The pilot had been conducting a series of solo circuits and landings. On the seventh circuit, a normal approach was flown but the aircraft ballooned slightly as the flare was commenced. The aircraft was then seen to climb abruptly to a height of about 20 feet, and shortly afterwards the left wing dropped. Full power was applied, but descent continued and the left wing tip struck the ground. The aircraft slewed rapidly to the left and the nose struck the side of a ditch. During his training, the pilot had experienced some inconsistency in the control of the landing flare. On this occasion he had evidently applied rearward pressure to the control column, and had not relaxed this pressure before the aircraft stalled.

As the pilot was overflying the Rangers Cottage, he noticed two rangers run out, waving frantically. Believing they required assistance he landed the helicopter in the nearby car park. The rangers approached the helicopter and urged the pilot to move the helicopter as they were about to commence blasting. In his haste to clear the area the pilot overpitched the rotor blades. He attempted to land the helicopter on an access road but the main rotor blade struck a tall shrub, the aircraft yawed to the left and the tail rotor collided with the base of the bush before the helicopter landed. This accident was not the subject of an on-site investigation.

Prior to taxying the pilot had checked the all-up-weight of the aircraft and had performed a thorough pre-flight inspection. The take-off and initial climb appeared to be normal, however when the aircraft had reached a height of about 200 feet there was evidently a loss of performance and no further height was gained. In response to queries from the Control Tower, the pilot indicated that he was returning for landing. During a subsequent turn, control of the aircraft was lost. The left wing dropped sharply and the aircraft entered a near vertical descent, subsequently colliding with a large tree before impacting the ground. A fierce fire broke out and consumed the wreckage. The subsequent investigation was hampered by the extent of the fire damage. It was established that the engine had been subjected to abnormally high operating temperatures, but whether this had occurred immediately before the accident or at some previous time, could not be determined. No other defect was found which might have contributed to the apparent loss of performance and the reason for such loss remains undetermined. The pilot was relatively inexperienced, both in total hours and on the aircraft type. While endeavouring to manoeuvre the aircraft for a return to the aerodrome, he had apparently not realised that the airspeed was decaying, and the aircraft subsequently stalled at a height which was insufficient to allow recovery before impact with the ground.

The pilot stated that at the end of the take-off run the wheels hit a 60cm high contour bank. He also reported that he misjudged the distance between the point at which the takeoff was commenced and the bank. The aircraft sustained substantial deformation damage to the landing gear attachment points and the carry through structure. The pilot had not calculated the distance required for takeoff, nor had he availed himself of all of the takeoff distance available. This accident was not the subject of an on-site investigation.

The pilot had taken part in a flour bombing and balloon bursting competition and was returning to land. The front seat passenger was a flying instructor and was acting as a safety pilot and judge for the competition. The approach to land was high and the pilot decided to go around, however, the safety pilot suggested that sufficient strip remained for completion of the landing. The aircraft touched down about 600 metres beyond the runway threshold and bounced. The pilot applied some power and continued with the landing attempt, but the stall warning sounded and the airspeed was noted to be below 40 knots. The front seat passenger retracted flap to the take-off setting and instructed the pilot to apply full power and to lower the nose of the aircraft. He then placed his hands on the controls to monitor the pilot's control inputs. The aircraft failed to accelerate as it flew along the strip about a metre above the ground. It subsequently struck the airfield boundary fence before coming to rest 160 metres beyond.

The pilot was undertaking a solo navigation exercise prior to a flight test for the removal of area restrictions on his licence. About 20 minutes after DEPARTURE the engine commenced to run roughly, and the pilot diverted towards a suitable aerodrome. However, the engine performance deteriorated and the pilot elected to carry out a precautionary landing in a paddock. Towards the end of the landing roll the aircraft collided with a fence. Initial investigation revealed a broken rocker arm on one of the engine cylinders.

The glider was being launched via an aero-tow. It became airborne after a short ground run and climbed to a higher than normal altitude. The pilot attempted to correct the situation but the glider bounced twice on the strip, breaking off the tail skid. As the glider climbed away it continued to oscillate in a position above the tug aircraft. The tow rope was released when the glider was about 120 feet above ground level and the pilot, believing that there was insufficient runway remaining to land, attempted to turn back for a landing on the strip. During the turn the glider entered a spin subsequently striking the ground in a nose low attitude. The pilot was inexperienced on the aircraft type, having not flown the type for about two months. On the day there was a gusty wind blowing and it was the opinion of experienced local pilots that a landing straight ahead after rope release would have been possible.

When the pilot selected the gear up after take-off, the retraction cycle took longer than normal. The gear was selected down prior to the next landing and although the gear up light extinguished the gear motor did not operate and the gear down light did not illuminate. Attempts to lower the gear using the manual system were unsuccessful and the aircraft was diverted to a more suitable airfield. During the subsequent landing roll the main gear, which was only partially extended, collapsed. Although the pilot was experienced on the aircraft type and carried out a trouble check of the gear system, he did not reset the hydraulic pump circuit breaker, which had tripped. The circuit breaker had probably tripped during the retraction cycle after the previous take-off. The reason the manual extension did not operate could not be determined.

The pilot was requested, by the passenger, to land the helicopter on the mud flats to the north of Kununurra. He decided to make a run on landing as he believed he may have difficulty in hovering the helicopter. As the aircraft approached the touchdown point, the pilot allowed it to yaw into wind, but it contacted the ground still moving sideways. The left skid caught in the dry mud and the helicopter rolled onto its side. The pilot was inexperienced in the operation of helicopters and had experienced difficulty in hovering the aircraft when he departed Kununurra that morning. The approach to land on the mud flat was poorly planned and the pilot misjudged the altitude of the aircraft during the turn into wind.

The flight had been arranged to take passengers and freight from Pulparee, a seismic exploration field camp, to Brisbane. Just after the aircraft became airborne the right wing struck two men who were working on the top of the cabin of a truck. A section of the right wing was torn from the aircraft, however, the pilot was able to land the aircraft at Pulparee without further incident. The truck was located approximately 24 metres to the right of the centreline of the strip. From the point where the take-off was commenced the strip met the criteria for an authorised landing area. The vehicle was struck 1110 metres from the start of the take-off roll and about 200 metres after the aircraft became airborne. At the time the surface wind was gusting from the left and there were dust devils in the area. Shortly after becoming airborne, the pilot felt that the aircraft was not performing normally, and he looked into the cockpit to check the instruments. During this time, the aircraft diverged from the strip direction and the right wing dropped. The pilot heard the impact as the men were struck, and then looked out to see that the right wingtip had been severed. No evidence was obtained to indicate that the aircraft was not capable of normal operation. The pilot had been working in direct sunlight in temperatures of about 40 degrees Celsius for four hours prior to the flight. It was therefore likely that he experienced some degree of heat stress. One of the effects of heat stress is that the time taken to integrate information is increased. It is considered probable that when the pilot looked at his instruments he required longer than normal to assimilate the information presented by the instruments. It was during this period that the aircraft was affected by the crosswind and possibly a dust devil and drifted off the intended flight path while travelling the distance to the truck. It was also probable that the correct climb attitude was not maintained.