The pilot was attempting to take-off from a dirt road to fly to the Station's strip. Just as the aircraft became airborne a slight left turn had to be negotiated. During the turn, the left wingtip struck a clump of bushes and the aircraft slewed to the left. The left wheel struck an embankment and the aircraft proceeded through a small bush and also clipped the top off another small tree with the right wing. Full power was still applied to the engine and the aircraft was still airborne when the left tailplane caught on a large bush. The aircraft landed and the pilot then closed the throttle and abandoned the take-off attempt. It then ran through another large bush before finally coming to rest. The aircraft had been landed on the road, apparently because it was convenient, despite the fact that the station airstrip was only 400 metres away. The road was only 10 metres wide and had large bushes lining either side.

The pilot was engaged in the spreading of urea. During the operation he had observed that the aircraft was not performing as well as normal. He carried out a trouble check and after the completion of some rectifications and an engine run, believed he had rectified the problem. Six more sorties were completed without problem. However, shortly after takeoff on the next sortie the engine again partially lost power. The pilot decided to return and land, but not dump the load. During the turn toward the airstrip the aircraft stalled and impacted the ground with the left wingtip. The investigation determined that the loss of engine power was caused by a faulty magneto and contributed to by the generally poor condition of the engine. The engine had not been operating normally for some time, and attempts to rectify the problems, by unlicenced maintenance personnel, had not been successful.

During the pilot's second solo flight the aircraft bounced twice on landing. The pilot persisted with the landing attempt and applied forward control column pressure after each bounce. Following the second bounce the nose wheel struck the ground heavily and was torn off and the aircraft overturned.

The pilot was approaching to land after a period of solo practice in the training area. The touchdown was moderately heavy and the aircraft bounced. It then commenced to porpoise, until the nosewheel partially collapsed and the propeller struck the runway. The pilot was probably concerned because two other aircraft were approaching to use the same runway, and she perceived a need to vacate the area at the first taxyway. Witnesses reported that the aircraft did not flare for touchdown, and that it appeared that the pilot had tried to force it onto the ground.

After landing, the aircraft was backtracking along the runway when the nosegear collapsed. The pilot reported that at the time of the collapse the aircraft was moving at about 4 knots as it was slowed to take the turn into the apron. The nosewheel had become completely detached, allowing the oleo forks to contact the ground. A nosewheel bearing had seized from lack of lubrication. This had caused the axle to spin in its oleo support eyes. One support eye had failed because of the heat generated, and the other failed in overload, allowing the nosewheel to detach.

Circumstances:

The pilot had landed at Perth Airport and was taxiing into the parking bay when the left wing collided with the right wing tip of the aircraft in the next parking bay. The pilot reported that he was turning sharply right to enter the parking bay when the right brake lost all pressure. Both engines were shut down, but the aircraft did not stop before the collision. No fault was subsequently found in the aircraft's braking system.

The pilot deposited the sling load of delicate instruments on the ground. To avoid dropping the shackle on the load, and because of the proximity of a hangar to the left, he moved the helicopter to the right. The movement, together with type of shackle used and the design of the hook, resulted in the load not being released. Prior to the flight the pilot had not insisted on the fitment of external load observation mirrors. While leaning out of the helicopter to check that the load had been released, he inadvertently caused the helicopter to move further to the right. The resulting tension on the cable connecting the hook and the load induced dynamic rollover. The pilot attempted unsuccessfully to correct the roll and during the subsequent landing the main rotor struck the ground. Use was not made of an available and qualified marshaller.

As the pilot was applying power at the commencement of the take-off run, the right engine lost power. An explosion was then heard from the vicinity of the right engine. The pilot secured the engine and after stopping the aircraft, evacuated the passengers before leaving the aircraft himself. He then noticed a small fire under the right wing which he quelled with a fire extinguisher obtained from the aircraft. Investigation revealed a loose fuel line union in the right wing just outboard of the engine. This allowed fuel to leak into the wing where it pooled and the vapour was ignited by the hot exhaust gases. No record was found of any maintenance being carried out on the fuel line in question.

At the conclusion of an aerobatic display the pilot performed an inverted circuit, rolling upright as the strip was sighted on final. On short final the aircraft descended below the desired flight path and the pilot applied power. The aircraft responded but the right gear leg caught on a power line 5 metres agl and 330 metres from the threshold. The aircraft struck the ground in a steep nose down attitude and came to rest inverted. The inverted circuit had been conducted at between 50 and 100 feet above the tops of the trees.

The pilot was undertaking his third flight for the day, during which he completed a number of circuits and landings. Following a touch and go landing, the aircraft had reached a height of about 300 feet when it was seen to commence a turn back towards the strip. During the turn the nose dropped and the aircraft subsequently struck the ground in a steep nose-down attitude. Investigation revealed that there was virtually no fuel remaining in the tanks, and the that engine was not under power at the time of the accident. The pilot had refuelled the aircraft the day before the accident and he made a note of the fact that the main fuel tank was full and that the auxiliary tank was empty. He then flew the aircraft for 30 minutes. On the day of the accident the pilot flew a further three separate trips, including the accident flight, without refuelling. The total flight time for the four trips was estimated as 137 minutes and the calculated endurance, with the main tank full and the auxiliary empty, was 138 minutes. The pilot had constructed a number of emergency landing areas on his property for use in the event of an engine failure. One of these areas lay directly ahead of the aircraft on the centreline of the airstrip, however, the pilot did not attempt to use it.