The pilot reported that as he brought the aircraft into the hover in preparation for landing, it sank to the ground from a height of about 15 feet. The tailrotor blades struck a lygnum bush and the drive shaft sheared. The pilot indicated that the main rotor rpm had decayed, possibly from over-pitching during the latter stages of the approach. Operations had been conducted in gusty wind conditions. When the pilot noted that the main rotor speed had decayed to 2800 rpm, he applied more power but was unable to arrest the rate of descent.

Shortly after touchdown the pilot noticed a kangaroo on the side of the strip. He considered that more of the animals might be in the vicinity, and elected to carry out a go around. Full power was applied and the aircraft became airborne, but almost immediately afterwards the pilot changed his mind and decided to continue with the landing. When power was reduced again, the aircraft stalled and landed heavily. The nosegear subsequently dug into the surface of the strip and the aircraft overturned. After applying power to go around, the pilot had not monitored the airspeed and the aircraft had stalled at a low height above the strip.

The aircraft was engaged in the transfer of passengers from Cape Flattery to Cooktown. It was observed to overshoot from the first approach and to carry out a low level circuit subsequently landing with the gear retracted. The pilot reported that during the circuit following the missed approach, he was required to adjust the circuit pattern because of heavy rain in the area, and as a consequence flew a tighter than normal circuit. He also stated that during the circuit he was interrupted by radio conversations with another aircraft which was approaching Cape Flattery. An inspection of the aircraft revealed that the gear was in the locked up position and no damage had been caused to the main gear doors. No fault was found with the landing gear system that could have caused it not to extend when correctly selected down. The pilot believed that it was possible that when moving the gear selector lever to the down position he had not moved it fully down. He does not recall checking that the gear down indicator lights illuminated.

The pilot was conducting a cross country flight in company with a Thruster ultralight. Near their destination he lost sight of this aircraft. After several minutes of searching, he located the Thruster on the ground. However, during several low passes he could not see the pilot. Fearing for the pilot's safety he elected to land. Just as the Skydart was about to touch down the pilot saw some rocks ahead on the intended landing area. He applied full power for a go around but the left maingear leg hit a rock and was torn off. The pilot closed the throttle and landed adjacent to the other aircraft, which had also suffered landing gear damage during a forced landing. The other pilot was uninjured but had left the scene minutes earlier seeking assistance.

Circumstances:

The pilot was taking part in the activities of an Australian Ultralight Federation (AUF) club which used the strip for its home base. The pilot was apparently neither a member of the AUF nor the Australian Hang Glider Association. He had only owned the aircraft for about six weeks. Witnesses reported that their attention was drawn to the accident aircraft by the revving of the engine by the pilot. The aircraft at this point was over the strip at approximately 1300 feet above ground level. The pilot was then seen to manoeuvre the aircraft into a steep, near vertical climb. From this point, the aircraft reportedly lost flying speed and flipped over three times. The wings of the aircraft were then seen to fold and separate from the rest of the aircraft as the engine noise stopped, and the aircraft fuselage spiralled into the ground. Investigations into the pilot's background revealed consistent reports of his habit of showing off and performing manoeuvres close to the performance limits of the aircraft he was flying. He was reportedly also seen to perform manoeuvres with inadequate margins of safety and had allegedly been cautioned about his attitude to flying by a principal of the AUF club and the property owner. Engineering investigation of the wreckage showed that all failures of the aircraft structure had occurred as a result of overload or impact forces.

Significant Factors:

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

1. The pilot exceeded the design performance limits of the aircraft.

2. Inflight breakup due to pilot-induced overload.

3. Exhibitionist behaviour of the pilot. The accident was not the subject of an on-scene investigation.

The pilot arrived at his destination and joined the circuit. The downwind checks were completed without interruption and the pilot reported that he observed three green gear down lights. The final approach was normal except for a flickering of the alternator warning light during the flare. The pilot completed a "PUF" check on final approach and reported that he again observed three green lights. The aircraft touched down smoothly on the flaps, then the undersurface of the fuselage. Neither the pilot nor the passenger heard the gear warning horn. The gear selector was found to be in the gear down position and the gear actuator circuit breaker had popped. The main gear doors were found to be partly open as if the gear down cycle had started, however, it was reported that there were no scrape marks on the doors to indicate that they had dragged along the strip during the ground slide. The pilot stated that he did not select gear down after the aircraft had landed. During gear retraction and extension checks after the accident the gear was found to work normally, although the gear warning horn worked only intermittently. At the time the pilot flew the downwind leg of the circuit the sun would have been shining onto the instrument panel. It is likely that the gear down lights were illuminated by the sun which would have made it difficult for the pilot to see if there was a gear down indication. Having assumed that the gear down lights were on, he probably formed a false hypothesis that they were indeed on and did not check the gear position indicator thoroughly during his "PUF" check. When the warning horn failed to activate during the flare the last chance to avoid an accident was lost and the aircraft landed with the gear retracted. How the gear selector got into the gear down position is open to conjecture. This accident was not the subject of an on-site investigation.

