The aircraft had an amphibious capability and began the flight via a water takeoff. The landing was to be made on a beach on the other side of the island. The aircraft was observed flying parallel to the beach a few hundred metres from the shoreline and at an estimated altitude of 200-400 feet, when it rolled right and suddenly spiralled into the water. Some witnesses indicated that they heard the engine noise interrupted just before the aircraft rolled while others said that the noise remained constant. No abnormality was found in the aircraft or its engine which might have contributed to the accident. There was positive evidence that the engine was delivering power when the aircraft struck the water. The pilot indicated that he was winding down the landing gear as he flew parallel to the beach. This may have distracted him, allowing the airspeed to decrease. The flightpath of the aircraft into the water was typical of the post-stall behaviour of Drifter aircraft.

The pilot took-off with the intention of completing a circuit of the airfield. Once airborne, the pilot observed that the wind was stronger than anticipated, and he decided to abandon the circuit and land immediately in a clear field below the aircraft. During the downwind approach and when the aircraft was about 15 to 20 feet above ground level, the nose dropped suddenly. The pilot endeavoured to correct the situation by opening the throttle and attempting to raise the nose, however, this was ineffective and the aircraft collided with the ground. The pilot had recently purchased the aircraft, and although he had been advised to obtain some training before attempting to operate the aircraft he had declined to do so. The aircraft was not fitted with an air speed indicator, and assessment of speed was based on aircraft attitude in flight and speed across the ground.

At the completion of a local flight, the pilot was about 300 feet above the ground on final approach, when the aircraft experienced a substantial power loss. He positioned the aircraft for a forced landing in a nearby paddock. However, the engine then returned to normal operation and a decision was made to continue to the strip. Shortly after power was applied to overshoot from the paddock, the engine again lost power. During the subsequent attempt to position for touchdown the aircraft stalled and struck the ground heavily. An on-site examination by the operator and the pilot established that there was only one litre of fuel left in the tank. There were no faults apparent with the engine and it was evident that the power loss was the result of fuel exhaustion. It was not possible for the pilot to visually check the fuel tank contents in flight, and he considered that the fuel quantity gauge was unreliable. Although the pilot was experienced on the type, this particular aircraft had an engine fitted with twin carburettors. The fuel consumption rate was higher than that for the single carburettor models. The pilot had attempted to establish a fuel consumption rate prior to DEPARTURE but the figure that he calculated and planned upon was incorrect. The pilot also advised that, in hindsight, his decision making processes on the day were probably adversely affected. He was preoccupied with a personal problem, and also realised after DEPARTURE that he had neglected to wear sufficient clothing for the flight. This resulted in him getting quite cold as the flight progressed.

When the pilot selected the gear lever to the down position, only the maingear responded. Attempts to lower the nosegear were unsuccessful and the aircraft was landed with the nosegear retracted. After touchdown both propellers were feathered. However, the right propeller did not stop in the horizontal position and as the nose of the aircraft was lowered the propeller dug into the runway. The right engine was torn from the aircraft and the aircraft slewed to the right, damaging the left wing and propeller. Investigation determined that the cause of the nose gear binding, was inadequate lubrication of the nose gear door hinges. This extra resistance resulted in the actuating mechanism coming out of alignment, which caused the gear to jam. After the engines had stopped rotating, there was insufficient time for the pilot to adjust the positions of the propellers prior to the nose of the aircraft dropping onto the runway.

The aircraft was engaged on a bank-run flight. On arrival in the circuit area at Maitland the pilot observed that the aerodrome was fogbound, and so elected to divert to Warkworth. The pilot reported that when on downwind in the circuit area at Warkworth, the landing gear extended normally and a safe gear indication was observed. Ground witnesses reported that the touchdown of the aircraft on the gravel strip appeared to be normal. At approximately one third of the ground roll distance, the left maingear retracted. The aircraft veered off the strip and slid sideways on wet grass. No fault was found with the landing gear system. The sequence of retraction suggested that the pilot had inadvertently retracted the gear instead of the flaps.

