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.

The pilot was engaged on cotton spraying operations. During the second take-off for the day from this particular strip, a cow ran in front of the aircraft. The pilot attempted to fly over the top of the animal, however the left maingear struck and killed the cow. The pilot was able to maintain control of the aircraft, and diverted to a more suitable aerodrome, where a landing was made without further damage. The strip in use was not fenced to prevent the entry of stock, which had not caused problems in the past. Since the accident the property owner had installed suitable fencing.

After a short flight with three passengers, the owner offered one of the passengers who held a Private Pilot Licence a further flight as pilot in command, as she had not flown this particular aircraft model previously. The aircraft was seen to take off, complete a circuit, land very heavily, and bounce into the air to a height of about 20 feet. Witnesses heard the engine noise increase and saw the aircraft climb slowly with a high nose attitude and with full flap set, to a height of about 80 feet. The aircraft then entered a flat, unsteady, skidding turn to the left through about 180 degrees. After flying straight for a short period, still at very low speed, the left wing and nose dropped suddenly, and the aircraft impacted the ground. Evidence was found of the nose landing gear lower attachment bracket having been misaligned prior to final impact. This could have resulted from the heavy landing and jammed the lower section of the strut preventing its normal movement and/or buckling the lower firewall and adjacent fuselage area. Such damage could cause a jammed rudder control. There is evidence of high foot loads being applied to the right hand rudder pedal(s) at impact. This is consistent with the aircraft having the rudder jammed to the left and could account for the abnormal skidding left turn performed by the aircraft after the heavy landing. Ground impact occurred with the flaps at 10 degrees. It is probable that action was taken to raise the flaps after the turn in an attempt to increase aircraft performance, but the combination of low speed and incompatible control surface deflections caused the aircraft to stall.

A fly-in had taken place to the site of an aviation museum. At the conclusion of the organised activities, it was decided to position the Ceres in such a manner as to allow it to be photographed against the background of the museum hangar. Shortly after start-up, the engine stopped of its own volition, and after the restart it faltered again prior to a normal take-off. During the flight the engine again lost power and the pilot was committed to a forced landing. The only area suitable for landing had a group of Tiger Moth aircraft at the far end, and after touchdown the pilot initiated a ground loop in order to avoid these aircraft. The left gear leg collapsed and the aircraft slewed to a stop short of the parked aircraft. Examination of the fuel system revealed that seals in the hand-operated fuel pump had deteriorated and cracked. This allowed air to enter the system and cause fuel starvation.

The pilot had arranged to take each of his guests on a scenic flight of the local area. On the second of these flights, the passenger took along a video camera. The aircraft was observed flying at a low altitude and subsequently struck the top wire of a 10 metre high three strand power line. The aircraft then continued towards rising ground, climbed over a row of trees before descending rapidly into the ground. A fire broke out and consumed the fuselage of the aircraft. An inspection of the wreckage revealed that only the underside of the rear of the aircraft had struck the wire. It is considered unlikely that this impact would have adversely effected the control of the aircraft, other than to reduce its airspeed. The inspection did not reveal any other defect that could have contributed to the occurrence. It is probable that as the aircraft was climbed over the trees it stalled and that there was insufficient altitude available for the pilot to recover the aircraft. Both occupants survived the impact but were apparently unable to evacuate the aircraft and died in the subsequent fire.