The pilot had recently completed the construction of the aircraft, and had taken it to the aerodrome in order to make the initial taxi runs and short hops along the strip. Wind conditions were light, favouring operations into the east. The engine proved difficult to start until minor maintenance was performed, after which the pilot taxied the aircraft along the strip towards the western end. He then turned the aircraft and, to the surprise of those present, commenced a take-off. Witnesses reported that the aircraft made two or three low orbits of the aerodrome, at times disappearing from sight behind trees. The accident occurred as the aircraft was approaching from the south, when the wings were seen to fold before the aircraft dived to the ground. The left wing was discovered to have failed at the point where it was attached to the fuselage, and had separated in flight. The reason for the structural failure has not been determined.

The aircraft was being flown for the first time. The pilot stated that after take-off the aircraft felt very nose heavy and that he had difficulty in maintaining a nose-up attitude after lift-off. When he attempted to reset the the elevator trim the friction nut broke. The back pressure that he was required to hold with the control column reduced as the airspeed increased. During the subsequent approach the pilot found he had insufficient elevator control available to flare the aircraft. On touchdown the aircraft bounced and a go-around was carried out. The pilot made several other landing attempts but on each occasion the aircraft bounced. On the final attempt the aircraft bounced a number of times before the right canard collapsed and the aircraft ran off the runway. The aircraft had been correctly loaded, with the centre of gravity 14 aft of the forward limit. The angles of incidence on the wing and the canard were found to be about 0.3 degrees outside the design specifications. It was apparent that there was a critical relationship between these angles, the centre of gravity position and the amount of pitch control available. The aircraft manufacturer subsequently recommended a modification to the control system.

The pilot reported that he had difficulty obtaining effective braking during the landing roll, due to a grassed, wet strip surface. He was able to initiate a groundloop near the end of the landing roll but the aircraft drifted sideways off the side of the strip prior to the upwind threshold. Very heavy rain had fallen during the previous night and up until 30 minutes prior to the landing, and there were areas of standing water on the strip. The airstrip was not suitable for the intended operation.

The pilot received a request at 5am from a neighbouring property to fly a seriously ill person to a hospital some 150 kilometres away. During the approach to the property strip the pilot realised that the aircraft was too high and too fast so he attempted a sideslip to lose altitude. The aircraft floated the full length of the strip before the pilot decided to go around. During the go-around the aircraft stalled at about 50 feet above the ground after the pilot had commenced a steeply banked climbing turn to avoid trees.

The pilot reported that the aircraft encounted turbulence late on the final approach. This resulted in a heavy landing during which the left maingear and nosegear were deformed. Turbulence was generated by a hill, on the upwind side of the strip, which acted to inhibit the gusty 25 knot wind blowing at the time. This accident was not the subject of an on-site investigation.

The pilot had held a Private Pilot Licence which had expired about six months prior to the accident. A witness reported that after the aircraft touched down it bounced about three times before landing in a nose down attitude which resulted in the nosegear strut failing in overload. The landing was attempted in a 10 knot crosswind and the pilot reported that the aircraft was affected by a wind gust during the landing sequence. The pilot was not in recent flying practice and had not flown for about five months prior to this trip.

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.