Following a 30 minute flight the pilot landed the balloon and the passengers waited in the basket for the retrieve vehicles to arrive to effect a passenger changeover. During this period a strong wind blew up, caught the balloon and dragged it towards trees. The pilot advised the passengers to adopt a crouch position and operated the burner to apply heat to raise the balloon. The balloon climbed steeply, cleared the trees then descended rapidly, bounced and the basket began oscillating about 30 degrees either side of vertical. The pilot was thrown out of the basket and 10 of the 11 passengers received injuries, although all remained in the basket. The balloon continued to be blown along the ground and one of the passengers climbed into the pilot's section of the basket and applied heat, this took the balloon aloft. The pilot chased the balloon and after one of the retrieve vehicles located him he was able to contact the balloon by radio and relay instructions on the use of the burner to the passenger. The balloon landed about 3.5 km from the position it had been waiting to changeover the passengers.

The pilot reported that the takeoff and initial climb were normal. However, a substantial loss of engine power had occurred when the aircraft had just passed the upwind end of the runway and had reached a height of about 400 feet. The engine regained power briefly but then failed completely. The pilot considered that the terrain ahead of the aircraft was unsuitable for a forced landing, and he elected to attempt to return to the strip. By this time the aircraft had descended to a height of about 200 feet. As the aircraft entered the turn it stalled and attempts by the pilot to recover from the stall were unsuccessful. The aircraft descended rapidly and struck the runway about 56 metres from the threshold. An investigation of the aircraft revealed no pre-existing defects which could have contributed to the accident and the cause of the reported loss of engine power remains undetermined.

The helicopter was being used as an airborne filming platform. It was being flown at about 30 feet above ground level along the side of a roadway, while the film crew filmed a bus that was travelling along the road. The helicopter was observed to gain altitude and pass over a power line then descend again to 30 feet above ground level. After travelling a further 500 metres the helicopter struck a spur line running from the main power line, pitched nose up before descending out of control and colliding with the ground. The wreckage slid 50 metres before coming to rest on the road. The positon of both the sun and the support poles of the spur line would have made detection of the line difficult unless the pilot had prior knowledge of its position. The pilot was not seen to conduct a survey of the area for obstacles prior to commencing low level operations. The task required the pilot to concentrate on the bus to the right of the helicopter as well as the flight path ahead. Examination of the wreakage did not reveal any malfunction which may have contributed to the occurrence. It appeared that on impact with the spur line one cable contacted the bottom of the windscreen pillar and the other became entangled in the rotor blades. All significant damage to the aircraft appeared to have resulted from ground impact.

During the initial climb after take-off, before the translational lift was obtained, the check pilot closed the throttle to simulate an engine failure. The aircraft touched down heavily on the rear of the left pop-out float and pitched forward onto the right float. It then rolled backwards bending the rear of the tail boom, which was then severed by the main rotor. The crew shut the helicopter down before evacuating the aircraft. The pilot under check attempted to arrest the descent rate too early with collective. The check pilot attempted too correct this but was unable to do so prior to ground contact.

The pilot submitted a flight plan for a flight from Brisbane Airport to the television studios at Mt Cootha. The flight planned cruising altitude was 1000 feet. When the pilot requested an airways clearance, prior to takeoff, the Surface Movement Controller(SMC) in the Brisbane Control Tower found that the required cruising altitude had not been annotated on the flight progress strip. He therefore issued the aircraft with a clearance at 1500 feet. This altitude was accepted and acknowledged by the pilot. The SMC then advised the Brisbane Approach Controller the cleared cruising altitude of the aircaft. After the aircraft departed, the pilot advised the Brisbane Approach Controller that the aircraft was on climb to a cruising altitude of 1000 feet, in error. This was not queried by the Approach Controller. No traffic conflictions resulted from the occurrence.