Prior to the flight the pilot checked the strip details with the owner. These included advice that there was a powerline on the approach. On arrival the pilot located a powerline near the north-east end of the strip. He assumed that this was the one to which the owner had referred, and decided to land from the opposite direction. On final approach, he saw a single wire powerline ahead and attempted, unsuccessfully, to fly beneath it. The aircraft yawed violently to the left as it struck the wire, but the pilot was able to regain control and safely land the aircraft. Post-flight inspection revealed that a section of the fin and the complete rudder assembly had been torn from the aircraft. The point of impact with the wire was 262 metres short of the strip threshold and occurred when the aircraft was at a height of about 30 feet above the ground. The span between the poles supporting the wire was 333 metres, and the poles were difficult to see against the background.

The student had completed five dual circuits and was then authorised to carry out two solo circuits and landings. During the second approach some turbulence was encountered and a hard landing was made. The aircraft ballooned to 5 metres and ground looped on the subsequent touchdown. After the aircraft had turned through 180 degrees its left wing tip scraped the ground and it nosed over. After the heavy touchdown the student had held excessive back pressure to keep the nosewheel off the ground. A wind gust caused the aircraft to become airborne and the pilot was unable to effect timely recovery action.

After landing on a claypan, the pilot taxied the aircraft along a track to pick up a passenger. The right mainwheel entered an area of bulldust and the aircraft swung to the right off the track. As the pilot was manoeuvring the aircraft back onto the track the right wing struck a tree. The pilot was attempting to save time by taxying towards the passenger. Forward visibility was impaired as the pilot was looking into the sun and there was glare on the windscreen. The tree struck was the only obstruction in the area.

The helicopter was being operated in clear conditions, with a five knot South - Westerly breeze, and an outside air temperature of minus six degrees Celsius. After landing on a snow covered ridge, the passengers advised that they would require only a short period of time to complete their work. While waiting, the pilot maintained sufficient power to prevent the helicopter sinking deeper into the snow than approximately 45 centimetres. On DEPARTURE, the helicopter lifted normally clear of the snow into the hover, then turned approximately 45 degrees to the left, to follow the ridge line instead of flying direct across the valley to the next destination. During take-off, slight sink was encountered. This was controlled by an increase in collective pitch, but almost immediately further sink occurred. The pilot again increased collective pitch and forward cyclic control expecting to accelerate through the sink. The skids contacted the snow surface, with the right hand skid digging in deeper, causing the helicopter to roll to the right. In response, left cyclic control and full collective were applied , but the helicopter continued rolling to the right, allowing the main rotor blades to contact the snow, which caused the helicopter to overturn. The prevailing conditions would appear to preclude the possibility of power failure caused by snow ingested through the engine air intake. A full mechanical inspection was made of the helicopter and its engine, but no fault was detected. It is possible the aircraft was over-rotated, allowing the skid toes to contact the snow. The cause of this accident was not determined.

The aircraft was approaching 500 feet above the ground in a climb when the pilot heard a sudden increase in engine noise and dark coloured dust spattered the windshield. He thought that the propeller must have failed and that the engine was overspeeding. He closed the throttle, turned off the ignition and entered a glide. The aircraft was landed straight ahead, into wind but onto downward sloping terrain. The slope was steeper than the pilot had anticipated, and he was forced to induce a ground loop in order to avoid a fence. During the ground loop the right maingear leg and the tail wheel assembly sustained damage. When the pilot subsequently inspected the aircraft he discovered that the muffler had partially detached from the exhaust pipe because a retaining spring had broken. The loud noise had been unmuffled engine noise and the dust on the windshield had emanated from the exhaust pipe.

On arrival at his destination the pilot was cleared to join the circuit and he requested an orbit to lose height prior to landing. He was given permission to orbit and placed number two for landing. The tower was then advised by the pilot that he was carrying out a missed approach. The pilot completed a second circuit but again advised the tower of a missed approach. In response to a query from the tower as to his operations the pilot stated that he had some concern about his nosewheel since he had touched down too heavily on it and he had heard a loud noise at the same time. The pilot expressed further concern that he may have damaged the nosegear. After an inspection by the firecrew on a low pass the pilot elected to land and achieved a safe landing without further incident. Postflight inspection revealed damage to the nosegear tyre and a slight wrinkling of the firewall. During subsequent investigations the pilot recalled that he had heard a thump on takeoff from Olympic Dam and suggested that the damage may have occurred at that time as a result of a stone strike on the nosewheel. Inspection of the tyre itself gave no indication of the mode of damage. The investigation concluded that the damage had occurred on landing at Parafield.

Circumstances:

The pilot was undergoing a ninety-day flight check. On the downwind leg of the second circuit when the landing gear was selected down, the nose gear extended and locked but both main gear legs remained retracted. Attempts to manually pump the main gear down were unsuccessful and the nose gear could not be retracted. The instructor landed the aircraft on the grass with the nose gear extended and the main gear retracted. Subsequent investigation revealed the aircraft hydraulic system had suffered a total fluid loss. The loss occurred from a hole in a hydraulic down line caused by abrasion from a rudder cable fork end.

Circumstances:

The pilot had not flown the aircraft or used the strip for about 4-5 weeks. As the strip had just been mown, the pilot walked, drove his vehicle, and taxied the aircraft over it to check for obstructions or holes. The take-off was uneventful and on the following landing roll, at about 40 knots, the pilot reported that he lowered the nosewheel onto the strip by relaxing the backpressure on the control column. Almost immediately, the aircraft reportedly became airborne again and the pilot held the control column back. On the subsequent touchdown, the nose gear leg failed, and the aircraft skidded to rest on its nose. The pilot said that he could not find any obstructions or holes in the strip which could have caused the aircraft to bounce. It is assumed that on the second touchdown, the aircraft landed on its nosewheel first, and the leg collapsed due to an overload failure. Despite promises to do so, the pilot failed to deliver the failed parts for inspection and determination of the mode of failure.

Significant Factors:

The following factors were considered relevant to the development of the accident:

1. For reasons undetermined, the aircraft bounced on landing and then landed nosewheel first.
2. Nose gear collapsed on landing due to probable overload failure.

The aircraft was landed at the destination strip with the gear up. No fault was found with the aircarft or its systems that could have contributed to the accident. The pilot reported that he carried out the downwind and pre-landing checks, both of which included a gear check, but he could not explain why he did not lower the gear.

After the short flight from Argyle the pilot was cleared to descend from 7000 feet at about 20 DME. He was then cleared to land on Runway 19 behind a wide-bodied jet - he was expecting Runway 14. The pilot said he was distracted by a rather hurried descent, landing on a strange runway, an unusual (to him) approach lighting system, and the worry of wake turbulence. As a result he omitted to lower the landing gear. He had reduced power to a low setting because of the later than usual descent clearance and the horn had blown continuously during the descent. However, he had been wearing a headset, and stated that the duration of the sound and the muting effect of the headset combined to detract from its significance in time to save the situation.