The pilot reported that prior to takeoff he dipped the fuel tanks and determined that there was sufficient fuel for the flight over his property. During the flight the engine lost all power and the pilot was committed to a landing in a treed area. After touchdown the left wing struck a tree and the aircraft swung to the left causing the right wingtip to contact the ground. The pilot subsequently dipped the fuel tanks and found they contained only a small quantity of unuseable fuel. This accident was not the subject of an on-site investigation.

After the parachutists exited the aircraft the pilot closed the door and positioned for a landing on the 24 strip. The aircraft was established on final at an indicated airspeed of 65 knots and as the pilot was checking the airspeed indicator, the aircraft suddenly yawed to the left. The pilot immediately applied full right rudder, levelled the wings, and landed the aircraft on the left side of the strip. Investigation revealed that the left wing of the aircraft had struck a sapling, about 4 metres above ground level, 78 metres short of the end of the strip.

About 20 minutes after take-off on the return leg of a charter flight and while cruising at 4500 feet amsl, the right engine suddenly lost all power. The pilot reported that he was unable to restore power, and he elected to land at a nearby ALA. From the downwind position a continuous left turn was flown to align the aircraft with the strip. On short final approach the left engine also lost power and the aircraft touched down short of the strip boundary. It ran through two fences and the nosegear collapsed after striking a dirt bank. The flight was the first one in the aircraft type for the pilot in an unsupervised capacity. Investigations carried out at the accident site revealed that there was adequate fuel remaining in the main tanks, although the auxiliary tanks were virtually empty. Both engines were started and ran normally, and no fault was subsequently found with them that might have explained the power losses. The pilot did not have a detailed knowledge of the fuel system, and it was considered likely that he had mis-managed the system.

The pilot was engaged in spraying a small crop of tomatoes. This was the first time he had sprayed this paddock. The farmer provided him with a map of the area to be sprayed, but the powerlines were not marked on the map, so a briefing was conducted on the location of the powerlines. There was a set to the north of the paddock and two sets to the south. Before he commenced spraying, the pilot conducted an aerial inspection of the area. During the aerial inspection he was in radio contact with the farmer and believed he had located all the powerlines. Shortly after commencing the job, the pilot manoeuvred the aircraft for a run in the northerly direction. His intention on this run was to fly below a powerline that on previous runs, because of the disposition of that particular line, he had flown over. When manoeuvring to fly below this line, the aircraft hit another line 80 metres to the south. The pilot was not aware of the presence of the line the aircraft struck. The aircraft hit the ground and was destroyed by the impact and the resulting fire. The briefing received by the pilot was inadequate.

The pilot stated that he selected gear down but did not check for a down and locked indication. After having kept sufficient power applied to land well down the runway, the pilot heard the gear warning horn immediately prior to touchdown, but could not prevent the aircraft landing with the gear retracted. When the pilot purchased the aircraft it had been fitted with an unguarded switch type circuit breaker adjacent to the gear selector handle, and a receptacle for a remote gear switch. These modifications, which had not been approved by the Department of Aviation, were apparently designed to allow the gear to be raised or lowered from outside the aircraft during maintenance checks when the aircraft was supported by jacks. When selecting the gear down on this occasion, the pilot had evidently knocked the circuit breaker to the "off" position, removing electrical power to the circuit. Neither the pilot nor the passenger, who held a current Commercial Pilot Licence, realised that there were no aural or aerodynamic indications associated with the extension of the gear into the airstream when the gear was selected down.

The pilot in command was continuing a mustering endorsement which had been commenced the previous day. After flying for about 85 minutes the pilots stopped for a break of some 30 minutes. About 75 minutes after flying had recommenced a person on the ground heard a thump, and the wreckage of the aircraft was discovered shortly afterwards. It had struck the ground in a steep nose down attitude while spinning or turning to the left, about 270 metres to the south of the 30 strip. Investigation revealed that, at some stage prior to the final impact with the ground, the undersurface of the left wing had contacted the ground, causing left aileron failure followed by a loss of controllability. Medical evidence indicated that the pilot may have suffered a partial or complete loss of consciousness due to a pre-existing heart condition. However, it could not be determined whether this was a factor in the accident.

After becoming low during a cross country flight, the pilot selected a paddock in which to carry out an outlanding. During the approach the pilot became aware of a powerline in the vicinity of the paddock and elected to land in an adjoining paddock. As the glider was flared for landing it struck a small mound concealed in the knee high stubble. The impact resulted in the aircraft being substantially damaged. This accident was not the subject of an on-site investigation.

The pilot was mustering a herd of cattle across a tree lined dry creek bed, when the mob scattered. He positioned the helicopter at tree top height to block the escape of the cattle from the creek. The rotor RPM rapidly decayed and the pilot was unable to prevent the aircraft sinking and landing heavily on the bank of the creek. The pilot attempted to bring the helicopter to a hover in a 15 knot downwind. At the time the helicopter was being operated near to the maximum all up weight in ambient temperatures of about 45 degrees celcius. Insufficient power was available to maintain flight in these conditions.

Upon arrival at Penneshaw the pilot did not obtain a gear down and locked indication for the right main gear. Several alternative methods were tried but a safe indication could not be obtained. During a flypast, another pilot on the ground observed the aircraft with the aid of binoculars and reported that the gear appeared to be down. During the landing roll the pilot felt the right gear start to collapse. He decided to go-around and fly back to Adelaide where better facilities were available. Several more attempts were made to lock the gear in the down position, but to no avail. During the subsequent landing the right gear collapsed at about 30 knots and the aircraft slid a further 212 metres before coming to rest on a taxiway off the right side of the runway. Examination revealed that the lower and centre drag link brace joints had been excessively tightened. This was probably done in an attempt to eliminate excessive side movement in the joint, caused by wear. It was also revealed that the centre brass bushings were found to be shorter than the steel outer bushings, which allowed the lugs to squeeze in onto the brace when the overtorqueing took place. The resultant abnormally high friction caused the push-pull rod to bend thus preventing the gear from extending to the fully locked down position.

Approaching the destination, the engine began to run roughly. As the aircraft was losing altitude the pilot selected a track running through the scrub as the only suitable landing area. During the landing roll both wings struck trees and the aircraft ran off the track. Rough running was caused by a worn carburettor float valve assembly, which in turn stuck closed and then too far open. Consequently the engine first ran too lean, and then too rich. Once rough running began the pilot selected the mixture to full rich. This did not resolve the problem, but the pilot left the control in full rich instead of attempting to adjust the mixture through the full range available.