Following a period of general training, a practice autorotational landing was made. A moderately firm touchdown occurred and a repeat of the exercise was requested by the instructor. Touchdown on this occasion was normal, however during the ground slide the right landing gear collapsed. The gear had collapsed from overload forces, but both pilots were adamant that the landings had not been abnormal. Ground marks at the scene confirmed this contention. It was possible that damage had occurred during previous operations, but had not been detected during subsequent pre-flight inspections. The investigation also discovered that the right gear upper struts contained delaminations caused by stress corrosion. The delaminations ran at right angles to the overload forces, and were not considered to have significantly degraded the ability of the struts to support normal loads.

As the aircraft turned onto final, the pilot noticed a large bird (later identified as a kite hawk) above and assessed that the aircraft would pass beneath it. However, the bird rolled over, dived and struck the windshield. The sudden heavy impact smashed the perspex into small pieces which cut the pilot about the face and chest. The broken windshield resulted in a substantial increase in the descent rate which required a considerable increase in power to overcome. A difficult landing was further complicated by a reduction in visibility due to windblast, blood and feathers. Although the pilot's sunglasses and headset were knocked from his head, had he not been wearing glasses it is probable that he would have been blinded as a result of the collision. The specialist ornithologist reported that large birds like kite hawks and eagles have only one evasive manoeuvre and that is to fold their wings and dive. However, if given sufficient warning they will simply turn away from an aircraft. Given that they are adept at avoiding collisions, this bird was caught unawares probably by the low power setting of the engine whilst the aircraft was on approach. When surprised by the proximity of the aircraft it reverted to instinct.

Circumstances:

The aircraft was refuelled after having stood in the open for several very wet weeks. Pre-flight and water sump drain inspections were conducted by the pilot and appeared to be normal. Engine start and pre-take off checks also appeared normal. Just as the aircraft became airborne the engine power diminished dramatically, and the pilot elected to land straight ahead. The aircraft subsequently ran off the airstrip into rough terrain. The nosewheel, firewall and propeller were damaged. Subsequent inspection of the fuel system found that the system contained pure water between the fuel tanks and engine.

Shortly after take-off, the pilot heard a loud noise and noticed that the luggage locker door was open. A 180 degree turn was carried out for an approach to land. As the aircraft approached the end of the runway the right wing struck the strip and the aircraft slid sideways along the runway. The nose and left landing gear legs collapsed before the aircraft came to rest. On short final, mechanical turbulence had been encountered and a high rate of descent had developed. Although some action to correct this rate of descent was taken, the pilot was unable to avoid a hard landing. No fault could subsequently be found with the luggage door securing mechanism.

Circumstances:

The Essendon Terminal Information (ATIS) advised of surface wind from 260 degrees at 15/25 knots. The pilot had completed the flight and was making his landing approach at 75 knots with 40 degrees of flap set. From Essendon Tower the aircraft was observed to descend rapidly from a height of about 20-30 feet and contact the runway heavily, nose wheel first. A bounce followed and then the aircraft touched down again. Aware that the nose wheel was wobbling violently and that the nose attitude was unusually low the pilot steered the aircraft off the runway, shut down the engine and evacuated.

Circumstances:

The purpose of the flight was for the pilot under check to obtain a tailwheel undercarriage endorsement. Prior to take-off, the pilot under check was briefed that due to the instructor's seating position, he was unable to apply full rudder pedal travel. Therefore, rudder control would have to be exercised by the pilot under check. During a demonstrated short field landing by the instructor, the pilot under check did not take control of the rudder on the ground as briefed. Directional control of the aircraft was lost despite calls by the instructor for the pilot to check the swing and use brake. The aircraft left the strip and was substantially damaged. The reason why the pilot under check did not take control of the rudder pedals during the landing was not determined, as he refused to co-operate with the investigation.

Four helicopters had been arranged to transport twenty one Hamilton Island resort guests to Black Reef for a boat cruise. At Black Reef the helicopters were to be parked on a pontoon, which had recently been marked to accommodate three helicopters at the one time. The first helicopter to arrive (a Bell 222, VH-HIA) was parked in the centre position, then shut down with the rotor blades positioned along the fore and aft axis of the aircraft. The second to arrive was parked to the left of VH-HIA and shut down. The third helicopter landed and after off-loading passengers proceeded to a nearby smaller pontoon. The fourth helicopter (Bell 206, VH-HIL) arrived, parked, and as the pilot selected idle power he noticed that the forward rotor blade of the adjacent helicopter was moving towards the rotor arc of his own aircraft. The rotors became entangled and VH-HIL turned violently through 180 degrees. During the manoeuvre two passengers were ejected from VH-HIL and the main rotor, the mast, and a section of the roof, were torn from the aircraft. The pontoon had been marked about four weeks prior to the accident to allow the parking of three helicopters. Both VH-HIA and VH-HIL had been aligned by the pilots with the guidance marks. The investigation determined that with VH-HIA parked in the centre position, insufficient space was available to meet the published requirements to allow a Bell 206 type helicopter to be taxied to and parked on the pontoon. An inspection of VH-HIA found that the rotor brake was not in the 'park' position, nor were the rotor blades secured in any other way. The company had verbally briefed all Bell 222 pilots on the requirements to place the rotor brake in the 'park' position when the aircraft was parked on the pontoon. When the aircraft was parked at locations other than on the pontoon, the rotor brake was not normally placed in the 'park' position. On this occasion the pilot forgot to place the rotor brake in the 'park' position.

The pilot had decided to carry out some cross-wind circuit practice after the other pilot on board had carried out circuits on the into-wind strip. On the first circuit, touchdown was made 357 metres into the strip on the nosewheel and left mainwheel together, followed by the right wheel. The nose gear sustained damage and when the aircraft touched down again after a short bounce the propeller struck the ground. The pilot had not conducted cross-wind landing practice for about a year. He was inexperienced on the aircraft type and the cross-wind component at the time was close to the aircraft limit.

The pilot was carrying out a period of solo circuits as part of a check on the aircraft type. Following the third circuit, the aircraft was observed to approach and land normally into the 10 to 15 knot headwind. During the subsequent landing roll, while still travelling at about 30 knots, the aircraft veered suddenly to the left. The pilot applied full right brake and rudder and then both brakes in an attempt to stop the aircraft. However, before the aircraft stopped it struck one of the boundary fence posts. An inspection of the aircraft did not reveal any mechanical defects that could have contributed to the occurrence, and the pilot was unable to explain the reason for the loss of directional control. This accident was not the subject of an on-site investigation.

After take off from Porgera the aircraft proceeded West towards a gap which required 9500 feet for passage. The pilot noticed that the aircraft was not able to outclimb the rising terrain. He turned left, however, for undetermined reasons the helicopter descended. A right pedal turn was made through 180 degrees and although then tracking down the mountainside, the pilot realised he would not clear the terrain ahead. He carried out a forced landing amongst trees in steep, rough terrain. The helicopter may not have had sufficient performance to complete the attempted operation. The ambient conditions, particularly temperature, could not be determined.