to the accident. When the aircraft bounced she had evidently been unable to take suitable corrective action to prevent the subsequent heavy touchdown.

The helicopter was flying at 40' above ground level to enable the cameraman to film a vehicle. The crew heard a loud bang and the pilot suspected an engine failure so he commenced an autorotation. However, he quickly found that the engine responded normally to power changes but not knowing what had caused the noise, he decided to land on suitable terrain just ahead. After they had exited the helicopter, the cameraman reported to the pilot that he saw a wire just prior to hearing the noise. Inspection of the machine confirmed that it had suffered a wirestrike. The task required a high degree of attention on the movements of the vehicle in order to position the helicopter as required by the cameraman. The pilot did not have a low flying approval and his supervisor had instructed him not to descend below 100 feet above ground level, however he complied with the cameraman's request to fly as low as possible. The person occupying the left seat was not trained as an observer for this type of operation. The supporting poles for the wire struck by the helicopter were widely spaced and one was obscured by a stand of trees.

The helicopter was heading in a westerly direction following takeoff from the pilot's property. The track was to take the aircraft directly over Mount Gayndah so the pilot decided to track to the south of the mountain to provide better terrain clearance. When the helicopter was abeam the mountain, at about 500 feet above ground level, it struck two power lines suspended between a pole on top of the mountain and a pole 1100 metres to the south in the foothills. The pilot was unaware the aircraft had struck the wires, but immediately lowered the collective and turned the aircraft towards the only available cleared area. Approaching the area it became obvious to the pilot that the aircraft would not clear trees on the approach path and he increased the collective. The helicopter cleared the trees and turned right through 180 degrees before touching down in a level attitude while travelling rearward. The landing skids collapsed and the aircraft slewed to the right before coming to rest. The two 90 tonne breaking strain wires had been broken when they were struck by the main rotor blades of the helicopter. The wires then severed the tail rotor drive shaft, a substantial portion of one tail rotor blade and almost severed the tail boom just in front of the vertical stabilisers.

The helicopter was engaged in an inspection of the oil pipeline between Jackson and St George. The inspection involved landing at various points along the pipeline to allow the technicians to check the pipeline. As the aircraft took off after an inspection stop the front seat passenger warned the pilot about the position of a power line. The pilot attempted to take avoiding action but the aircraft struck the power line. Control of the aircraft was lost and it struck the ground in a nose low attitude and rolled onto its right side. A section of the helicopter's transmission was torn from the aircraft and struck the front seat passenger. During the day the flight had been delayed by problems with the inspection schedule and aircraft fuelling. While waiting in the aircraft for the technicians to complete their task, the pilot was involved in flight planning the next stage length to St George in order to arrive there before last light. The pilot reported that he had seen the power line during the previous landing sequence but had forgotten about its presence on takeoff.

The pilot was positioning the helicopter before carrying out a medical evacuation from a ship. Prior to DEPARTURE he had arranged to land on the school oval at Lancelin, to refuel, and to have two vehicles positioned at the oval to provide lighting for the landing. During the subsequent night approach to the oval the helicopter collided with sand dunes. Witnesses reported that during the approach the aircraft descended to a low altitude and disappeared from sight behind the sand dunes before impact. An inspection of the wreckage revealed that apart from the altimeter no other faults were found with the aircraft that could have contributed to the occurrence. Examination of the altimeter found that it was outside operating limits and during operation in the aircraft was likely to have been erratic in its indications. No such erratic indications were reported by the pilot or his passenger, who was also monitoring the altimeter. The weather at the time of the occurrence was reported as overcast with light drizzle and a light wind. The visibility was 20 kilometres although the night was dark and the only source of light in the area was from the town and the headlights of the two vehicles being used to light the landing area. These conditions are conducive to the pilot suffering from visual illusions and it is possible that these illusions caused the pilot to misjudge the altitude of the helicopter during the approach.

After a normal approach, the pilot was surprised when the aircraft bounced on initial touchdown. A second bounce occurred, during which the pilot applied power to cushion the next touchdown. The power application seemed to have little effect and the nosewheel and propeller struck the ground heavily. The aircraft then ran off the side of the runway and collided with a fence. The pilot had been given a check flight on the aircraft two days previously. During this check, he was advised to use less flap for landing than that specified in the Flight Manual. At the time of the accident, the aircraft was being operated in excess of the maximum permitted all-up-weight. The pilot advised that he had not carried out a weight and balance calculation because the hiring organisation had assured him that the aircraft could be operated with full fuel tanks and four persons on board. Following the bounced landing the pilot had not initiated a go around and directional control had been lost after the nosegear suffered damage on heavy contact with the runway.