The student was conducting a series of circuits with touch and go landings. Wind conditions were calm and during the fifth circuit the pilot decided to carry out a full-stop landing before using another runway. At a speed of about 30 knots during the landing roll the pilot applied braking, but the aircraft immediately veered sharply to the right and ran off the side of the runway. The nosegear was broken when the aircraft entered a ditch before coming to a halt. An excessively worn brake pad on the right wheel assembly probably caused the brake to grab. The pilot had been unable to correct the resulting sudden and unexpected swing in time to prevent the aircraft running off the side of the runway.

The aircraft had been flown from an adjoining property by the owner. Because of difficulties encountered in starting the engine, the owner left it running while the pilot for this flight took his seat. At the time, weather conditions were hot, with a shade temperature of 46 degrees Celsius, and with little wind. The pilot subsequently advised that during the take-off roll he looked for the airspeed indicator, but was unable to locate it on the instrument panel. After lift-off a steeper than normal nose-high attitude was adopted, and the aircraft stalled from a height of about 20 feet above the ground. The particular aircraft was an early model of the type, with a different instrument panel layout, instrument coaming shape and height to that which the pilot had been operating during the preceding month. The pilot believed that the attitude selected after lift-off was the appropriate one, but because of the difference in instrument coaming heights the actual attitude was too steep. The departure had been hurried and the pilot had not familiarised himself with the layout of the instrument panel. The extreme ambient temperature had probably caused a degradation in the pilot's performance.

The student lost directional control of the aircraft during a touch and go landing in moderate crosswind conditions. The aircraft ran off the runway and collided with the aerodrome boundary fence. The student had only limited experience in handling the aircraft in crosswind conditions. The accident occurred during the first landing of the practice session.

The purpose of the flight was to achieve the cross-country distance requirements for the upgrading of the pilot's qualifications. He had been airborne for over 6 hours when further lift could not be found and an outlanding became necessary. While manoeuvring towards the selected area, the pilot misjudged the strength of the wind and was forced to turn onto final approach at a low height above the ground. During the turn the right wingtip struck a tree and the aircraft rotated about 110 degrees to the right before striking the ground. It was considered likely that the pilot's performance was affected by fatigue resulting from the length of the flight and his exposure to direct sunlight for a period of more than 10 hours. This accident was not the subject of an on-scene investigation.

The pilot was conducting practice forced landings in the training area. When overshooting from one of these approaches he observed that the flap would not retract from the two stages down position. After advising the flying club by radio of the problem, the pilot returned for a landing. The aircraft bounced on touchdown and then began to porpoise. The nosewheel was dislodged and the aircraft slewed off the runway before nosing over onto its back. The flaps had failed to retract because of a faulty micro-switch. The pilot had not experienced a malfunction of this nature before and had allowed this to distract him from the operation of the aircraft. He had persevered with the landing after the initial bounce, but had not been able to exercise adequate pitch control.

Circumstances:

The pilot reported that, at about 60 knots during the take-off run, the aircraft bounced as a result of an undulation in the strip. As the nose gear leg returned to the ground it encountered another undulation and broke off. During the take-off, the elevator control was being held just rear of mid-range. In the pilot's opinion the undulations in the strip had been the primary cause of the accident.

Circumstances:

The pilot reported he was cruising at 300 feet over sand dunes when there was a loud bang, accompanied by a sudden loss of engine power. He immediately lowered the nose to maintain 40 knots and selected the only suitable landing area, which had a downwind component of about seven knots. Touchdown was normal but, during the landing roll, the nosewheel dug into soft sand causing the nose to drop and the gyrocopter to roll to the left, allowing the rotor to strike the ground. Examination of the two cylinder engine revealed that a stud holding the rocker gear to one cylinder head had failed, liberating the rocker gear to that cylinder. The engine manufacturer has indicated that the stud was an early design that has since been modified to eliminate the problem.

The pilot was inspecting areas of noxious weeds to check on the results of recent spraying. The helicopter struck a power line which severed the bubble windscreen. The wire then contacted the pilot's throat before being cut by the main rotor. The helicopter struck the ground tail rotor first about 35 metres beyond the point of collision. After extricating himself from the wreckage, the pilot swam across a river, walked 3 kilometres to a homestead and drove 15 kilometres for help. He was later admitted to intensive care in hospital. The pilot had been informed that there were power lines in the area, but was unaware of their precise location. He had conducted a survey flight prior to commencing the spraying operation, but had not sighted the particular cables. There was evidence to indicate that the helicopter had flown under the cables on at least one occasion while spraying. The cables, which spanned a river, were supported by poles which were 253 metres apart and which were probably outside the pilot's normal field of vision.

Circumstances:

Prior to departure for a dual instructional navigation exercise, the instructor pilot obtained a weather briefing which, although indicating marginal Visual Meteorological Conditions, he considered suitable for the exercise. In the initial stages of the flight the weather was better than expected and conditions ahead appeared to present no significant problem. Later in the flight the weather deteriorated rapidly with patches of low cloud developing. As a result, the pilot decided to carry out a landing on a dirt road which appeared suitable from the air. The approach and landing were normal until, late in the landing roll, the aircraft collided with a partly open gate which the pilot had not seen prior to landing.

The pilot reported that the windsock at the strip indicated a gusty 30 knot headwind and that he conducted the approach with full flap down and considerable power applied. As he closed the throttle and flared, the aircraft suddenly rolled to the right and dropped to the ground impacting nose wheel first. Later inspection revealed that the nose wheel leg mount had been broken and that the lower firewall and cabin floor had been damaged. Air mass thunderstorms were present in the area at the time of the accident and witnesses at the stip reported a particularly strong gust of wind exceeding 40 knots at the time of the accident. The wind direction was reported to have changed through 90 degrees shortly after the accident.