After completing the first swath run the pilot climbed the aircraft over a single set of power lines. At the end of the second run the aircraft was flown under these wires. When the pilot then commenced a climb he observed a second set of wires, he attempted to fly the aircraft under them but the canopy of the aircraft struck the wires. The aircraft remained airborne, however, by using the rear vision mirror, the pilot saw that the fin and rudder were extensively damaged. Rather than risk a loss of control situation he landed the aircraft in a field of tall sugar cane. Prior to commencing the task the pilot was given a map of the area by the property owner. The map was marked with the area to be sprayed and also had indicated, by the use of crosses, a power line at the end of the spray run. The pilot assumed that these crosses indicated only one set of wires. Being anxious to complete the task he did not carry out a reconnaissance before commencing to spray.

The pilot was ferrying the aircraft to a nearby strip because of planned runway works at Newman. After holding overhead the strip, while two other company aircraft landed, the pilot descended the aircraft into the circuit and completed the prelanding checks. He elected not to lower the gear at that time because he considered the airspeed was to high. The aircraft was subsequently landed with the gear retracted. The pilot stated that he was concentrating on to carry out a good landing. Although he recalls touching the landing gear selector on final, he does not recall checking the gear position indicators. This accident was not the subject of an on-site investigation.

The pilot was attempting to takeoff on a wet strip, which sloped markedly down from the centre towards each end. To minimise the effect of a slight tailwind, and to avoid an obstruction at the end of the strip, the pilot planned to angle the ground run. Takeoff was commenced from the left side of the strip, but when the aircraft had reached the top of the hump in the strip, the pilot realised that he had angled the run excessively and was now outside the markers on the right side. The aircraft subsequently collided with scrub and trees. The strip markers were difficult to see, and had compounded the pilot's difficulty in accurately assessing the angle at which he planned to carry out the takeoff. At the point where the pilot realised the aircraft was running off the side of the strip there was insufficient distance remaining to either abandon or safely continue the takeoff attempt.

Following a dual check, the student was briefed to carry out a series of circuits and landings. During the first of these the aircraft microphone failed, and a full stop landing was made in order to obtain a replacement. A normal takeoff and circuit was then flown, however the aircraft was low on approach and the pilot elected to carry out a go-around. After reaching a height of about 200 feet the aircraft was placed in level flight. A descent was then commenced, followed by a turn through 270 degrees. At this point the aircraft touched down in a paddock, became airborne again, then collided with a roadside sign and a power line. It then struck the median strip of a main road and came to rest after colliding with the aerodrome boundary fence. Initial investigation revealed no fault or malfunction of the aircraft which might have contributed to the accident. The student was making his sixth solo flight and had accumulated less than 2 hours in command. No fault was found with the aircraft which might have contributed to the accident. The pilot had experienced considerable learning difficulty during his training as indicated by his having flown only two hours solo in a total of 50 flight hours.

The helicopter was being operated at about 40 feet above ground level at an indicated airspeed of 45 knots, when the engine suddenly failed. During the subsequent landing attempt the main and tail rotors struck trees and the helicopter contacted the ground tail first, severing the tail skid and tail rotor blades. Inspection of the engine revealed that the carburettor air filter screen was blocked by dirt and the alternate air source door had been glued in the shut position.

Prior to DEPARTURE, the pilot had obtained a weather briefing, which indicated that deteriorating conditions were forecast. This forecast proved to be accurate and the pilot was forced to carry out a number of diversions to remain in visual contact with the ground. The fuel state of the aircraft also became critical, and in the face of further deterioration in the weather conditions, the pilot attempted to land on a racecourse. A normal touchdown was made, but the aircraft slid off the banked track and collided with the inside guard rails.

The pilot had been conducting a series of solo circuits and landings. On the seventh circuit, a normal approach was flown but the aircraft ballooned slightly as the flare was commenced. The aircraft was then seen to climb abruptly to a height of about 20 feet, and shortly afterwards the left wing dropped. Full power was applied, but descent continued and the left wing tip struck the ground. The aircraft slewed rapidly to the left and the nose struck the side of a ditch. During his training, the pilot had experienced some inconsistency in the control of the landing flare. On this occasion he had evidently applied rearward pressure to the control column, and had not relaxed this pressure before the aircraft stalled.

As the pilot was overflying the Rangers Cottage, he noticed two rangers run out, waving frantically. Believing they required assistance he landed the helicopter in the nearby car park. The rangers approached the helicopter and urged the pilot to move the helicopter as they were about to commence blasting. In his haste to clear the area the pilot overpitched the rotor blades. He attempted to land the helicopter on an access road but the main rotor blade struck a tall shrub, the aircraft yawed to the left and the tail rotor collided with the base of the bush before the helicopter landed. This accident was not the subject of an on-site investigation.

Prior to taxying the pilot had checked the all-up-weight of the aircraft and had performed a thorough pre-flight inspection. The take-off and initial climb appeared to be normal, however when the aircraft had reached a height of about 200 feet there was evidently a loss of performance and no further height was gained. In response to queries from the Control Tower, the pilot indicated that he was returning for landing. During a subsequent turn, control of the aircraft was lost. The left wing dropped sharply and the aircraft entered a near vertical descent, subsequently colliding with a large tree before impacting the ground. A fierce fire broke out and consumed the wreckage. The subsequent investigation was hampered by the extent of the fire damage. It was established that the engine had been subjected to abnormally high operating temperatures, but whether this had occurred immediately before the accident or at some previous time, could not be determined. No other defect was found which might have contributed to the apparent loss of performance and the reason for such loss remains undetermined. The pilot was relatively inexperienced, both in total hours and on the aircraft type. While endeavouring to manoeuvre the aircraft for a return to the aerodrome, he had apparently not realised that the airspeed was decaying, and the aircraft subsequently stalled at a height which was insufficient to allow recovery before impact with the ground.

The pilot stated that at the end of the take-off run the wheels hit a 60cm high contour bank. He also reported that he misjudged the distance between the point at which the takeoff was commenced and the bank. The aircraft sustained substantial deformation damage to the landing gear attachment points and the carry through structure. The pilot had not calculated the distance required for takeoff, nor had he availed himself of all of the takeoff distance available. This accident was not the subject of an on-site investigation.