Initial touchdown occurred about one third of the way along the 518 metre strip. A slight bounce followed and as soon as the aircraft had settled on the ground again the brakes were applied. There was no noticeable retardation and the pilot attempted to go around. The nosewheel struck a gable marker just prior to the boundary fence, and the left mainwheel contacted the top strands of the fence. The fuselage was punctured by a fence post and the pilot abandoned the take-off attempt. An inspection of the strip immediately after the occurrence revealed a very heavy dew on the short, thick grass surface.

While cruising at 150 feet agl and 40 knots the engine failed. During the subsequent attempted autorotational landing the pilot tried to turn the helicopter into wind but a heavy landing resulted while the helicopter was still drifting to the right. The landing skid attachments collapsed and the main rotor and tail rotor struck the ground as the helicopter bounced and tilted to the right. The engine failed due to fuel exhaustion. A wasp nest had blocked the fuel vent line and the fuel gauge was reading in error because the fuel cell had partially collapsed.

The pilot, with his wife as passenger, was conducting a bore inspection. A search was instigated when the helicopter did not return by night fall. The wreckage was found the next morning. The helicopter had struck the ground in an inverted attitude amongst trees in a dry swamp. There were no witnesses to the accident. The subsequent investigation concluded that control of the helicopter had been lost at a low height and the helicopter had crashed inverted while the rotor was under positive 'g' flight loads, with little rolling motion. No evidence of pre-accident failure of the helicopter or occupant incapacitation was found. Examination of the wreckage and the surrounding area indicated that the helicopter had struck a tree, by settling into its crown, prior to control being lost. No reason for the descent into the tree could be established. It is probable that, following the tree strike the pilot over-reacted with the collective control and was then unable to regain control of the helicopter in the height available.

The aircraft had recently been returned to service after a landing accident which involved a failure of the right maingear. The pilot had only flown the aircraft once since the accident and was conducting circuit training to restore his currency. On his second circuit, the landing was heavier than normal and on the right side of the grass strip. During the landing roll, the pilot heard an unusual noise and the right wing dropped slightly. Despite efforts by the pilot, the aircraft veered off the right side of the strip into soft plowed ground and came to rest on the right wingtip. Examination of a broken rear bracing tube of the right maingear showed that it had failed in overload. There was no evidence of a pre-existing fault, however, the possibility that the failed component had been weakened in the previous accident could not be discounted.

Circumstances:

As part of a training exercise for type endorsement, the instructor pilot demonstrated an autorotational descent and a power-off landing. Following a flare for landing, the instructor was a little slow in levelling the attitude of the helicopter. The tail rotor struck the ground.

Circumstances:

The student was conducting a period of circuits. On his second approach, he was requested to make a full stop landing due to a problem with a following aircraft. He reported that the aircraft touched down normally on the main wheels just beyond the threshold. When he lowered the nose wheel, the nose of the aircraft seemed to sink too far. He applied braking as the aircraft pulled to the left, off the centreline, towards the grass. The aircraft came to rest with the nose landing gear collapsed rearwards. Examination showed the nosewheel tyre had been in very poor condition. It is possible that the tyre crept on the rim during touchdown, resulting in the valve stem being torn off, deflating the tyre.

Circumstances:

The aircraft was cruising at 4000 feet above mean sea level when there was a complete loss of engine power. The pilot turned the aircraft towards the Tamala Station strip and attempted to restart the engine. The restart was unsuccessful, and the pilot established the aircraft on a straight in approach to the strip for an emergency landing towards the south. The approach appeared to be proceeding safely until the aircraft entered an area of mechanical turbulence and stronger headwinds. As a result, the height loss was greater than anticipated and the aircraft touched down, in what appeared to be a smooth grassy area, 100 metres short of the threshold. During the landing roll the aircraft collided with hidden rocks causing the nose and right hand landing gear to collapse. The surface wind at the time of the accident, a sea breeze, was 180 degrees at 15 knots. This wind at 4000 feet was approximately 120 degrees at 15 knots and the difference was not visible to the pilot. The investigation disclosed that the engine failure occurred following a fatigue failure of the crankshaft between the No. 2 big end journal and the No. 2 main bearing. There was some evidence which indicated that the shaft failure was initiated by loose No. 2 main bearing crankcase through bolts although this evidence was not conclusive. It could not be determined when the through bolts may have been torqued incorrectly; however, it was found that the No. 4 and 6 cylinders had been replaced at an overseas locality on the 25 June 1989 during the aircraft's delivery flight to Australia.

Significant Factors:

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

1. It is possible that maintenance procedures used some time prior to the crankshaft failure were inadequate in that the crankcase through bolts were not torqued correctly.

2. Fatigue cracking caused crankshaft and engine failure.

3. The subsequent forced landing was not completely successful because (a) the pilot was not aware there would be a significant increase in the headwind component, near the ground, and as a result the aircraft undershot the intended landing area; and (b) although the undershoot area appeared to be acceptable for a landing it contained hidden obstructions which caused substantial damage to the aircraft.

Circumstances:

The owner/pilot was operating from his home strip which had just been regraded. He reported that, after liftoff, a power loss was experienced. He then closed the throttle and attempted to land on the remaining runway length. During the ensuing ground roll, and while attempting to avoid the windrow and stumps at the edge of the strip, the aircraft struck a windrow and ground looped. The landing gear was torn off and damage was caused to the wingtips, propeller, and fuselage. The reason for the engine malfunction was not determined.

Circumstances:

The pilot reported that he was attempting a practice glide approach onto a farm strip when during the final approach, he carried out a 360 degree turn to lose height. As a result of the turn the aircraft ended up low on the approach and although the pilot applied power to correct the glide path the aircraft touched down on a gravel road 115 metres short of the strip. The aircraft bounced, touched down in the rough alongside the road, collided with trees and came to a stop with a collapsed nosewheel.

Circumstances:

The pilot reported that he misidentified runway 01 as the runway in use.