The planned exhibition jump into the football stadium was delayed due to a gusting 30 knot(54 kilometres per hour) wind. After about 30 minutes a report was received that the wind strength had abated. A decision was then taken to proceed with the jump. When the aircraft arrived overhead the stadium the jump ground controller advised the pilot, by radio, that the wind strength was eight knots(15 kilometres per hour) and the four parachutists exitted the aircraft. The first three parachutists landed safely within the playing field. It was reported that the parachute of the fourth parachutist collapsed at an altitude of about 180 feet during a sharp right turn. The parachute spun to the right descending rapidly until the parachutist struck the facia of the north-east stand. Several witnesses reported that the wind strength was in excess of 8 knots, and as a result it is likely that conditions above the stadium would have been turbulent. Medical reports indicate that at the time of the accident it is likely that the parachutist's judgement was impaired by the effects of alcohol. Tests carried out on the parachute found that it would collapse during radical manoeuvring in turbulence, however, control could be quickly regained when the correct technique was applied. It is considered that on this occasion the parachutists handling of the jump was consistent with his judgement being impaired by the effects of alcohol.

The pilot reported that while the aircraft was established in cruise, the engine RPM suddenly increased and the windscreen covered with oil. The engine oil pressure gauge was indicating zero. During the subsequent landing, the aircraft ran off the sealed roadway. An inspection of the aircraft revealed that the constant speed unit oil transfer line had failed due to fatigue. This resulted in the engine oil being pumped overboard.

A student parachutist was exiting the aircraft for a static line jump, when a portion of the main canopy became entangled around the right horizontal stabiliser. Approximately half the right elevator was torn away, together with a portion of the trim tab, while the outer section of the stabiliser was bent downwards through 45 degrees. The parachutist landed safely, and the jump instructor then made a normal descent. The pilot was able to retain control of the aircraft, and elected to divert to a more suitable aerodrome, where an uneventful landing was subsequently carried out. The parachutists were using a static line bag deployment system. This system does not require a pilot parachute to extract the main canopy from its container, but the airspeed and attitude of the aircraft are critical to ensure safe operations. On this occasion, it was probable that the airspeed was higher than desirable at the time the parachutist exited the aircraft. However, the parachute school had not provided specific operating instructions for pilots engaged in this particular form of parachute dropping. In addition, it was considered that the static line attachment point was in a less than optimum position inside the aircraft, in that it reduced the available vertical distance between the attachment and the tailplane. It was also possible that the parachute may have been incorrectly packed, leading to earlier than normal deployment.

Circumstances:

The pilot, who had limited experience on the Bell 47, attempted to bring the aircraft to a quick stop at approximately 50 feet above ground level. During the manoeuvre, the cyclic control reached its forward stop. The pilot lowered the collective control in an attempt to recover the situation however his inexperience caused him to lose full control of the aircraft. The tail rotor struck the ground before the pilot was able to regain control. The subsequent landing was heavier than normal.

The student was conducting a series of circuits with touch and go landings. Wind conditions were calm and during the fifth circuit the pilot decided to carry out a full-stop landing before using another runway. At a speed of about 30 knots during the landing roll the pilot applied braking, but the aircraft immediately veered sharply to the right and ran off the side of the runway. The nosegear was broken when the aircraft entered a ditch before coming to a halt. An excessively worn brake pad on the right wheel assembly probably caused the brake to grab. The pilot had been unable to correct the resulting sudden and unexpected swing in time to prevent the aircraft running off the side of the runway.

The aircraft had been flown from an adjoining property by the owner. Because of difficulties encountered in starting the engine, the owner left it running while the pilot for this flight took his seat. At the time, weather conditions were hot, with a shade temperature of 46 degrees Celsius, and with little wind. The pilot subsequently advised that during the take-off roll he looked for the airspeed indicator, but was unable to locate it on the instrument panel. After lift-off a steeper than normal nose-high attitude was adopted, and the aircraft stalled from a height of about 20 feet above the ground. The particular aircraft was an early model of the type, with a different instrument panel layout, instrument coaming shape and height to that which the pilot had been operating during the preceding month. The pilot believed that the attitude selected after lift-off was the appropriate one, but because of the difference in instrument coaming heights the actual attitude was too steep. The departure had been hurried and the pilot had not familiarised himself with the layout of the instrument panel. The extreme ambient temperature had probably caused a degradation in the pilot's performance.

The student lost directional control of the aircraft during a touch and go landing in moderate crosswind conditions. The aircraft ran off the runway and collided with the aerodrome boundary fence. The student had only limited experience in handling the aircraft in crosswind conditions. The accident occurred during the first landing of the practice session.

The purpose of the flight was to achieve the cross-country distance requirements for the upgrading of the pilot's qualifications. He had been airborne for over 6 hours when further lift could not be found and an outlanding became necessary. While manoeuvring towards the selected area, the pilot misjudged the strength of the wind and was forced to turn onto final approach at a low height above the ground. During the turn the right wingtip struck a tree and the aircraft rotated about 110 degrees to the right before striking the ground. It was considered likely that the pilot's performance was affected by fatigue resulting from the length of the flight and his exposure to direct sunlight for a period of more than 10 hours. This accident was not the subject of an on-scene investigation.

The pilot was conducting practice forced landings in the training area. When overshooting from one of these approaches he observed that the flap would not retract from the two stages down position. After advising the flying club by radio of the problem, the pilot returned for a landing. The aircraft bounced on touchdown and then began to porpoise. The nosewheel was dislodged and the aircraft slewed off the runway before nosing over onto its back. The flaps had failed to retract because of a faulty micro-switch. The pilot had not experienced a malfunction of this nature before and had allowed this to distract him from the operation of the aircraft. He had persevered with the landing after the initial bounce, but had not been able to exercise adequate pitch control.

Circumstances:

The pilot reported that, at about 60 knots during the take-off run, the aircraft bounced as a result of an undulation in the strip. As the nose gear leg returned to the ground it encountered another undulation and broke off. During the take-off, the elevator control was being held just rear of mid-range. In the pilot's opinion the undulations in the strip had been the primary cause of the accident.