Circumstances:

During a low-level grass seeding operation, the pilot initially noticed a slight change in engine note. A check of the engine instruments revealed that the oil pressure had dropped to zero. As the pilot attempted to locate a suitable area for a precautionary landing, the engine failed, accompanied by a loud bang and smoke. The pilot landed the aircraft in the best available area, which was lightly timbered and strewn with fallen timber and anthills. The aircraft remained upright during the landing roll, but the nose landing gear collapsed.

F The pilot reported that as the aircraft descended through 300 ft on final approach, windshear and an increase in the rate of descent was experienced. He applied power to arrest the rate of descent then reduced the power setting to idle. The aircraft landed heavily and bounced, the pilot attempted to take corrective action but the aircraft again landed heavily. The aircraft was taxied to the parking area where the damage was noted. The endorsement completed earlier that day, was the pilot's first flight in a civil aircraft and this flight was his first solo in a multi-engined aircraft. Although endorsed on a heavy transport type, the pilot was projected into an environment beyond his level of experience, due to the single pilot workload being higher than that to which he was accustomed. The approach was steeper and 30 knots faster than recommended and a high power setting was used. The approach was made into the sunset and visibility was further impaired by a dirty windscreen.

The pilot was returning from a period in the local training area. Another aircraft was also returning and was advised that it would be number 2 in the landing sequence. However, the pilot of this aircraft overtook VH-MHO on the downwind leg. On final approach it was considered that insufficient separation would exist for landing, and the pilot of VH-MHO was offered the use of the parallel runway. Because the threshold of this runway was 250 metres closer than the planned runway, the pilot carried out a he pilot recovered the situation moothly, but the firewall and nosegeposed a steeper than normal approach. The aircraft landed heavily nosewheel first and bounced. The pilot recovered the situation and re-landed smoothly, but the firewall and nosegear assembly had been damaged. The pilot had probably been confused when the aircraft which was supposed to be following appeared ahead in the landing sequence, and he was offered a late change of runway. the steep approach had led to a misjudgment of the flare. The Instructor in the other aircraft, after acknowledging an instruction to position as number 2, and advising that he had the preceding aircraft in sight, did not maintain the required sequence.

Following a dual check and a short solo flight, the pilot was authorised to conduct a soaring flight of not more than one hour's duration. The glider was subsequently launched from an aerotow after take-off into a light northerly wind. It was observed soaring in the vicinity of the aerodrome within an estimated height band of 3000 to 6000 feet above ground level. During the flight the wind on the ground changed to become a gusty south-westerly at about 10 to 15 knots. The shade temperature was 36 degrees Celsius and localised areas of turbulence were reported by other pilots.

The pilot did not return for a landing for approximately two hours, despite the pre-flight briefing. When he returned, the aircraft was positioned for a landing into the north, apparently without reference to the changed wind conditions. During final approach the glider was seen to pitch down into an almost vertical dive. It struck the ground some 200 metres before the strip threshold and came to rest inverted. Subsequent examination of the wreckage did not reveal any defect or malfunction that might have affected the pilot's ability to safely control the aircraft. It was apparent that the glider had been in a normal wings level approach configuration immediately before the pitch-down which occurred at a height of about 100 feet above ground level.

It was considered possible that the aircraft could have been affected by turbulence, or that the pilot may have suffered from heat stress and fatigue. However, insufficient evidence was available to enable the precise factors in the occurrence to be determined.

Circumstances:

The pilot reported that after take-off, at approximately 200 feet above sea level, he heard a loud bang and at the same time the helicopter yawed to the right. He placed the helicopter into an autorotational descent and at the same time activated the emergency pop-out floats. This was followed by a successful forced landing on water with the helicopter remaining upright on its floats. It was later towed to the beach. The pilot's investigation revealed that the main rotor tie-down had not been stowed correctly in the rear locker by the island helicopter ground staff. The tie down had flapped in the turbulent air beneath the main rotor and wrapped itself around the tail boom and tail rotor. The tail rotor drive shaft was sheared in the process.

