The pilot was attempting to take-off at night from an unlit runway, using the headlights of a car positioned at the upwind threshold for guidance. After becoming airborne the aircraft failed to climb away normally and collided with the car, killing one of the occupants. Although the aircraft had sustained substantial damage it remained airborne, and a safe landing was carried out at the planned destination. It was calculated that the aircraft was travelling at an approximate airspeed of 105 kt when it struck the car. No fault was found with the aircraft that would have prevented it from climbing normally after lift off. The reason the aircraft failed to climb could not be determined.

The student had a total of 45 hours helicopter flying, and also had a Private Pilot Licence with 130 hours fixed wing experience. During a period of practice circuits and engine failures in 15 to 20 knot wind conditions, the student required several practice autorotative landings in order to reach a satifactory standard. These exercises were commenced about 700 feet above the ground. During this period, the Tower advised that the wind strength had increased to 35 knots. Conditions remained stable and the instructor elected to continue with the training. A further engine failure after take-off was simulated from about 400 feet, and on successful completion of this manoeuvre, the instructor simulated a failure at 100 feet. On this occasion a high rate of descent developed and the instructor took control. The touchdown was firm, and was on the heels of the skids. The helicopter rocked forward and the main rotor struck the tail boom. It was considered probable that the aircraft had been affected by a reduction in wind speed at the time the engine failure was simulated. The low height at which the manoeuvre was being performed did not allow sufficient time for adequate corrective action to be taken to arrest the rate of descent.

The pilot was engaged in sheep spotting. The aircraft had been refuelled two days prior to the flight and before DEPARTURE the pilot had checked the fuel contents gauges, which indicated full fuel. After about two hours of the planned three hour flight, the pilot noticed that one the fuel contents gauges indicated empty and the other almost full. As he was near one of the property airstrips, the pilot decided to land the aircraft and dip the tanks. Having apparently satisfied himself that sufficient fuel remained he continued the flight. An hour later, as he was returning to the Station airstrip, the engine stopped. The aircraft was landed on a road but during the landing roll the left wing struck a tree and the aicraft ran off the road and into the bush, sustaining further damage. An inspection of the aircraft revealed that the engine had stopped after the usable fuel had been exhausted. The fuel gauge for the right fuel tank was found to overread by 10 litres, however the reason the fuel had been exhausted after a flight time of only three hours could not be positively determined.

Four experienced parachutists intended to carry out a group descent from 5000 feet agl. To facilitate the procedure, all four were to exit the cabin and hold onto the aircraft structure before releasing at the appropriate moment. As the second parachutist moved to take up his parachute pack evidently snagged on the door opening, and the parachute deployed. The lines passed around the lift strut and under the gear leg. The parachutist was pulled off his seat but managed to throw his arms back and around the strut. The pilot felt the aircraft slow dramatically as the parachute opened, and he applied full forward movement of the control column. One of the other parachutists activated the cut away on the deployed parachute and assisted the parachutist to return to the cabin. The aircraft lost 3200 feet of altitude during the occurrence. During the descent to land it was noticed that the wing strut was flexing. After landing it was found that the strut was partly fractured. Had it failed in flight the wing would have been free to pivot upwards, with consequent loss of aircraft control.

About 150 metres after touchdown, when the brakes were applied, the aircraft began to veer to the right. Despite the application of heavy braking the pilot was unable to stop the aircraft and it ran off the end of the strip, through a gully and collided with a tree. While the aircraft was being vacated, a fire was noticed around the right wheel area. This fire was controlled by use of the portable extinguisher. A subsequent examination of the strip revealed marks indicative of heavy, intermittent braking forces being applied to the right wheel during the landing roll. Inspection of the aircraft revealed that the left brake had failed due to fatigue cracking of the brake hydraulic line. The cause of this fatigue could not be determined.

As part of his pre-flight inspection, the pilot completed a water check on each of the wing tanks and operated the fuel strainer knob, although a sample was not drawn from this point. During the flight the pilot noticed a strong smell of fuel and as he turned back towards the DEPARTURE aerodrome the engine lost power. The pilot carried out a forced landing into an area of dense light timber, during which the aircraft struck several trees. The fuel strainer drain was found to be open due to a kink in the operating cable and the pilot had not checked that the drain had closed after its operation during the pre-flight inspection. During flight loss of fuel through the strainer drain resulted in a gradual loss of fuel pressure and the engine lost power due to fuel starvation after about 40 minutes of flight.

During a pre-flight inspection it was discovered that the left wing of the aircraft had suffered permanent deformation. The subsequent investigation was unable to determine any details as to how and when this deformation had occurred. The damage was consistent with an overstress during a rolling pull-out.

On climbout from Tindal, the crew heard a loud bang and the gear Unsafe light came on. Speed was reduced to 180 knots indicated air speed and the gear cycled. On Down selection, the two maingear lights were green but the nosegear indicated Unsafe. On selecting Up, the Unsafe light remained on. The flight was continued to Darwin below 180 knots. On arrival, two flights past the tower were made. On the first flight with gear selected Up the nosegear was reported to be in the normal extended position. On the second flypast with gear selected Down, only the two maingear lights were green and the tower reported that the gear appeared to be extended normally. Procedures for the emergency extension of the gear did not obtain a safe indication for the nosegear leg, and the pilot did not apply inflight loads to the aircraft in an attempt to lock the nosegear down. The pilot carried out a normal circuit and landing and held the nosewheel off the runway for as long as possible. At approximately 80 knots the nosewheel was lowered gently onto the runway but it collapsed almost immediately. The aircraft remained on the runway centreline as it slid to a halt on its nose. Subsequent specialist investigation showed that the nosegear actuator rod end had failed due to fatigue and stress corrosion.

The aircraft was flown to Hoxton Park and a number of circuits and landings were carried out as part of an endorsement exercise. The pilot in command then elected to return to Bankstown in order to refuel the aircraft. During the approach the engine lost power and attempts to restart it were unsuccessful. A ditching was carried out in the Georges River and the pilots swam to the shore. The aircraft had been cross-hired and the instructor, who had not previously flown the aircraft, told the student to conduct a preflight check while he familiarized himself with the avionics. However, the student did not check the fuel contents because he could not reach the fuel caps and did not carry out a water check because he was unaware of the location of the fuel drain points. The instructor said that before the engine lost power he had selected the left fuel tank because the right tank gauge indicated empty. After recovery of the aircraft an examination revealed no prior fault with the engine or the fuel system. The fuel system was contaminated with river water and the right tank contained no usable fuel. However, the left tank contained 16 litres of usable fuel which would have been sufficient to provide engine power with the left tank selected while the aircraft was in level, co-ordinated flight. It is probable that the initial power loss was caused by fuel starvation resulting from uncovering of the left fuel tank outlet. The instructor's attempts to restart the aircraft were not in accordance with the manufacturer's checklist and included 5 movements of the fuel tank selector in quick succession following the loss of power.

Immediately after take-off the aircraft was seen to enter a steep climbing turn to the left. After turning through about 135 deg, and at an estimated height of 100 to 150 ft agl, the aircraft suddenly pitched nose down and lost height. The aircraft collided with a tree prior to impacting the ground in a nose-low left wing down attitude. The investigation did not reveal any mechanical faults with the aircraft that could have contributed to this accident. The pilot had been flying and working long hours and had been seen to hurry his circuit procedures in the past. On this occasion adequate flying speed was not maintained for the manoeuvre being attempted. The turn after take-off was made into the late afternoon sun and it is possible that the pilot`s vision was affected by sun-glare.