The pilot had completed a pre-flight inspection, when he received a message to the effect that there was an unfamiliar vehicle in the vicinity of a new farm piggery, about 2 km from the strip. He boarded the aircraft, which shortly afterwards was seen to take-off and fly at low level towards the piggery. A farm employee at the piggery observed the aircraft approaching in straight and level flight and with normal engine noise. The aircraft then began to turn to the left, but struck a recently erected single wire power line at a height of 23 feet above the ground. The left wing tip and one propeller blade were severed and the aircraft cartwheeled to the ground. No defect or malfunction was subsequently discovered which might have affected the pilot's ability to safely control the aircraft. It was considered probable that the pilot was concentrating on locating and identifying the vehicle near the piggery, to the extent that he overlooked the presence of the power line. Notwithstanding the above, the reason the pilot chose to fly at such a low height could not be determined.

Prior to departure for a nearby aerodrome the pilot decided to carry out some practice night circuits. He subsequently advised that all necessary checks were completed for the first landing, however the aircraft landed with the gear retracted. When the aircraft came to rest the pilot noted that the gear hydraulic pump motor was still operating. It was determined that the aircraft had touched down on the gear doors, which were open at the time. Although the main gear doors had completed their extension cycle, a defect in the gear control valve spool prevented the gear itself from extending. Contamination of the hydraulic system was also evident, probably resulting from ineffective filtering of the fluid. The pilot had evidently not checked the gear position indicator lights prior to landing.

The pilot had been carrying out a number of flights to strips in the general area. After completing repairs to a bore pump the pilot and passenger prepared to return to the property homestead, some 20 kilometres to the North. Shortly after the take-off roll commenced, the aircraft began to veer to the right. Full left rudder was progressively applied, but directional control could not be maintained. The right wing collided with a number of bushes and saplings alongside the strip. The aircraft then slewed rapidly to the right and the nosegear collapsed. Investigation revealed that the aircraft had rolled for 104 metres before the right wing struck and broke a small sapling. This coincided with the initial veer to the right as reported by the pilot. As the aircraft diverged from the centre of the strip, it entered an area of soft loam, which increased the drag on the right wheel. The scrub struck by the aircraft had encroached onto the strip, reducing the width in places to about 15 metres. The pilot had been aware that the strip had not been cleared of undergrowth for some 21 months.

During his pre-flight inspection, the pilot detected water in the fuel samples from the various drain points. Further samples were taken until no trace of water was evident. The subsequent flight of almost 90 minutes was uneventful, until the pilot selected full flap on final approach to land. At this point the engine lost all power and during the ensuing forced landing the aircraft collided with a fence post. Investigation revealed that the fuel caps were not providing adequate sealing, and a substantial amount of water remained in the fuel system. Prior to the flight the aircraft had been parked in the open for some days and considerable amounts of rain had fallen. The water in the fuel system had most probably been trapped in wrinkles in the left fuel bladder, and had entered the engine following the attitude change associated with selection of full flap. During the previous scheduled maintenance, a mandatory inspection and leak test of the fuel tank filler caps was not carried out. The owner/pilot had frequently found evidence of water during pre-flight inspections, but had not specifically instructed the maintenance organisation to investigate and rectify the problem.

The pilot reported that at about 50 knots during the take-off run, he heard a loud noise and the aircraft began to progressively adopt a nose low attitude. The nose of the aircraft dug into the ground and the aircraft overturned. When the pilot inspected the aircraft following the accident, he found that the landing gear was retracted and that the gear selector was in the up position. The pilot did not recall the position of the selector before the commencement of the take-off. Inspection and testing of the gear system failed to reveal any fault that could have contributed to this accident. It is considered possible that the gear lever was not correctly positioned in the down detent prior to the takeoff being commenced. It is then likely that during the takeoff run the lever worked its way towards the up position and that the gear began to retract when the weight of the aircraft was taken off the gear as the aircraft ran over a hump in the strip.

The pilot was conducting a series of circuits and touch-and-go landings. Both three-point and wheel landings were carried out without problem. On the final landing, touchdown was made in a three-point attitude at a speed of about 45 knots. After the aircraft had rolled for about 100 metres, the pilot applied even braking to both mainwheels. The aircraft immediately veered to the left, and the pilot was unable to stop the swing before the right maingear collapsed. No fault was subsequently found with the braking system of the aircraft, and there was no sudden wind gust or other meteorological condition which might have contributed to the accident. Although the pilot had a reasonable amount of tailwheel aircraft experience, he lacked currency in the Cessna 180. It was likely that on the final landing of the exercise he had unconsciously relaxed his level of concentration.

The surface of the particular ALA was covered with long grass and areas of low scrub and bushes. The pilot taxied along one of the strips until he came to an area of thicker scrub, and saw markers which he believed defined the end of the strip. During the take-off roll, the aircraft had reached a speed of about 50 knots when the pilot realised that he was approaching the upwind end of the strip. He abandoned the take-off, and attempted to steer the aircraft through a gate in the boundary fence. However, the left wing and mainwheel struck the gate post, the aircraft slewed rapidly and the nosegear collapsed. The pilot later advised that he had begun the take-off from the intersection of the two flight strips, and had confused markers on the other strip for those at the end of the strip selected. As a result, the length available had been about 425 metres, compared to the full strip length of 950 metres. The pilot had not previously operated from the particular ALA. Grass on the strips was between 30 and 45 centimetres high in places and this, together with a number of low bushes, made the strip markers difficult to see.

As the helicopter was being hovered the pilots heard a muffled bang. The instructor immediately assumed control and landed the helicopter. An inspection of the transmission area revealed that the rear drive belt was missing. The instructor reboarded the helicopter and commenced to hover taxi back to the hangar. Another bang and other noises were heard emanating from the rear of the helicopter, which was landed and the engine shut down. Substantial damage had been caused to the transmission area. The reason for the initial belt failure was not determine as the belt was not recovered. The remaining belts failed after being overloaded during taxi back to the hangar. It is considered that after the belts failed the actuator continued to run winding itself apart. This resulted in the gross misalignment of the driveshaft and in turn the failure of the flexplate and the damage to the transmission area.

A parachute display was planned as part of the program associated with an air show. Three parachutists exited the aircraft and performed relative work before separating and deploying their canopies. Two subsequently landed on the target area without difficulty, however the third parachutist drifted downwind and realised he would be unable to reach the target. During the early stages of the jump, one of his contact lenses had become dislodged and trapped under the eyelid. This apparently had affected his depth perception to the extent where he misjudged the approach and landed among the spectators. An elderly woman was struck and received serious injury.

The pilot stated that during the flight the cloud base gradually lowered until he found himself in a valley with the cloud on the hilltops. The cloud also closed in behind the aircraft and the pilot decided to find a suitable area and land. He selected an area with some fences running through it and landed the aircraft. During the landing roll the tail section of the aircraft struck a fence post.