The aircraft was carrying out a survey in a remote area. When last light occurred the aircraft was still some distance from the base camp. The pilot decided to follow a road into the camp. Enroute the engine lost power and an autorotational decent was carried out for a landing on the road. During the landing the left skid struck a low dirt bank and the tail rotor struck the dirt bank on the opposite of the road. Throughout the survey the pilot had used a higher than normal cruise power setting, but had not recalculated the endurance for the higher fuel usage. The engine failed after the fuel became exhausted.

The pilot was carrying out a check of the station windmills prior to commencing mustering operations. About 15 minutes after DEPARTURE he reported that an acrid smelling gas entered the cabin. He turned off the radios, the master switch and closed the cabin air vent and diverted to the nearest suitable strip. Enroute the acrid smell intensified and as the pilot was having trouble breathing he decided to land the aircraft in a nearby clearing. The throttle was closed in an endeavour to reduce the fumes but reapplied when this was not successful. However, the engine did not respond and the aircraft was landed short of the cleared area. During the landing roll the aircraft collided with trees. Following the last engine start the starter relay contacts remained closed due to internal corrosion, this resulted in the motor continuing to operate. The continuous operation of the starter produced enough heat to melt the non-standard engine earth strap at the attachment point to the firewall. Earth was then made through the tachometer cable and magneto switch leads, which overheated and burnt causing the magnetos to earth and the engine to subsequently fail.

The pilot hired the aircraft, a type he had not flown for four years, for a trip to what he believed to be an authorised landing area (ALA). However, he did not check the strip condition prior to DEPARTURE for the ALA. During the takeoff run at the ALA, the aircraft entered thick grass located to the left of a ten metre cleared area along the strip centreline. The acceleration of the aircraft was retarded and the pilot, realising that the aircraft would not accelerate to takeoff speed in the distance remaining, abandoned the takeoff. The aircraft stopped 64 metres beyond the end of the strip after colliding with two fence lines and a road shoulder.

The pilot reported that during the flare in preparation for a landing on runway 03, the aircraft was hit by a gust of wind. The aircraft touched down on the right mainwheel, which was bent backward, and the right wingtip contacted the ground. At the time the wind velocity was 330 degrees at 10 knots and the pilot had been unable to use the more into wind runway because it was unserviceable. He was also generally inexperienced on the aircraft type and in particular in operating the aircraft in crosswind conditions. This accident was not the subject of an on-site investigation.

The pilot had been advised by the property owner to land on a strip about two kilometres from the homestead instead of the usual strip. The available strip length was 1400 metres which was adequate for the operation. The pilot reported that when the aircraft became low during the later stages of the approach, he applied power, but realised that the main wheels would probably pass through tall grass near the threshold. Just prior to touchdown, the pilot heard and felt a loud bang. Immediately after touchdown, the aircraft adopted a left wing low attitude before the propeller blades of the left engine and left wing tip contacted the ground. The aircraft slewed through 90 degrees to the left and ran off the strip. The investigation revealed that when the landing gear was allowed to pass through the long grass in the undershoot area, it struck a concealed mound of earth, seven metres prior to the threshold. The impact caused the left oleo leg to become detached from the aircraft.

A group of pilots had travelled from a property strip to a nearby dam in order to complete training exercises on a float-equipped Bell 47 helicopter. VH-SRE was not fitted with floats but had been used to ferry some of the pilots to the area. At the conclusion of the training operation the pilot arranged to ferry VH-SRE back to the property strip. After take-off a practice autorotation was conducted over the dam and was followed by some unauthorised low flying in the vicinity. On arrival at the strip low level runs were performed along the strip with torque turns at each end. Control of the aircraft was lost during the third of these turns and the aircraft struck the ground in a steep nose-down attitude. Fire broke out on impact and engulfed the wreckage. The subsequent investigation did not reveal any evidence of a pre-impact defect or malfunction of the aircraft which might have contributed to the accident. Several of the pilots who observed the flight reported that the final manoeuvres performed were outside the normal operating parameters of the helicopter, and were conducted at an unsafe height above the ground. It was, however, not possible to establish which of the pilots was flying the aircraft at the time of the accident.

The aircraft was being operated at between 500 feet and 1000 feet above ground level. The pilot was in frequent communication with motor cyclists on the ground. After about two and a half hours one of the motor cyclists observed the aircraft enter a shallow descent and a slight left turn. The aircraft continued in this attitude until the left wing struck a tree, it then rolled rapidly to the right before the right wing and nose struck the ground about 25 metres beyond the tree. An inspection of the aircraft did not reveal any faults which could have contributed to this occurrence. The pilot was recovering from an upper respiratory tract viral infection at the time of the accident. It is possible that his physical condition combined with the relatively high workload involved in sheep spotting caused a degredation in perception which resulted in an inadvertent loss of altitude.

Following a dual check on circuits and landings, the pilot carried out some upper air work before returning for circuit practice. The weather conditions were fine, with light and variable winds. A normal approach was flown but the aircraft bounced slightly on the initial touchdown, and this was followed by two further bounces of increasing magnitude. The pilot persevered with the landing attempt, but the propeller struck the ground and the nosegear collapsed before the aircraft was brought to a halt. This accident was not the subject of an on-scene investigation.

A simulated forced landing exercise was planned by the instructor as part of an endorsement onto the type. The exercise was commenced at about 2800 feet above ground level, but because of distractions relating to radio transmissions, engine clearing checks were not conducted during the descent. The student misjudged the approach and was instructed to go-around. When the throttle was opened at about 500 feet, there was no response from the engine. The instructor took control, but was unable to prevent the aircraft touching down about 90 metres short of the selected strip. The gear was torn off and the right wing was severed by a collision with a fence post. Inspection of the wreckage did not reveal any defects with the engine or its systems that could have contributed to the occurrence, and the reason for the reported loss of power was not determined. On detection of the power loss, the aircraft manufacturer's loss of power checks were not attempted, nor were changes to the aircraft configuration conducted which would have improved glide performance.

Circumstances:

The pilot was positioning for a spray run and the aircraft was in the last third of the procedure turn at an angle of bank of about 45 degrees. The aircraft was reported to have overshot the alignment of the next run slightly. One witness said he saw the nose of the aircraft go down. Another witness indicated that the aircraft then rolled under in the turn and struck the ground. The aircraft hit the ground inverted and travelled only about another 20 metres. An explosion occurred on impact and only the left wing and main gear remained unburnt. The pilot was wearing a full helmet, and his harness was correctly worn and fastened. No apparent attempt to egress had been made. Subsequent investigation could find no faults or anomalies with the airworthiness of the aircraft that might have contributed to the accident. Advice provided to the investigation indicates that the Pawnee, at or near the stall in a turn, will stall the lower wing and roll under if aileron alone is used to try and pick up that wing. It was likely that while the pilot was manoeuvring to regain the alignment of the spray run, the aircraft was inadvertently stalled. A draft of this report was addressed to interested parties for consideration prior to release.

Significant Factors:

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

1. The pilot was relatively inexperienced.

2. In an attempt to regain the spray, run alignment, the pilot probably stalled the aircraft.

3. Loss of control occurred at an altitude insufficient for recovery.