For the ferry flight, the pilot placed an overnight bag on the passenger seat, leaned a swag and fuel pump against the seat and secured the lot with the seat belt. His pre-flight control checks revealed that full control travel was available for the collective and cyclic controls. During the climb the swag slipped and came to rest against the cylic control. At this stage it was not causing any control interference. The pilot intended to fly past the lee side of a mountain and found that the swag was now restricting movement of the cyclic pitch control. The seat belt was unfastened to reposition the swag. At the same time, the helicopter encountered some turbulence. The swag fell onto the collective pitch control lever, pushing it nearly all the way down. The helicopter descended out of control with both the cyclic and collective controls fouled. The pilot managed to regain partial control just before impact and, following the heavy landing, rolled the helicopter into a steeply sloping rock face. The pilot commented later that the critical point in the scenario was reached when he unlatched the seatbelt to fix an annoying, but not serious problem at an inappropriate time. This accident was not the subject of a formal on scene investigation.

The student conducted a normal take off and was climbing in a right turn at 50 knots and 200 feet above the ground when the engine rpm suddenly reduced by about 60 percent. The instructor immediately took over the controls lowered the nose adopted a glide attitude and began a left turn into wind by which time the airspeed had reduced to 40 knots. He then became concerned about a powerline in the area which he could not see. In an attempt to avoid this powerline he turned the aircraft to the right which was downwind but towards a suitable forced landing area. During the turn the airspeed reduced to about 35 knots and the rate of descent increased. At about 10 feet above the ground and with a tail wind of about 10 knots the aircraft was flared in an unsuccessful attempt to arrest the rate of descent. The aircraft struck the ground heavily bounced and then overturned. A subsequent examination of the engine revealed a damaged low tension ignition lead. This had the potential to short-out on the housing of the engine fuel pump thereby causing one of the spark plugs to become inoperative with an associated reduction in engine rpm. The damaged wire was probably the result of an earlier heavy landing.

The aircraft had been operating for two hours without any apparent problems. Shortly after lift off, following a refuelling stop, the pilot was unable to maintain directional control and the aircraft began yawing rapidly to the right. The pilot attempted to land the aircraft in a clear area, however, one skid dug in and the aircraft rolled over. A fractured tail rotor drive shaft intermediate flexplate was the only mechanical defect found during the investigation. The specialist engineering investigation established that the flexplate failure was caused by the main rotor blades contacting an external object. The only main rotor strike evident at the accident site occurred when the aircraft rolled over following the landing. Damage to the tail rotor control rods indicated that full left peddle had been applied at the time of the flexplate failure. Aircraft weight, power requirements, wind conditions and take-off and DEPARTURE techniques were not conducive to loss of tail rotor effectiveness, however, loss of tail rotor effectiveness will cause the aircraft to yaw to the right. The reason for the initial yaw was not determined. The aircraft rolled over when the pilot was forced to make an emergency landing on unsuitable terrain whilst he was attempting to recover from a difficult control situation.

The pilot reported that, while mustering an animal which had broken from the mob, one of the skids came into contact with the animal. This caused the helicopter to roll and strike the ground causing the tail boom to be severed and destroying the main rotor blades. The muster was being conducted in open country, with no trees in the area. The pilot had evidently allowed the aircraft to descend to an unsafe height during his attempts to return the particular animal to the mob. This accident was not the subject of an on-site investigation.

After six dual check circuits the pilot commenced his second solo flight from the 18 strip. The surface wind was 150`/15 knots. At about five feet above the ground on the first landing the aircraft started veering to the left. The pilot commenced an overshoot but the left wing dropped and the aircraft continued to veer left. The throttle was closed but the pilot was unable to prevent the aircraft running off the strip into the trees. This accident was not the subject of an on-site investigation.

Circumstances:

At approximately 15 feet above the ground after take-off from a confined area, the engine began to run roughly. The pilot's attention was distracted by the rough running, and he failed to see a large overhanging branch. The main rotor blades struck the branch and the pilot lost control of the helicopter which touched down heavily on its left hand side. The rough running had been caused by oil deposits on the spark plugs.

