It was the student's fourth flying lesson and the effects of power were being revised. The student turned the aircraft 90 degrees to the left onto downwind but when he attempted to level the wings after the turn, the bank angle increased from about 30 to 50 degrees. The instructor took over the controls and attempted to recover by applying right aileron, full power and holding the nose up briefly. When the aircraft did not immediately recover, the instructor lowered the nose but the aircraft struck the ground, in a left wing, nose low attitude, before full control could be regained. After revising the effects of power, the engine speed was set too low for the aircraft to sustain a level turn. The student maintained altitude by progressively applying up elevator and the instructor did not notice the incorrect setting because speed was assessed with reference to the ground in a 20 knot tailwind. The instructor delayed taking over the controls, because he thought that the aircraft was being subjected to mechanical turbulence generated by trees, over which they had flown.

The aircraft was engaged in a demonstration of the dropping of emergency equipment from low altitude over the sea. This demonstration was being performed for the benefit of television news media personnel. The emergency equipment was contained in a bag which was connected to the aircraft by a static line. On the particular dropping run, the static line became entangled in the spreader bars of a sea anchor which had been packed in the bag. The entanglement prevented the bag from being opened, and it then swung below the aircraft before rising, passing above the horizontal stabiliser and striking the side of the fin and rudder. The static line was cut by the Assistant Dropmaster and the bag fell free. The aircraft remained under control and a safe landing was subsequently carried out. There had been no provision made to secure the anchor spreader bars to prevent their inadvertent deployment. As there had been no other recorded instances of the bars fouling the static line, it was probable that the bag had been incorrectly packed. This may have been related to distractions caused by the film crew during the packing sequence. There had also been no provision made to prevent the static line from blowing behind the bag during the deployment sequence. During the investigation, the pilot claimed that an underlying cause of the incident was harassment by Department of Aviation officers. This harassment included lack of advice and assistance in the development of the emergency dropping equipment, together with unnecessary restrictions being placed on the operation. Detailed interviews conducted with the crew of the aircraft established that all members of the team performed normally on the day. There were no major procedural variations introduced for the particular demonstration, and the operation had been performed successfully in the past. An assessment of the evidence obtained concluded that the alleged harassment was not a factor in the incident.

The pilot was flying the jump aircraft for a parachute club. After having completed the fifth drop for the day, the aircraft was observed to make a high speed pass, at an altitude of about ten feet above the ground, over a group of spectator parachutists. The aircraft then climbed steeply to an estimated altitude of between 200 and 300 feet before carrying out a wingover type manoeuvre. It then descended rapidly and impacted the ground in a slightly nose low, left wing low attitude, before nosing over and coming to rest 56 metres from the point of impact. The pilot was trapped inside the wreckage and the efforts of would be rescuers were thwarted by a fire which rapidly engulfed the aircraft. An examination of the wreckage failed to reveal any pre-existing mechanical fault. It was reported that the pilot had carried out similar manoeuvres on previous occasions, and had been counselled, about these activities, by the senior instructor at the parachute club.

The pilot was conducting cattle mustering operations. Weather conditions at the time were very hot, with a 10 to 15 knot wind. The pilot advised that while flying downwind at 30 knots and 80 feet above the ground, he commenced a pedal turn to the right. After some 90 degrees the turn suddenly stopped and the aircraft sank rapidly to about 35 feet above the ground. The main and tail rotors struck trees, but the pilot was able to maintain control and fly the helicopter to a clear area, where a safe landing was made. No defect was found with the helicopter or its systems which may have contributed to the occurrence and the reason for the loss of control, reported by the pilot, was not determined. This accident was not the subject of an on-site investigation.

The aircraft had been parked in the open and was exposed to a heavy frost. The pilot and his son attempted to clear ice accumulations from the top surfaces of the aerofoils by throwing warm water over them. Some 20-25 minutes elasped between the ice clearing operation and the takeoff attempt, during which time the aircraft was taxied to the airstrip and a second passenger emplaned. No further checks were made for new accumulations of ice. Following lift off, the aircraft commenced an uncommanded turn to the right. By the use of full left aileron and left rudder, the pilot was able to regain some directional control, but could not prevent the aircraft from striking boulders on the side of the strip. During the subsequent ground slide, the fuel system was broached and the aircraft was destroyed in the resulting fire. Post crash inspection of the aircraft revealed that the rudder had been fouling the elevator control, thereby preventing adequate control travel, for continued flight under the existing conditions.

The aircraft was undergoing its first flight following an accident in which the landing gear had been torn off. As the gear was selected up after take-off, a loud bang was heard and shortly afterwards the low hydraulic pressure warning light illuminated. The crew observed that the nosegear was in a partially extended position, and all attempts to raise or lower it to a locked position were unsuccessful. Touchdown was made on the mainwheels and the aircraft slid to a halt on its nose when the nosegear collapsed. The nosegear doors were found to be incorrectly rigged, and the hydraulic system relief valve had been set to a higher than recommended pressure. An hydraulic line had burst, and the consequent loss of pressure prevented the nosegear from extending or retracting. The emergency gear lowering system had failed to operate when a retaining clamp did not prevent the actuating cable assembly from slipping.

The pilot was carrying out circuit and landing practice. On the third landing the aircraft was landed with the landing gear retracted. The pilot stated that he did not recall lowering the gear on the downwind leg and was distracted during the final approach. He did not complete the final approach check, which included a check that the landing gear was down, and reports that he mistook the gear warning horn for the stall warning horn when he closed the throttle just prior to touchdown. This accident was not the subject of an on-site investigation.

The aircraft touched down, in a three point attitude, just short of the sealed runway and bounced. The pilot applied power and the aircraft was landed, mainwheels first, on the runway. Towards the end of the landing roll, as the nose of the aircraft was lowered, the propeller contacted the runway and the aircraft came to rest with the nosewheel pushed back against the gear doors. Pieces of metal from the nosegear landing assembly were found along the runway. No evidence was found of any pre-existing defect in the nosewheel mechanism. At the point of touchdown the nosewheel struck the five centimetre high lip at the end of the sealed runway. This impact broke the bearing end of the nosegear retraction assembly actuator which resulted in the nosegear collapsing.

The aircraft had been engaged in mustering cattle in flat, open country. The pilot elected to land near a utility to obtain further instructions from stockmen in the vehicle. Approaching the vehicle, the aircraft suddenly commenced to vibrate severely and to lose height. The pilot was unable to avoid a collision with the utility, following which the aircraft struck the ground heavily and overturned. No fault was subsequently found with the helicopter which might have contributed to the development of the accident. The symptoms described by the pilot suggested that the vibration experienced was associated with a main rotor blade tracking problem. It was likely that while manoeuvring to reduce speed prior to landing, the aircraft was placed in a position where the lead and lag action of the rotor blades temporarily exceeded the capacity of the blade dampers. Because of the low height above the ground at which this occurred, there was insufficient time or height in which the pilot could effect recovery.

The pilot was conducting sheep spotting operations on behalf of a friend. These operations had been carried out during the previous day, and the pilot had also assisted with mustering after flying for the day had been completed. On the following morning, the pilot commenced further spotting at about 0830 hours, and the aircraft was last seen about one hour later. The wreckage was discovered at about 0945 hours. The aircraft had impacted the ground while in a steep nose-down attitude, probably after stalling at a low height above the ground. No fault or defect was subsequently found with the aircraft or its systems which might have contributed to the accident. Remains of a cake and an apple were found in the wreckage. Medical tests revealed that the pilot had been eating immediately prior to the accident, and had choked when food became caught in his throat. It was probable that this incapacitation resulted in the pilot losing control of the aircraft.