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 When the pilot inspected the aircraft following the accident, he found that the landing gear was retracted and that the gear selector was in the up position.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.

The aircraft crossed the threshold higher than the pilot desired, and touchdown occurred well into the 900 metre strip. After initially running normally along the ground, the aircraft bounced twice before coming to rest in a nosedown attitude. Investigation revealed that the aircraft had landed on the left side of the strip, where the surface was very rough, and the aircraft had suffered a broken nosegear fork. The nosewheel had become detached and the nose strut was pulled away from the firewall. The pilot was feeling fatigued after completing 7 hours flying for the day. He had elected not to go around when the aircraft was high on the approach, as adequate strip length remained for a safe landing. The rough area of the strip was not visible from the air, and the aircraft entered this area at a higher speed than would have resulted from a touchdown at the normal aiming point.

The pilot intended to conduct a series of night circuits and landings to maintain currency. On the second circuit, the gear was selected down but failed to fully extend. All attempts to lower the gear were unsuccessful. The aircraft subsequently touched down with the partially extended gear, which collapsed as the aircraft slid to a halt. An inspection of the aircraft revealed that the failure of left maingear hydraulic actuator resulted in the loss of hydraulic fluid and prevented completion of the gear extension cycle.

The pilot was taking a group of mentally retarded children for a flight. On the first flight one of the children became distressed and the flight was terminated. On final approach for the first landing of the second flight, the child seated behind the pilot became hysterical and grabbed the pilot around the throat. A missed approach was carried out and another circuit completed. As the aircraft approached for landing the child again became agitated. The pilot reported that he was concerned about the situation and lost concentration during the approach. The aircraft ballooned and landed heavily.

Approaching the circuit area the pilot selected the landing gear down, but the appropriate gear position light did not illuminate. The pilot then noticed that all electrical systems were inoperative. He subsequently advised that he checked the mechanically operated position indicator, and was satisfied that the gear was down. Witnesses observed the aircraft making a normal approach but then saw the gear collapse shortly after touchdown. Initial investigation revealed that the aircraft battery was fully discharged. The aircraft alternator had failed some time previously, and the battery had been steadily depleted. However, this situation would not have been evident to the pilot, as the ammeter was defective and showed a steady charge at all times. The last part of the gear extension cycle results in a very small movement of the position indicator, and it is considered difficult to assess the precise position of the gear by reference to the indicator. The aircraft handbook warns that a discharged battery may prevent the gear from fully extending by electrical power. The pilot was aware of this warning, but had not employed the emergency lowering procedure to ensure that the gear was locked down.