The pilot commenced the take-off run and confirmed that full power was selected. At an indicated airspeed of 90 knots, he rotated the aircraft and waited for the performance instruments to indicate that a positive rate of climb and the single engine climb speed had been achieved. The pilot reported that the aircraft did not accelerate beyond an airspeed of 95 knots and a positive rate of climb was not obtained. He stated that he retracted the gear, to avoid having it snag the boundary fence, and then realised that the left engine was losing power and altitude was not being maintained. The pilot then closed the throttles and the aircraft landed in open country beyond the aerodrome boundary. An inspection of the aircraft did not detect any faults in the engines or other aircraft systems that could have contributed to the occurrence. An examination of the propellers indicated that both engines were delivering power at the time the aircraft struck the ground. The cause of this accident remains undetermined.

The aircraft had recently been sold, and had been ferried from Moorabbin to Camden by the previous owner, Mr Bird. The Chief Flying Instructor for the company which had purchased the aircraft arranged to be taken for a re-familiarisation flight, as he had not flown the type for almost one year. During a practice autorotative landing, the helicopter fell heavily to the ground from a height of about 6 feet. The tail boom was severed and the bubble canopy was shattered. The matter of which pilot was in command and which was manipulating the controls has not yet been resolved. Each pilot denied that he was manipulating the controls at the time of the accident. There had evidently been an inadequate briefing as to individual responsibilities during the flight. During the autorotation, whichever pilot was at the controls misjudged the height of the helicopter when the flare was commenced.

The aircraft was being flown at about 200 feet above ground level in a left turn while the pilot was attempting to locate some sheep. The pilot reported that the aircraft stalled and that during the recovery it struck a bush. This resulted in damage to the right mainplane, right wing strut, right horizontal stabiliser and the brake lines on both mainwheels. The pilot was able to maintain control of the aircraft and land at a nearby airstrip. The pilots attention was diverted from the operation of the aircraft whilst he searched for the sheep and directed the ground party. He had been working long hours and was only obtaining about 4 hours sleep each night and considered that fatigue was a factor in his allowing the airspeed to decay unnoticed.

The pilot was flying one of three similar aircraft in practice for a forthcoming aerobatic display. The three aircraft carried out a stream landing, with the pilot of the subject aircraft intending to land to the left of the centre of the strip. Shortly after a normal touchdown, the aircraft encountered a soft area of the strip and subsequently overturned, coming to rest 85 metres from the initial point of touchdown. The display team had had no prior indication of any soft areas on the strip surface.

The pilot had decided to practice crosswind landings. When the aircraft was about 30 feet above the ground on final approach, he reported that it was affected by a wind gust. The aircraft sank rapidly and landed heavily on the nosewheel, which folded backward. The aircraft then skidded for 56 metres before coming to rest. It is probable that the high sink rate was caused by windshear. The pilot was inexperienced and did not take the correct action to counter the high rate of sink.

The student pilot was carrying out a series of "touch and go" circuits using gravel runway, 06. The wind was reported as being easterly at about 5 knots. On the fourth "touch and go", after a normal landing, the student applied full power, selected the carburettor heat control to cold and commenced to raise the electrically actuated flaps. He said he looked up and saw that the aircraft had commenced to veer to the left. The student closed the throttle and attempted to correct the swing with opposite rudder but was unable to prevent the aircraft striking a 30 centimetre high earthen bank bordering the edge of the runway. The nose gear was torn from its mounting and the aircraft overturned, coming to rest just beyond the runway edge. The earth bank was formed during recent grading of the strip. This work was interrupted by wet weather and was incomplete at the time of the accident.

In the latter stage of the landing roll the aircraft encountered a strong gust of wind from the right. The aircraft swung suddenly to the right and the pilot was unable to maintain directional control. The left maingear leg bent and the airframe distorted, allowing the left door to become dislodged. The aircraft came to rest on the runway, after having groundlooped through 130 degrees. Before landing the pilot had carefully monitored the Aerodrome Terminal Information. He was fully aware of the possibility of occasional wind gusts resulting in a maximum crosswind component of 15 knots, which is 2 knots above the maximum limitation for the aircraft. Also he was prepared to conduct a go-around should he have encountered any problems during the approach and flare during the touch down. It is also probable that the pilot relaxed his concentration too early during the landing roll, in anticipation of completing the day's flight.

During a training sequence, the pilot in command simulated a failure of the left engine. The pilot under check correctly identified the failed engine, and applied full right rudder to counter the effects of yaw. The flight then continued normally, but the crew were later unable to obtain a down and locked indication for the landing gear. An inspection from another aircraft revealed that the gear was only partly extended, with the nosewheel turned to the right. After all efforts to lower the gear were unsuccessful, a safe wheels-up landing was made. It was later discovered that there was a rigging fault in the nosewheel steering and rudder system. This had allowed a roller, which normally engages in a channel to centre the nosegear during retractions, to move outside the channel when full right rudder was applied. This had resulted in jamming of the nosegear.

The helicopter had been chartered because the passenger's farm had been isolated by flood waters. The crew carried out a survey of the area before landing to check the suitability of the chosen site. Shortly after take-off, the aircraft collided with a power line which was about 25 feet agl, and then struck the ground heavily about 15 metres beyond the line. Both the pilot and the crewman reported that they had sighted the power line during the survey prior to landing. However, the pilot subsequently forgot the presence of the line and conducted a shallow climb after take-off. Because the rear seat cushions were wet, the passenger was placed in the front seat, while the crewman occupied a rear seat. When he became aware that the helicopter was climbing at a shallow angle, he reminded the pilot to beware of the wires. The pilot then saw the power line directly ahead of the aircraft, but was unable to avoid the collision.

The pilot was engaged in spraying an area of grape vines. On the final spray path the aircraft had to pass under a set of power lines. The pilot reported that as the aircraft approached the power lines, it was affected by an updraught. He pushed the control column forward but the propeller and fin mounted wire deflector struck the power lines. The aircraft descended and struck a post used to support the vines before it came to rest in the crop. The pilot was inexperienced in agricultural operations. The final spray run involved a difficult task in that several obstacles had to be negotiated. It is probable that the aircraft was affected by a willy willy and that the pilot was unable to fully regain control of the aircraft before it struck the crop.