During the aero-tow launch the right wing of the glider contacted the ground and the glider began to veer to the right. After travelling about 40 metres in this manner the glider was seen to climb steeply, to about 15 feet above the strip, then roll to the left before impacting the ground nose first. An inspection of the glider did not reveal any faults that were likely to have contributed to the accident. It is probable that the pilot was slow to react to the loss of directional control following the wing drop, and delayed in releasing the tow rope. The pilot of the tug aircraft stated that shortly after his aircraft became airborne he felt it being pulled to the left of the strip. He immediately released the tow rope. There was long grass along the side of the strip and it is likely that once the wingtip entered this, the task of attempting to regain directional control was made more difficult for the glider pilot.

After take-off, the pilot was told by radio that the right main gearleg was hanging vertically (from its pivot point) beneath the belly of the aircraft. The pilot made two low passes so that an instructor could inspect the landing gear. The pilot made a normal approach, landed left wing low and endeavoured to hold the right wing up as long as possible. During the initial landing roll, the right main wheel was torn off. At about 20 knots, the right wing dropped and the exposed oleo leg scraped along the ground. The aircraft swung through 90 degrees and came to rest with the right wing-tip on the ground. Investigation revealed an apparent overload failure of the bronze weld securing the threaded collar to the lower right oleo cylinder. The weld had been defective at the time the aircraft was manufactured in 1958, however the aircraft had operated for 2100 hours before the weld had actually failed.

After take-off from a property strip near the Silvan Reservoir, the aircraft was flown at a low height above the calm, smooth surface of the water. A left turn was completed at low level, but shortly thereafter the aircraft struck the surface near the middle of the dam. On initial contact, water entered the front of the cabin and the engine ceased running. The aircraft then bounced back into the air and the pilot attempted, unsuccessfully, to re-start the engine. The aircraft lost height and skidded along the surface to a halt before the nose began to sink. The three occupants evacuated the aircraft but only one passenger succeeded in reaching the shoreline. The wreckage was recovered, and an examination revealed no evidence of any pre-impact defect or malfunction which might have accounted for the accident. Water impact damage sustained by the engine cowling indicated that the aircraft struck the water at a shallow angle of descent, with the wings level. Damage sustained by the propeller assembly and crankshaft indicated that substantial power was being developed at the time of impact. Impact speed was estimated to be about 100 knots. While flying at a low height above the expanse of calm water, the pilot had very few visual cues to gauge his clearance from the water. It was also determined that the pilot had a blood/alcohol level such that impairment of his visual acuity was possible.

During the landing at Leigh Creek the left main gear leg folded back. Investigation found that a bolt had withdrawn from the front of the left main gear attachment fitting, and its retaining nut was missing. The condition of the bolt thread suggested that the nut had been missing for some time. How the nut came to be missing was not determined.

The pilot was making a landing approach and intended to touch down at the threshold of the strip. The strip had recently been mown and its edges were clearly defined, however it was surrounded by long grass. Touchdown occurred short of the threshold, the left wing entered the long grass and the glider ground looped. There was no operational reason for the pilot to attempt to land at the threshold of the strip. The grass surrounding the strip was higher than the pilot anticipated.

The aircraft entered the circuit in preparation for a practice single engine landing. The gear was selected down, however neither pilot checked that the gear-down light illuminated. The aircraft was landed with the gear retracted and the pilots reported that they then noticed that the gear motor circuit breaker had popped. The circuit breaker had probably popped during the previous retraction cycle. During the approach the pilot under instruction was concentrating on handling the asymmetric situation, while the instructor was closely monitoring the airspeed and the handling techniques being employed. During the landing flare the gear up warning horn operated, but its sound was masked by the louder tone of the stall warning.

The pilot and passenger were enroute to Hastings to make an aerial inspection of a boat which the two men were considering buying. The aircraft was in cruising flight at a height estimated to be between 200 and 500 feet above ground level. A number of witnesses reported that the engine made a spluttering noise, followed by a bang. Pieces were then observed falling from the aircraft, and some witnesses saw the tail rotor assembly detach. The helicopter then dived to the ground and was destroyed by the impact and a fierce fire which broke out immediately afterwards. The subsequent investigation was hampered by the extent of the fire damage. No defect or malfunction was discovered which might have contributed to the apparent loss of engine power, and the reason for this loss remains undetermined. The pilot had relatively limited experience in helicopter operations, and had not flown the particular type for about 3 months. It was considered possible that when confronted with the power loss, the pilot may have applied abrupt control movements. These movements led to the main rotor blades striking and severing the tail boom, with a consequent loss of control of the aircraft.

The aircraft landed heavily and bounced three times. On the third contact with the ground the rim of the nosewheel apparently broke, resulting in the complete oleo leg assembly separating from the aircraft. The aircraft slid to a halt on the lower section of the engine cowl. The pilot had little experience on type and his reported approach speed was 11 knots faster than indicated in the flight manual. As the aircraft was higher on approach than normal, the landing flare was initiated too soon and it resulted in the aircraft ballooning. Despite the eventual heavy contact with the runway and the subsequent bounce, no attempt was made to initiate a go-around. This accident was not the subject of an on-site investigation.

Prior to his DEPARTURE for the agricultural strip, the pilot had been assured that there would be no stock in the paddock containing the strip. As the aircraft was flared for landing, three sheep ran out from tall thistles adjacent to the strip. One of the sheep struck the right main gear leg and the pilot conducted a go around. He was informed that the leg was out of alignment, and elected to divert to a more suitable aerodrome. The gear leg folded during the landing run. The person who advised the pilot that there was no stock on the strip had not made a thorough inspection of the area.

The pilot positioned the helicopter on the downwind leg of the circuit at an altitude of about 300 feet agl. The wind was gusting between 30 and 35 knots. Towards the end of the downwind leg the pilot noticed that the helicopter was yawing to the right and that a high rate of descent had developed. The pilot applied full power and lowered the collective slightly. The helicopter continued to descend and the pilot applied full up collective, but the helicopter struck the ground heavily and bounced. On the second touchdown, the tail rotor struck the ground and broke off. At the point of turning downwind, the helicopter was being flown at an indicated airspeed of 30 knots. On downwind it is probable that the pilot unwittingly allowed the indicated airspeed to decrease well below translational lift because of the rapid increase in groundspeed, resulting from the 30 knot tailwind. Had the helicopter touched down at zero indicated airspeed, when travelling downwind, it would have contacted the ground at 30 knots groundspeed and travelled a considerable distance along the ground. However, the helicopter travelled only about 12 metres after the first point of touchdown. This indicates that prior to touchdown, the helicopter was probably flying backwards in relation to the airmass in which it was operating, and was effected by the downwash from the main rotor blades. In such a situation there would have been insufficient altitude or power available to arrest the rate of descent.