Four helicopters had been arranged to transport twenty one Hamilton Island resort guests to Black Reef for a boat cruise. At Black Reef the helicopters were to be parked on a pontoon, which had recently been marked to accommodate three helicopters at the one time. The first helicopter to arrive (a Bell 222, VH-HIA) was parked in the centre position, then shut down with the rotor blades positioned along the fore and aft axis of the aircraft. The second to arrive was parked to the left of VH-HIA and shut down. The third helicopter landed and after off-loading passengers proceeded to a nearby smaller pontoon. The fourth helicopter (Bell 206, VH-HIL) arrived, parked, and as the pilot selected idle power he noticed that the forward rotor blade of the adjacent helicopter was moving towards the rotor arc of his own aircraft. The rotors became entangled and VH-HIL turned violently through 180 degrees. During the manoeuvre two passengers were ejected from VH-HIL and the main rotor, the mast, and a section of the roof, were torn from the aircraft. The pontoon had been marked about four weeks prior to the accident to allow the parking of three helicopters. Both VH-HIA and VH-HIL had been aligned by the pilots with the guidance marks. The investigation determined that with VH-HIA parked in the centre position, insufficient space was available to meet the published requirements to allow a Bell 206 type helicopter to be taxied to and parked on the pontoon. An inspection of VH-HIA found that the rotor brake was not in the 'park' position, nor were the rotor blades secured in any other way. The company had verbally briefed all Bell 222 pilots on the requirements to place the rotor brake in the 'park' position when the aircraft was parked on the pontoon. When the aircraft was parked at locations other than on the pontoon, the rotor brake was not normally placed in the 'park' position. On this occasion the pilot forgot to place the rotor brake in the 'park' position.

The pilot had decided to carry out some cross-wind circuit practice after the other pilot on board had carried out circuits on the into-wind strip. On the first circuit, touchdown was made 357 metres into the strip on the nosewheel and left mainwheel together, followed by the right wheel. The nose gear sustained damage and when the aircraft touched down again after a short bounce the propeller struck the ground. The pilot had not conducted cross-wind landing practice for about a year. He was inexperienced on the aircraft type and the cross-wind component at the time was close to the aircraft limit.

The pilot was carrying out a period of solo circuits as part of a check on the aircraft type. Following the third circuit, the aircraft was observed to approach and land normally into the 10 to 15 knot headwind. During the subsequent landing roll, while still travelling at about 30 knots, the aircraft veered suddenly to the left. The pilot applied full right brake and rudder and then both brakes in an attempt to stop the aircraft. However, before the aircraft stopped it struck one of the boundary fence posts. An inspection of the aircraft did not reveal any mechanical defects that could have contributed to the occurrence, and the pilot was unable to explain the reason for the loss of directional control. This accident was not the subject of an on-site investigation.

After take off from Porgera the aircraft proceeded West towards a gap which required 9500 feet for passage. The pilot noticed that the aircraft was not able to outclimb the rising terrain. He turned left, however, for undetermined reasons the helicopter descended. A right pedal turn was made through 180 degrees and although then tracking down the mountainside, the pilot realised he would not clear the terrain ahead. He carried out a forced landing amongst trees in steep, rough terrain. The helicopter may not have had sufficient performance to complete the attempted operation. The ambient conditions, particularly temperature, could not be determined.

As part of a refresher check on the aircraft, the instructor required the pilot to use the manual system for lowering the landing gear. After turning the crank handle the recommended number of turns the gear down light did not illuminate. The pilot continued to rotate the crank handle a few more turns and a loud bang was heard, following which there was little resistance to crank handle movement. However, the gear down light still did not illuminate although the visual gear position indicator in the cockpit did indicate that the gear was in the down position. The gear actuator circuit breaker was reset and the gear selected up; the gear did not retract but the gear unsafe light illuminated. All further attempts to obtain a gear down light were unsuccessful. Observations made from another aircraft and by persons on the ground indicated that the gear was down and locked. The aircraft was diverted to Bankstown and the gear collapsed immediately after touchdown. A fault in the gear indicating system prevented illumination of the gear down light when the gear reached the down and locked position on the initial manual extension. When the crank handle was wound further, an overload failure of the actuator housing occurred. The gear was unlocked when the up selection was made but the damaged actuator prevented either retraction or safe extension. The actuator has a vital function in retaining the gear in the down and locked position as it pre-loads the landing gear braces in an overcentre position. Once the actuator was damaged, gear collapse on landing was inevitable.

The pilot was engaged in mustering cattle out of thick undergrowth. As he was moving the helicopter slowly forward, while checking the undergrowth for any remaining cattle, the main rotor moved under the overhanging branch of a large tree. The pilot attempted to move the helicopter down and to the right but the main rotor struck the overhanging branch. The helicopter impacted the ground and caught fire. The tree trunk was camouflaged by rubber vine, which constituted much of the undergrowth and probably reduced the pilot's awareness of the proximity of the tree.

The pilot stated that the aircraft was caught in a downdraught just prior to touchdown. The aircraft landed heavily and bounced. After a second bounce the pilot carried out a go-around. Following the subsequent landing, the damage to the propeller, fuselage and engine firewall was discovered. The landing was made on strip 04 and meteorological analysis indicates that at the time the wind was probably a south-easterly at 10-15 knots. It is likely that improper compensation for the wind conditions and an improper landing flare were causal factors in the accident. This accident was not the subject of an on-site investigation.

Whilst mustering cattle near a holding yard, the helicopter was being held in the hover in a 15-20 knot headwind. Because some of the cattle broke away, the pilot turned downwind to herd them back. As the aircraft rolled out of the turn it began to descend and the pilot attempted to arrest the sink by increasing collective. However, the helicopter continued downward and impacted heavily on the ground resulting in the tail boom being sheared off. It then bounced into the air and began to yaw rapidly but the pilot quickly and firmly placed it back onto the ground. When the helicopter came to rest the occupants were able to extricate themselves from the wreckage. The pilot misjudged the performance that could be expected from the helicopter. When the machine was turned downwind, the sudden loss of lift resulted in a descent from which the pilot was unable to recover before the aircraft collided with the ground. The pilot reported that he believes he overpitched the main rotor during the recovery attempt.

Shortly after what was reported by the pilot as a normal landing the nosewheel fork failed. This allowed the nosegear strut to dig into the strip surface and resulted in the aircraft overturning. The nosewheel fork failure was found to have been caused by overload forces and there was no evidence of any pre-existing defect.

After application of full throttle during the takeoff run, a severe vibration developed which rapidly stopped the engine from rotating. When the aircraft came to rest the pilot noted that one of the two propeller blades had cleanly separated from its hub. The hub failed as a result of fatigue cracking which extended around approximately half of its circumference. The cracking originated in the root of the blade retention thread and grew progressively over about 850 flights. The cracking was not visible during normal periodic inspections because the hub had been painted to help prevent corrosion.