On arrival at the destination strip, the pilot assessed the wind to be from the west at about 15 knots. He decided to land on runway 03, using full flap, shortfield technique, but during the flare the pilot found he was unable to counteract right drift and the aircraft touched down on the nosewheel. The nosegear subsequently collapsed, and the aircraft skidded to a halt just off the right side of the strip. The pilot said that during the approach he had been concentrating on his crosswind technique and had omitted to refer to the airspeed indicator after crossing the threshold. When he realised that the aircraft could not be aligned with the strip, he considered initiating a go-around but the aircraft struck the ground. This accident was not the subject of an on-site investigation.

The pilot was conducting an around Australia holiday with three friends. On the day of the accident he intended flying the aircraft to Tindal, a distance of about 90 kilometres, to refuel prior to departing for his Queensland destination. After the aircraft was taxied from the parking area to the threshold of the runway, witnesses reported hearing the engine being run-up. The aircraft was then observed to take-off in a north-westerly direction and climb to about 150 feet above the strip. It then entered a steady, wings level descent and collided with trees, 400 metres beyond and 100 metres to the left of the strip. The aircraft was destroyed by impact forces and the ensuing fire. The examination of the wreckage was hampered by extensive fire damage. However, with the exception of the vacuum pump, which was probably unserviceable at the time of the accident, no evidence was found to suggest that the aircraft was not capable of normal operation. There was no evidence to indicate that the pilot had suffered any sudden illness or incapacity, and the cause of the accident remains undetermined.

The aircraft was engaged in pig shooting operations, and was making the second sortie for the day. While cruising at about 150 feet above ground level, the pilot heard a loud bang, and all engine power was lost. At the time the aircraft was over flat country with scattered trees. While manoeuvring the helicopter to a cleared area, the pilot carried out a descending turn, during which the tail rotor struck the branches of a tree. The tail rotor blades disintegrated and the helicopter struck the ground heavily. Initial inspection revealed the presence of several cracks in the engine crankcase. The connecting rod in one of the engine cylinders had broken just above the big end bearing. The fracture was typical of fatigue propagation, followed by overload, but the extent of the damage precluded the location of the origin of the fatigue. The cracks in the crankcase had been caused by the flaying of the connecting rod after the failure. The pilot had not seen the branches struck by the tail rotor, probably because they were protruding from the tree and had no foliage attached.

The pilot had planned to operate for 120 minutes before refuelling, and the aircraft had an endurance of 150 minutes. As the aircraft was approaching the refuelling area after a total flight time of 121 minutes, the engine failed. The pilot carried out an autorotative landing, but on touchdown one landing skid became entangled in a large tuft of grass. Believing that the aircraft would roll over, the pilot applied rearward cyclic control. The main rotor severed the tail boom, but the aircraft remained in an upright attitude. Inspection revealed that the engine failed due to fuel exhaustion. Both the fuel gauge and the low fuel warning system were faulty, although the pilot was unaware of this fact. No reason for the apparently higher than normal fuel consumption during the flight could be found.

When the pilot arrived at the destination, he noted that the wind direction indicator showed apparently calm conditions. Almost immediately after touchdown the aircraft began to swing to the right. Attempts to correct the swing were unsuccessful and the left gear leg collapsed. After vacating the aircraft the pilot noticed that there had been a quartering tailwind of about 10 knots during the landing. The pilot was inexperienced on the operation of tailwheel type aircraft, this being his first flight on such a type following a two hour endorsement. This accident was not the subject of an on-site investigation.

During the daily inspection prior to a series of glider towing operations, the pilot noticed that the brake linings were worn. During the landing roll following the third of these operations, the right brake failed and the aircraft ground looped before coming to rest. The brake had failed following the loss of hydraulic fluid from the seal for the brake caliper piston. This was caused by excessive piston travel, associated with severely worn brake linings. When the assembly was dismantled, it was found that the linings had worn completely off the backing plate, and those on the pressure plate were only 1.1 millimetres in depth. Both brake discs were pitted from the effects of corrosion, which would have caused the excessive wear in the linings.

The pilot decided to land on the shorter of two strips, using a short field technique. Touchdown was made 75 metres into the 470 metre strip, but the pilot was undecided whether to apply maximum braking or to initiate a go-around. Full power was applied and the aircraft became airborne for a short time before touching down in rough terrain. It came to rest with both main gears collapsed, 282 metres beyond the end of the strip. The pilot had not obtained data on the strip and therefore had not checked the landing performance chart which would have indicated that the strip was too short for the aircraft weight and prevailing conditions.

After a normal touchdown a swing to the right developed. The swing was controlled initially with rudder, but when the brakes were applied the pilot was unable to maintain directional control. After the aircraft had swung through about 120 degrees the left wheel was dislodged. The left main axle assembly had separated from the leg because a bolt had failed and a section of the broken bolt had jammed between the brake unit and the brake disc, locking the left wheel. The locked wheel caused the remaining bolts to fail. The bolt that failed was found to have been worn by fretting. The aircraft had only operated 20 hours since servicing was carried out to the gear legs. The failed bolt had not been changed at that service.

The pilot carried out a normal approach and landing. The nosewheel was kept off the ground until the speed had reduced to a suitable figure. However, almost as soon as the wheel contacted the runway it became detached, and the aircraft skidded to a halt 97 metres further on. The nosewheel assembly had failed from overload, which had probably resulted from a recent heavy landing. There was ample evidence to indicate that the damage had not occurred on this particular landing, and the date and circumstances surrounding the heavy landing could not be established.

CICUMSTANCES The pilot and his passengers were touring in the north-west of Australia. For a number of landings after the DEPARTURE from Parafield the aircraft displayed a tendency to veer to the left side of the runway. The aircraft was checked by a licenced aircraft maintenance engineer and no defects were found. However, the pilot continued to experience the same problem. For the landing at Erong Springs, the aircraft was landed with a slight crosswind from the left. Shortly after the nosewheel was gently lowered onto the runway, the aircraft once again veered to the left. The pilot did not regain control of the aircraft, which ran off the runway and collided with a tree. A thorough inspection was made of the aircraft following the accident but no fault could be found that may have affected the landing performance. The reason for the aircraft diverging to the left during the landing roll could not be determined.