After six dual check circuits the pilot commenced his second solo flight from the 18 strip. The surface wind was 150`/15 knots. At about five feet above the ground on the first landing the aircraft started veering to the left. The pilot commenced an overshoot but the left wing dropped and the aircraft continued to veer left. The throttle was closed but the pilot was unable to prevent the aircraft running off the strip into the trees. This accident was not the subject of an on-site investigation.

Circumstances:

At approximately 15 feet above the ground after take-off from a confined area, the engine began to run roughly. The pilot's attention was distracted by the rough running, and he failed to see a large overhanging branch. The main rotor blades struck the branch and the pilot lost control of the helicopter which touched down heavily on its left hand side. The rough running had been caused by oil deposits on the spark plugs.

Significant Factors:

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

1. The pilot was operating from a confined area.
2. Engine malfunction caused by oil deposits on the spark plugs.
3. The pilot was distracted by the engine malfunction.

Circumstances:

The pilot had been operating the aircraft in an aerial spotting role during a cattle muster in generally flat, scrubby terrain. The ambient air temperature would have reached 40 degrees Celsius at the time the crash occurred. The pilot had completed training for a mustering endorsement but had only recently accumulated sufficient flying hours to qualify for issue of the endorsement. A stockman, located about three kilometres distant, had observed the aircraft flying low and after it had disappeared from his view heard sounds which led him to believe that the aircraft had crashed. The aircraft had impacted the ground in a slightly right wing low, steep nose-down attitude. The pilot was contained within the cockpit which had been reduced to non-survivable dimensions. The observed low level of the aircraft, and cattle tracks approximately one kilometre from the impact site, suggest that the pilot was attempting to "push" the cattle at the time of impact.

Significant Factors:

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

1. The pilot was inexperienced.

2. Loss of control at a height insufficient to effect a safe recovery.

Circumstances:

The pilot reported making a normal, full flap approach in good conditions using the T-VASIS as an approach aid. He recalled executing what he thought was a normal flare and was surprised when the aircraft touched down and immediately pitched nose up. The aircraft then bounced several times before being brought to rest. Post flight inspection revealed a fractured nosewheel rim and burst tyre, a broken nose leg fork and distortion of the firewall. The ground marks on the runway at touchdown reportedly showed a normal nosewheel tyre tread pattern extending for some 45 centimetres before evidence of significant distortion of the tyre and propeller strikes. Nosewheel tyre marks then indicated that the tyre was rolled off the rim before the nose leg fork failed. Specialist examination showed there were no pre-existing defects in the nose leg and that it had failed in overload. An examination of the pilot's flying experience revealed that he had flown 13 hours on type and only nine hours total in the last 90 days, of which five had been on type. The operator had not carried out an operational assessment of the pilot's ability, as the pilot had been hired only on a part-time basis and this was his first flight for the company.

Significant Factors:

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

1. The pilot was inexperienced on the aircraft type.

2. The pilot misjudged the landing flare. This accident was not the subject of an on-scene investigation.

Circumstances:

Neither pilot had landed at Porepunkah before. They obtained details of the strip which was at an elevation of 935 ft and had an average downslope of 1.25 percent to the north. There were trees just beyond the southern end of the strip. Because of the trees the landing distance available to the north was 740 m whereas to the south 840 m were available. Accordingly, it was recommended to land to the south in light northerly wind conditions. On arrival over the strip the pilot noted the wind was a light northerly. He therefore elected to land to the south. On the first approach the pilot found he was too high on final and made a go-around. A second approach was made with full flap selected. After touchdown, the aircraft floated and touched down again three or four times. By this stage, the aircraft was some two thirds of the way along the strip and power was applied for go-around. The aircraft swung 30 degrees left with the left wing low. Alarmed because he thought the left wing would hit the ground, the pilot closed the throttle. After touching down firmly, the aircraft ran off the side of the strip, went through two fences, then over a road, finally colliding with a tree before coming to a stop.

