During the preflight inspection, the pilot dipped the fuel tanks and noted that the left tank contained 25 litres and the right tank approximately 30 litres. The aircraft was taxied out to the run-up area using fuel from the left tank. Before the run-up, the pilot switched the fuel selector lever to the right tank and left it there for the takeoff and remainder of the flight. The pilot decided to finish the flight with a touch-and-go landing followed by a final circuit. Following the normal application of full power for takeoff, the aircraft climbed to 100 - 250 feet above the ground when the engine surged and lost all power. The pilot chose a football field straight ahead and made a successful touchdown. However, he became so engrossed with missing objects and steering the aircraft that he forgot to use the brakes effectively. The aircraft ran on and struck two goal posts and a tree before coming to rest against a security fence. The two occupants exited without injury. The engine had failed due to fuel starvation when all the usable fuel from the right fuel tank had been consumed.

The aircraft was on the first flight since the completion of a 100 hourly maintenance inspection. The pilot reported that the engine oil pressure decreased to an unsafe level, 16 minutes into the flight, so he carried out a precautionary landing on a short disused strip. Towards the end of the landing roll, the pilot attempted to groundloop the aircraft to avoid rolling off the end of the strip. During the groundloop, the right main gear collapsed and the rear fuselage was distorted. The investigation revealed that one of the nuts securing the vacuum pump was loose and the gasket had failed. The loose nut had allowed engine oil under pressure, from an adjacent oil gallery, to force past the gasket and pump overboard. The vacuum pump had been fitted during the last maintenance inspection and a gasket of incorrect material had been fitted. The current Visual Terminal Chart for the area shows an aerodrome landmark at the location of the incident. This strip did not meet the Authorised Landing Area standards and the identifier on the chart clearly indicated that the status and serviceability of the strip were unknown. The surface condition and length of the strip were unsuitable for a safe precautionary landing, but the pilot had no means of ascertaining this prior to touchdown. The presence of the symbol on the map may have suggested to the pilot that there was no need to look for a more suitable landing area.

The pilot was attempting to bring the helicopter to a hover in the lee of a hill, but found that there was insufficient power to arrest the rate of descent. The aircraft struck the ground and rolled over. The pilot reported that the conditions were very windy. The helicopter was reported to have been operating normally prior to the accident. The pilot stated that in attempting to arrest the rate of descent he had inadvertently overpitched the rotors at an altitude from which recovery was not possible. This accident was not the subject of an on-site investigation.

The helicopter was being used to spot cattle. During what was apparently the first sweep of the area, the helicopter passed over the crest of a ridge and collided with a single power line. The angle between the fore-and-aft axis of the helicopter and the wire was approximately 40 degrees. The helicopter slid along the wire before the tail boom and then the tail rotor contacted the wire. The helicopter came to rest in a nearby gully. No fault was found in the aircraft powerplant or systems which might have contributed to the accident. Neither the pilot nor the passenger had conducted spotting operations in the area previously, and there was no evidence that either was aware of the position of the wire. It is likely that the helicopter crossed the ridge at a very low level and approximately 40 metres from a power pole carrying the wire. Background vegetation and overcast conditions may have made it difficult to distinguish the wire and power pole.

The driver of a Rescue and Fire Fighting Service (RFFS) vehicle intended to carry out a routine road test, using the runway at Devonport. He received approval to enter the runway from the duty Flight Service Unit (FSU) officer. While the road test was in progress, the pilot of the aircraft reported that he was taxying for departure. The FSU officer apparently overlooked the fact that the RFFS vehicle was on the runway, and advised the pilot that there was no traffic in the area. The driver of the vehicle did not hear this exchange. Prior to entering the runway, the pilot checked for other aircraft, but did not sight the RFFS vehicle. As the pilot commenced his take-off run, the vehicle was heading towards the taxyway intersection from the opposite end of the runway. The pilot saw the vehicle in time to become airborne and pass over the top of it. The driver of the vehicle sighted the aircraft as it became airborne, and also took evasive action. It was likely that the pilot did not sight the vehicle earlier because of sun glare, and visibility from the cab of the vehicle was temporarily impaired because foam from the monitor had sprayed onto the windscreen during the test procedure. In order to prevent similar occurrences in the future, RFFS vehicles conducting test runs are now required to have a minimum of two crew members on board, and new procedures have been implemented at the FSU to alert the duty officers when vehicles are using the runways.

The pilot was engaged in a muster of cattle for a brucellosis test. He was chasing a calf that had broken away from the main herd. When the animal turned towards the helicopter, the pilot attempted to take evasive action. He felt the aircraft rock, and believing that it had been struck by the animal, pulled it up to about 40 feet above the ground. The aircraft began to yaw. During the subsequent landing, while still yawing, the landing skids collapsed. The investigation revealed that the animal had not contacted the aircraft. During the evasive action taken by the pilot the tail rotor had contacted the ground which resulted in the loss of directional control. This accident was not the subject of an on-site investigation.

The pilot was making a landing approach, to an area not normally used for helicopter operations, at the conclusion of a stock mustering operation. The helicopter collided with a single wire telephone line then landed heavily, rolling onto its side as the skids collapsed. The pilot reported that the wire was normally difficult to see because of age discolouration and the long span between poles. On this occasion he had forgotten that the wire ran through the area and did not see it during the approach. This accident was not the subject of an on-site investigation.

The pilot had intended to carry out aerobatic practice in the Dry Creek Aerobatic Training Area. After DEPARTURE, the pilot requested, and was cleared to operate in the Dry Creek area up to an altitude of 3500 feet. The aircraft was then observed to be spinning and crashed into a salt evaporation pan. The investigation revealed no pre-existing defects with the aircraft or its systems which may have contributed to the pilots inability to effect recovery from the spin. However, it was found that, at the time of the accident, the weight of the aircraft exceeded the maximum allowable by about 26 kilograms. The pilot was a member of a local aerobatic club and had accumulated some 30 hours of aerobatic flight. He had been assessed by his instructors and other experienced club members as a competent aerobatic pilot. The circumstances surrounding the entry to the spin and reasons for the pilots apparent inability to recover from the manoeuvre could not be determined.

The pilot had flown to Whirly Hole the previous day and after helping with the muster, the aircraft was landed and left overnight on the strip. Next morning, when the pilot attempted to start the engine, he found that he had left the master-switch in the ON position, which flattened the battery. He attempted to hand start the engine but it failed to fire, so after re-priming he set the throttle to a position which equates to about 1200 RPM. Upon the second start attempt, the engine fired but the aircraft moved off at a reasonable speed, with the pilot unable to intercept it before it struck a tree. Prior to starting the engine, although the pilot checked the park brake lever was still in the ON position, he did not re-apply pressure to the brake pedals. It is probable that hydraulic pressure bled off during the night or that the brakes were only lightly applied the previous evening. The brake system was serviceable and the pre-start checks include a requirement to test and set the brakes.

The taxiway for the particular strip is a continuation of the gravel centre section of the strip. The taxiway then makes a right angled turn. After a normal landing the pilot proceeded straight ahead, along the taxiway but failed to negotiate the turn. The aircraft entered a ditch and the left wing struck the ground. No fault was found with the aircraft's brake or steering systems that could have contributed to the accident. Insufficient attention was paid to the operation of the aircraft and the turn was attempted at too high a speed.