Circumstances:

The pilot had not previously flown the homebuilt floating hull type amphibian aircraft. The flight was to carry out an evaluation of its water handling characteristics, before continuing with the flight testing for the issue of a Certificate of Airworthiness. The pilot reported that the water conditions were calm with a light easterly breeze blowing. A witness had observed power boats in the area where the aircraft was operating, churning up the water surface. This type of aircraft has a known tendency to "porpoise" in choppy surface conditions. Several high-speed taxi runs were performed, both into wind and crosswind. The pilot reported that the aircraft had a tendency to swing to the left, otherwise operations were normal. He returned to the beach where he had the water rudder alignment checked. After several more high-speed taxy runs the pilot considered that the aircraft was ready for flight. During the take-off and before the aircraft had obtained flying speed, it passed through the wake of a power boat, causing its nose to pitch up and left wing to drop. The pilot released some up elevator pressure and used right aileron to correct the roll. This had little effect in correcting the aircraft attitude before it encountered a second wave, pitching the nose up higher and increasing the roll to the left. The left hand wing float impacted the water causing the aircraft to swing to the left and the nose to drop. This was followed by a severe water loop to the left, which submerged the cabin momentarily and caused the left hand wing float, nose gear door and rudder to separate. Previous flight testing of this type of aircraft had shown that the ideal take-off technique was to maintain the aircraft level, with the elevator control held in the neutral position. This accident was not the subject of an on-scene investigation.

Significant Factors:

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

1. The pilot attempted to take-off using a less then optimum control technique.

2. The aircraft was affected by adverse water conditions.

3. A loss of control occurred before the aircraft had reached flying speed.

The pilot, who did not hold an instructor rating, was conducting a trial instructional flight. Prior to DEPARTURE, he had briefed the passenger on the functions of the various controls in the helicopter. On the downwind leg of the circuit, the passenger was allowed to handle some of the controls. The aircraft was subsequently placed in a hover at about five feet above the ground, and the passenger was invited to attempt to control the helicopter by use of the anti-torque pedals and the cyclic control. The passenger overcontrolled the aircraft, and the pilot was unable to prevent it from striking the ground in a steep nose-down attitude. Following the impact a fire broke out and destroyed the aircraft. No mechanical fault was subsequently discovered which might have led to the development of the accident. The pilot had undertaken the flight because no qualified instructor had been available at the time the passenger arrived, and he wished to avoid potential embarrassment to the company.

Circumstances:

The aircraft had been refuelled to full tanks the night before and a thorough fuel drain check was completed as part of the preflight inspection. No water or impurities were detected. On the day of the accident, the aircraft completed a short local flight of some 25 minutes before departing for its destination. The right tank was used for most of the local flight, so the pilot changed to the nearly full left tank some minutes before joining the circuit. The engine failed immediately after the pilot commenced to turn onto base leg. The fuel selector remained on the left tank, and the engine caught several times by use of the wobble pump but did not continue to run. During the trouble checks, the pilot switched on the left tip tank pump, but this did not help as the pump transfers fuel only to the left main tank. By this stage, the pilot was committed to a forced landing and landed the aircraft about three kilometres short of the threshold. After touchdown, the aircraft crossed a road and passed through a fence before coming to rest on open ground with the nose gear collapsed. An extensive investigation, failed to find a cause for the engine failure. However, the investigation revealed that the pilot did not operate the wobble pump vigorously enough to produce a fuel flow. Operation of the wobble pump more vigorously during the technical investigation, produced a suitable fuel flow from all selected tank positions. The front seat passenger, who was also a commercial pilot, confirmed correct in-flight tank selections.

Significant Factors:

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

1. Engine failure for undetermined reason but probably fuel starvation.

2. Pilot was unable to restore power by use of the wobble pump.

3. Inadequate fuel system knowledge.

Circumstances:

The aircraft was observed to take off from Runway 15 and climb to about 500 feet before commencing a right turn. It then appeared to abruptly change attitude in pitch and roll a few times before adopting a nose low attitude and disappearing behind trees. The aircraft crashed into a shallow swamp and caught fire. On site examination revealed that the aircraft struck the ground in a steep nose and right wing low attitude. The pilot reported that the engine began running roughly and lost power shortly after take-off. An examination found no fault with the engine or carburettor, however, fire damage precluded testing of the magnetos. The aircraft attitude at impact was indicative of it being in a stalled condition.

Significant Factors:

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

1. For reason(s) which could not be established, the engine apparently lost power.

2. The pilot lost control of the aircraft.