The pilot's first attempted departure from his property strip was abandoned when he encountered strong downdrafts at about 150 feet above the ground. Sufficient strip length remained to permit a safe landing straight ahead. The pilot then attempted a second take-off, but again encountered severe downdrafts. On this occasion a landing back on the strip was not possible. The pilot decided the aircraft could not outclimb the terrain ahead, and selected an open area just to the right of his track in which to land. The nosegear and the right maingear were torn out when the aircraft touched down on the soft surface and groundlooped to a halt. No evidence was found to indicate that the engine was not capable of delivering full power during the take-off attempts. The wind at the time was strong and gusty, and conditions were conducive to downdrafts and wind shear. The pilot had not waited for the conditions to abate before commencing the second take-off.

Circumstances:

The pilot, who had limited gliding experience, was taking part in an away from home gliding excursion in the Flinders Ranges. She had made only six flights from the airfield, and these had all been in one direction of landing. However, the strip was subsequently changed to a direction previously not used by the pilot. She had been authorised for a further solo flight by her instructor on his understanding that she would be landing in a familiar direction. The accident flight was only the pilot's second flight in the aircraft type. After an uneventful launch, the pilot was watched on her return to the circuit by her instructor. From his observations, the pilot appeared to be flying too low on the downwind leg and did not compensate on her base leg. Initially, the pilot's final approach appeared to be normal but then it was noticed that the airbrakes were extended. The aircraft was seen to dive more steeply, level off for landing and collide with a fence short of the strip. The pilot later admitted that she was not confident of being able to land within the strip length and was preoccupied with some trees at the end of the runway. This accident was not the subject of an on-scene investigation.

Circumstances:

The pilot reported that he had refuelled at Dubbo enroute from Albury and departed Dubbo for Redcliffe with full tanks. Flight planned endurance was 300 minutes, the planned flight time was 210 minutes, and the flight was to be conducted below 5000 feet. The pilot stated that during the flight he had encountered light to moderate turbulence and that frequent increases to the power setting had been made, to compensate for the effect of turbulence on aircraft performance. Passing Warwick, 160 kilometres from Redcliffe, the fuel gauges were reading one quarter and below one quarter, which was assessed by the pilot to be adequate to continue the flight. As the aircraft crossed the ranges to the west of Redcliffe, the turbulence became more severe, and the pilot noticed the fuel gauge needles on or close to the empty stops but expected that there would still be sufficient fuel remaining. Shortly after this, at 2000 feet, the fuel pressure dropped to zero and the engine failed. The pilot turned on the auxiliary fuel pump, selected a field and was about to land, when the engine restarted at about 100 feet above ground level. The pilot stated that he commenced a climb towards Redcliffe but passing 1500 feet the engine failed again. A forced landing was carried out onto a 500 metre long disused strip which was overgrown by tall grass. The pilot was forced to land downwind and was unable to use the full length of the strip due to high trees on the approach end. During the landing roll, the aircraft ran off the end of the strip and down an embankment, before colliding with a dead tree and a fence corner post. Higher than normal power settings, stronger headwinds than planned for and turbulence contributed to fuel exhaustion after 260 minutes of flight. This accident was not the subject of an on-scene investigation.

On return from his third solo flight, the pilot was attempting to complete a 180 degree turn in a confined area between two hangars. He positioned the aircraft on the left extremity of the concrete apron prior to starting the right turn. The left outer wing section struck a vertical support for the hangar located adjacent to the apron.

Circumstances:

At the completion of a trial instructional flight a normal flare and two-point touchdown was accomplished. On touchdown the pilot noticed a "tug" on the airframe and the elevator control became "stiff". Inspection revealed the tailwheel forward attachment bracket had failed from fatigue. This caused the tail of the aircraft to ride over the broken tailwheel forward arm, resulting in the tailwheel folding aft into the tail cone. The rear attachment then failed in overload allowing the tailwheel to separate from the aircraft.

Significant Factors:

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

1. The tailwheel front attachment bracket failed due to fatigue cracking.

2. Aircraft inspection failed to detect the crack.

The pilot in command, who was also the owner of the aircraft, was acting as the safety pilot for the other pilot, who had only recently received training on the aircraft. This was the first occasion on which the co-pilot had flown the aircraft from the right hand seat. He flared the aircraft too high on the first circuit and was advised by the pilot in command that the flare had been commenced too early. As he attempted to reposition the aircraft closer to the runway it struck the runway heavily and bounced. The co-pilot inadvertently closed the throttle and the aircraft struck the runway in a nose down attitude. Damage was caused to the propeller, engine firewall and the landing gear.

A ten minute flight in the local area had been completed without incident. After DEPARTURE for a second flight the helicopter was climbed to 150 feet agl to allow the passengers to view the campsite and a herd of animals. The pilot and passengers then heard a loud bang which was followed by a severe airframe vibration. The noise and vibration continued and the pilot elected to carry out an autorotational descent and land in a small clearing. The clearing was overshot and the helicopter struck several trees. Investigation indicates that the engine cooling fan drive belt, which rotates at high rpm, failed. The flailing belt then tore a section of the canvas cooling fan shroud. Vibration was produced when the broken belt and section of shroud were ingested into the cooling fan.

Following a normal approach for a night landing, touchdown was made on the main landing gear. The pilot then noticed that the nose was lowering by an excessive amount, and he carried out a successful go around. Examinations from the ground and from a helicopter equipped with a searchlight revealed that the nosegear was inclined at about 30 degrees to the vertical. The position of the nosegear did not alter when the gear was cycled. After all attempts to lower the nosegear were unsuccessful, the pilot elected to carry out a landing with the maingear retracted. He was unable to use the grass flight strip alongside the lighted runway because of obstructions, and chose to land on an unlit strip. The left engine failed because of fuel exhaustion when the aircraft was on final approach. After touchdown, the aircraft slid off the end of the strip and came to rest against the boundary fence. It was determined that the nosegear retract rod plunger had failed from fatigue, resulting in the nosegear being isolated from the remainder of the landing gear system.

While hovering over scrub at about 30 feet agl, the engine lost power. The pilot was able to manoeuvre the aircraft to overhead a clearing but rotor rpm decayed and the aircraft landed heavily bending the landing gear rear cross tube and a section of the tail boom. The power loss resulted from the incorrect fitment of rocker arms during a previous servicing.

Shortly after touchdown the left wing began to drop and the aircraft veered off the runway. It came to rest after colliding with a runway light and a culvert. Inspection revealed that the castellated nut from the left gear torque link pivot bolt was missing. This allowed the lower torque link to rotate with the wheel and separate from the upper torque link. It was evident that a split pin which should have locked the castellated nut had not been in place for a considerable time, thus allowing the nut to work loose. However, the reason the pin was not in place could not be positively established.