Circumstances:

During a period of solo circuit training using runway 11R, the pilot was advised by the tower of strengthening winds with a maximum crosswind component of 15 knots. He elected to fly another circuit to assess the conditions and on downwind decided to make a full-stop landing on runway 11C to terminate the flight. Upon touching down the aircraft commenced to bounce and veer into wind. After several bounces the nose landing gear collapsed.

Circumstances:

The pilot reported that he took off into the north towards trees about 50 metres from the lift off point. He accelerated the helicopter through translational lift speed but had to climb soon after to avoid the trees, which were some five metres high. Once above the trees, the helicopter began to descend and lose performance. The pilot applied full collective pitch but was unable to prevent the aircraft descending into the trees. The pilot reported that winds in the area had been predominantly from the south for a number of days. Although conditions at ground level at the time of the take-off were fairly calm, there may have been a southerly wind component above tree-top level. This, coupled with the relatively high operating weight of the helicopter might have been sufficient to cause the loss of performance described.

The flight was intended to return patients to their home area following medical treatment in Melbourne. After an apparently normal take-off, the aircraft ceased climbing at about 100 feet above ground level. In response to a query from the Tower, the pilot advised that the left engine had failed, that he was feathering the propeller and would return for landing. The aircraft was seen to be deviating to the left, towards a large array of power lines. These lines extend from about 40 feet to 90 feet above the ground, and as the aircraft converged with the array it was probably below the height of the upper wires. The aircraft then suddenly veered to the left and subsequently struck the ground in a steep nose-down attitude. A fire broke out on impact and destroyed much of the wreckage. The final manoeuvre performed by the aircraft was typical of that which occurs when one engine of a twin-engine aircraft is producing considerably less power than the other, and airspeed is reduced to below that required to maintain directional control. The pilot had reported that the left engine had failed, and the loss of control as described by witnesses was consistent with a reduction of power from this engine, combined with low airspeed. The investigation of the accident was hampered by the extent of the fire damage. However, an extensive technical examination did not reveal any evidence of a defect or malfunction with either the engines, the various systems or the airframe which might have contributed to the accident. Although the pilot had indicated that he was feathering the left propeller, it was determined that the propeller was not feathered at the time of the accident. It was not possible to establish if the pilot had subsequently elected not to initiate feathering action, or whether such action was initiated too late for it to be completed before impact with the ground. The reason for the loss of performance reported by the pilot could not be established. It is likely that while the aircraft was being manoeuvred to avoid the power lines and return for a landing, the airspeed decayed to below the minimum required to enable adequate control of the aircraft to be maintained. At the point where control of the aircraft was lost, there was insufficient height available for the pilot to effect recovery. The reason continued flight was attempted, rather than a controlled forced landing in open areas prior to the power lines, could not be determined.

The pilot planned to arrive at his destination 10 minutes before his estimate of last light. However, after deviating around rain showers and conducting an aerial inspection of a prospecting site, the pilot's arrival was delayed until 10 minutes after last light. An approach was made to the unlit strip using the aircraft landing light for guidance. After flaring at about 15 feet agl the pilot waited for the touchdown but the aircarft stalled and struck the ground nosewheel first, collapsing the nosegear. Facilities were available at the departure aerodrome which would have allowed the pilot to obtain a weather forecast and an accurate time of last light. Despite the fact that the pilot had no night flying experience he choose to land the aircraft without requesting an emergency flare path to be laid.

Circumstances:

The pilot reported the aircraft had been flying for about two hours in low-level operations over his property. Shortly after placing the helicopter into a steep climbing turn the engine suffered a complete loss of power at a height of about 150 feet, and an airspeed of 30 knots. The aircraft was over scrub covered terrain. In the resulting forced landing, the tail boom was severed by the main rotor, and a landing skid was buckled. The pilot said there was an estimated 20 litres of fuel remaining but suspected the engine may have lost power due to fuel starvation as a result of the manoeuvres performed. This accident was not the subject of an on-site investigation. The information contained in this report was supplied by the pilot.