Significant Factors:

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

1. The pilot was inexperienced in landing on sloping strips and in downwind conditions.

2. The pilot did not initiate a timely go-around when the aircraft continued to bounce along the strip.

3. The pilot lost directional control on the attempted go-around.

The pilot reported that he rounded out with power OFF and a little high. The aircraft fell heavily onto the runway and bounced back into the air. The pilot applied full power but the aircraft bounced again before coming to rest on the runway. The pilot said that strong gusting winds prevailed veering in direction with a crosswind component from the right. This accident was not the subject of an on-site investigation.

The pilot had been conducting spraying operations from the property during the day. Late in the afternoon he decided to position the helicopter to a new site located approximately 2 kilometres along the road to the south. He was joined by a passenger for the short positioning flight. There was no significant weather reported at the time of the flight and visibility was reported to be greater than 10 kilometres. The sun was setting and had descended below the hill tops to the west. The pilot stated that shortly after takeoff, glare from the setting sun obscured his vision. He descended until he was out of the line of sight of the sun and he then proceeded at that height until the helicopter struck power lines, which shattered the bubble and caused the nose of the helicopter to pitch up. The pilot was able to regain control sufficiently to carry out a run on landing. The pilot stated that there was no mechanical defect or malfunction which could have contributed to the accident. The investigation revealed that the bubble of the helicopter was slightly crazed but it was assessed as serviceable by the maintenance organisation and the pilot. The bubble was also found to be covered with a film of chemical spray. A witness who flew in the helicopter on the flight immediately preceding the accident flight stated that the condition of the bubble did not obscure vision through it. It is considered that the helicopter was being flown at an unsafe height and the pilot failed to see the power lines prior to impacting them. This accident was not the subject of an on scene investigation.

Enroute to collect his passengers, the pilot elected to practice some autorotational landings. He successfully completed an autorotation with a power recovery, then decided to carry out a power-off landing. After ensuring that the touchdown area was suitable, the pilot commenced the manoeuvre from about 400 feet above the ground. The pilot subsequently advised that during the flare he misjudged his height above the ground and the aircraft landed heavily. The main rotor blades flexed and struck the tail boom.

Circumstances:

The pilot-under-training was undergoing type familiarisation. After some time in the training area, the pilot returned for circuit work. After one normal circuit and landing, the pilot was attempting a glide approach. The instructor reported that although the aircraft was slightly low, everything else appeared normal. At about 300 feet above the ground, the aircraft started to sink, well below the desired glide path. The pilot did not react immediately, so the instructor commanded a go-around, at the same time reaching for the controls himself. The engine responded with full power, but the aircraft continued to sink and landed heavily on the mainwheels, approximately 450 metres short of the runway threshold. It bounced onto the nosewheel and became airborne again. The instructor took over full control and went around, unaware that the nose leg had broken off just above the fork. On the subsequent approach, the instructor saw a wheel on the ground and was advised by another pilot that it was his nosewheel. The instructor later carried out a landing on a grass flight strip. During the landing roll, the broken nose leg dug in and the aircraft tilted onto its nose before falling back onto the mainwheels. The wind was reported as generally straight down the runway at 10 to 20 knots, with a slight sea breeze component and a small amount of sink on final approach.

Significant Factors:

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

1. The pilot misjudged an attempted gliding approach to land.

2. The pilot evidently did not maintain a stabilized approach.

3. The instructor had limited experience on type.

4. The instructor did not initiate timely and suitable recovery action.

Circumstances:

The pilot reported that he had flown to the destination area but was experiencing difficulty in locating the strip. He located an area that he thought might be the strip and carried out an inspection from a low height with full flap selected. About halfway along the paddock the pilot decided that the area was not the strip he was looking for and applied power to climb and retracted the flaps. The aircraft stalled and struck the ground in a nose down attitude.

Significant Factors:

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

1. The pilot made an improper decision to conduct the inspection using full flap.

2. He did not maintain adequate airspeed.

3. He retracted the flaps prematurely during the go around. This accident was not the subject of an on-scene investigation.