The pilot was carrying out practice circuits for type familiarisation. Landings were being made into wind and on the first touchdown the aircraft bounced and the pilot carried out a go-around. On the next approach, the aircraft bounced on touchdown to about 10 feet above the ground, and the pilot held the elevator control back and opened the throttle rapidly, intending to go around. The engine failed to respond and the aircraft landed heavily, collapsing the left maingear. No defect was found with either the engine or the failed gear tubing that could have contributed to the accident. The misjudged landing flare was probably a result of the pilot's lack of familiarity with the aircraft type. The recovery was initiated too late and the lack of response from the engine was most likely due to the throttle being opened too rapidly.

The pilot was making a landing approach in 8 knot crosswind conditions. Witnesses reported that the aircraft was flared at a greater height above the ground than normal, and it subsequently landed heavily and bounced. The pilot elected to carry out a go-around, applied full power and raised the flaps. Shortly afterwards, the aircraft stalled and struck the ground in a left wing low attitude at about 90 degrees to the runway heading. The pilot had not flown for several weeks, and had evidently misjudged the height of the aircraft when he commenced the landing flare. After he applied full power to go-around, he had retracted the flaps while the airspeed was still relatively low.

On arrival in the destination area deteriorating weather conditions, including rain and turbulence, were encountered. The pilot reported that strong sink was experienced on the base leg of the circuit and he found it was necessary to increase power and raise the landing gear in order to maintain adequate control of the aircraft. The approach was continued but the gear was not lowered. The warning horn sounded just before ground contact and the aircraft slid to a halt on the strip.

The helicopter was being flown along a beach at 500 feet above ground level when the engine lost power without warning. The pilot turned the aircraft into wind and carried out an autorotation. The subsequent landing was heavy, in soft, uneven sand. Both occupants evacuated the helicopter while the rotor blades were still turning. The pilot stated that as he was about to return to the helicopter and turn off the fuel and switches the right skid broke through the sand and the helicopter lurched to the right rear causing the main rotor blade to sever the tail boom. The cause of the reported engine failure could not be determined. During subsequent testing, the engine functioned normally and no defects were found with the aircraft that may have contributed to the occurrence. This accident was not the subject of an on-site investigation.

The pilot commenced the take-off run and confirmed that full power was selected. At an indicated airspeed of 90 knots, he rotated the aircraft and waited for the performance instruments to indicate that a positive rate of climb and the single engine climb speed had been achieved. The pilot reported that the aircraft did not accelerate beyond an airspeed of 95 knots and a positive rate of climb was not obtained. He stated that he retracted the gear, to avoid having it snag the boundary fence, and then realised that the left engine was losing power and altitude was not being maintained. The pilot then closed the throttles and the aircraft landed in open country beyond the aerodrome boundary. An inspection of the aircraft did not detect any faults in the engines or other aircraft systems that could have contributed to the occurrence. An examination of the propellers indicated that both engines were delivering power at the time the aircraft struck the ground. The cause of this accident remains undetermined.

The aircraft had recently been sold, and had been ferried from Moorabbin to Camden by the previous owner, Mr Bird. The Chief Flying Instructor for the company which had purchased the aircraft arranged to be taken for a re-familiarisation flight, as he had not flown the type for almost one year. During a practice autorotative landing, the helicopter fell heavily to the ground from a height of about 6 feet. The tail boom was severed and the bubble canopy was shattered. The matter of which pilot was in command and which was manipulating the controls has not yet been resolved. Each pilot denied that he was manipulating the controls at the time of the accident. There had evidently been an inadequate briefing as to individual responsibilities during the flight. During the autorotation, whichever pilot was at the controls misjudged the height of the helicopter when the flare was commenced.

The aircraft was being flown at about 200 feet above ground level in a left turn while the pilot was attempting to locate some sheep. The pilot reported that the aircraft stalled and that during the recovery it struck a bush. This resulted in damage to the right mainplane, right wing strut, right horizontal stabiliser and the brake lines on both mainwheels. The pilot was able to maintain control of the aircraft and land at a nearby airstrip. The pilots attention was diverted from the operation of the aircraft whilst he searched for the sheep and directed the ground party. He had been working long hours and was only obtaining about 4 hours sleep each night and considered that fatigue was a factor in his allowing the airspeed to decay unnoticed.

The pilot was flying one of three similar aircraft in practice for a forthcoming aerobatic display. The three aircraft carried out a stream landing, with the pilot of the subject aircraft intending to land to the left of the centre of the strip. Shortly after a normal touchdown, the aircraft encountered a soft area of the strip and subsequently overturned, coming to rest 85 metres from the initial point of touchdown. The display team had had no prior indication of any soft areas on the strip surface.

The pilot had decided to practice crosswind landings. When the aircraft was about 30 feet above the ground on final approach, he reported that it was affected by a wind gust. The aircraft sank rapidly and landed heavily on the nosewheel, which folded backward. The aircraft then skidded for 56 metres before coming to rest. It is probable that the high sink rate was caused by windshear. The pilot was inexperienced and did not take the correct action to counter the high rate of sink.

The student pilot was carrying out a series of "touch and go" circuits using gravel runway, 06. The wind was reported as being easterly at about 5 knots. On the fourth "touch and go", after a normal landing, the student applied full power, selected the carburettor heat control to cold and commenced to raise the electrically actuated flaps. He said he looked up and saw that the aircraft had commenced to veer to the left. The student closed the throttle and attempted to correct the swing with opposite rudder but was unable to prevent the aircraft striking a 30 centimetre high earthen bank bordering the edge of the runway. The nose gear was torn from its mounting and the aircraft overturned, coming to rest just beyond the runway edge. The earth bank was formed during recent grading of the strip. This work was interrupted by wet weather and was incomplete at the time of the accident.