Significant Factors:

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

1. The pilot was operating from a confined area.
2. Engine malfunction caused by oil deposits on the spark plugs.
3. The pilot was distracted by the engine malfunction.

Circumstances:

The pilot had been operating the aircraft in an aerial spotting role during a cattle muster in generally flat, scrubby terrain. The ambient air temperature would have reached 40 degrees Celsius at the time the crash occurred. The pilot had completed training for a mustering endorsement but had only recently accumulated sufficient flying hours to qualify for issue of the endorsement. A stockman, located about three kilometres distant, had observed the aircraft flying low and after it had disappeared from his view heard sounds which led him to believe that the aircraft had crashed. The aircraft had impacted the ground in a slightly right wing low, steep nose-down attitude. The pilot was contained within the cockpit which had been reduced to non-survivable dimensions. The observed low level of the aircraft, and cattle tracks approximately one kilometre from the impact site, suggest that the pilot was attempting to "push" the cattle at the time of impact.

Significant Factors:

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

1. The pilot was inexperienced.

2. Loss of control at a height insufficient to effect a safe recovery.

Circumstances:

The pilot reported making a normal, full flap approach in good conditions using the T-VASIS as an approach aid. He recalled executing what he thought was a normal flare and was surprised when the aircraft touched down and immediately pitched nose up. The aircraft then bounced several times before being brought to rest. Post flight inspection revealed a fractured nosewheel rim and burst tyre, a broken nose leg fork and distortion of the firewall. The ground marks on the runway at touchdown reportedly showed a normal nosewheel tyre tread pattern extending for some 45 centimetres before evidence of significant distortion of the tyre and propeller strikes. Nosewheel tyre marks then indicated that the tyre was rolled off the rim before the nose leg fork failed. Specialist examination showed there were no pre-existing defects in the nose leg and that it had failed in overload. An examination of the pilot's flying experience revealed that he had flown 13 hours on type and only nine hours total in the last 90 days, of which five had been on type. The operator had not carried out an operational assessment of the pilot's ability, as the pilot had been hired only on a part-time basis and this was his first flight for the company.

Significant Factors:

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

1. The pilot was inexperienced on the aircraft type.

2. The pilot misjudged the landing flare. This accident was not the subject of an on-scene investigation.

Circumstances:

Neither pilot had landed at Porepunkah before. They obtained details of the strip which was at an elevation of 935 ft and had an average downslope of 1.25 percent to the north. There were trees just beyond the southern end of the strip. Because of the trees the landing distance available to the north was 740 m whereas to the south 840 m were available. Accordingly, it was recommended to land to the south in light northerly wind conditions. On arrival over the strip the pilot noted the wind was a light northerly. He therefore elected to land to the south. On the first approach the pilot found he was too high on final and made a go-around. A second approach was made with full flap selected. After touchdown, the aircraft floated and touched down again three or four times. By this stage, the aircraft was some two thirds of the way along the strip and power was applied for go-around. The aircraft swung 30 degrees left with the left wing low. Alarmed because he thought the left wing would hit the ground, the pilot closed the throttle. After touching down firmly, the aircraft ran off the side of the strip, went through two fences, then over a road, finally colliding with a tree before coming to a stop.

Significant Factors:

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

1. The pilot was inexperienced in landing on sloping strips and in downwind conditions.

2. The pilot did not initiate a timely go-around when the aircraft continued to bounce along the strip.

3. The pilot lost directional control on the attempted go-around.

The pilot reported that he rounded out with power OFF and a little high. The aircraft fell heavily onto the runway and bounced back into the air. The pilot applied full power but the aircraft bounced again before coming to rest on the runway. The pilot said that strong gusting winds prevailed veering in direction with a crosswind component from the right. This accident was not the subject of an on-site investigation.