When the pilot arrived at the destination, the wind was swinging from south to south-west and gusting from 15 to 35 knots. Runway 23 was unserviceable, and the pilot later advised that there were no suitable grass areas for an into-wind landing. An approach was made to runway 26, but during the landing roll the aircraft was affected by a strong wind gust. The pilot was unable to maintain directional control, and the aircraft groundlooped, collapsing the right maingear. The pilot was relatively inexperienced on tailwheel type aircraft. He had elected to make a landing approach after being informed that the present wind was from 190 to 230 degrees at 18 knots. This would have resulted in a crosswind component of between 9 and 15 knots, while the maximum allowable for the aircraft type was 12 knots. More favourable landing conditions existed at other aerodromes in the area. The pilot had apparently not considered the possibility of strong wind gusts as he made the approach.

On arrival at the property, the pilot landed the aircraft in front of the homestead. A short time later he departed with the property owner on board for a cattle spotting flight. On returning to land, again in front of the homestead, the aircraft hit a single powerline, pitched nose up and fell to the ground inverted. The pilot stated that he was not aware of the presence of the powerline prior to colliding with it.

Nearing the completion of the task the aircraft struck a single power line. The aircraft remained airborne but the pilot decided to land in a paddock and assess the damage. He found that the top 30 centimetres of the rudder had been torn off. Prior to spraying the paddock, the pilot had physically checked the position of the powerline. During the application he had flown under it at least 12 times but whilst considering the best method to complete the clean-up runs, he forgot about its presence. The front mounting of the wire deflector had been attached to the top of the fibreglass cockpit and not mounted onto the solid roll-cage framing. When the powerline contacted the wire deflector, the fibreglass failed and allowed the deflector wire to sag under the imposed load. This allowed the powerline to run a lower path and sever the rudder substantially below the rear deflector attach point.

During the descent the pilot heard a loud bang, following which the engine stopped. An autorotational descent was carried out for a landing onto the clearest available area, a dry river bed. The helicopter touched down with some forward speed on the soft sand, pitched forward and rolled over. An inspection of the wreckage revealed that a connecting rod big-end had failed due to fatigue. These fatigue cracks had initiated in the area of the recesses for the big end bolt nuts, where production machining was found to be quite coarse. This accident was not the subject of an on-site investigation.

The takeoff was attempted on a grassed sandy strip. The pilot reported that the aircraft seemed to accelerate slower than normal. At 50 knots he lowered half flap, and as the indicated airspeed approached 60 knots he realised that insufficient runway length remained to effect the takeoff. The pilot pulled back on the control column but the aircraft did not rotate. He then closed the throttle but was unable to stop the aircraft in the remaining runway. The aircraft overran the runway and overturned. No fault was found with the aircraft that may have contributed to the occurrence. It is probable that the soft, sparsely covered, sandy strip surface contributed to the reported poor acceleration. The pilot's delay in abandoning the takeoff attempt resulted in there being insufficient strip remaining in which to stop the aircraft.

The pilot reported that while taxiing after landing the engine began to run roughly and stopped. He started the engine again and continued taxiing to the fuelling depot. After refuelling, the pilot carried out a fuel drain, removed and replaced the spark plugs, which were found to be clean, and started the engine. He completed an engine check and found that the engine ran roughly at idle but ran smoothly when operated at higher RPM. Shortly after takeoff, as the pilot was setting climb power, the engine failed. He was forced to carry out a landing on unsuitable terrain, and during the landing roll the nosegear broke off. An inspection of the engine found that the throttle to fuel control unit link rod assembly had become disconnected at the fuel control unit end following the loss of a split pin. This resulted in a mismatch between the internal position of the fuel control unit and the position of the throttle butterfly which was set by the pilot when he moved the throttle lever. The fuel control lever had apparently vibrated to a position where insufficient fuel was available to the engine to sustain engine power.

Agricultural operations had finished for the day and the pilot and his loader driver had filled the two inboard fuel tanks prior to the 30 minute ferry flight back to home base. For agricultural operations a full inboard tank equates to at least one hour's endurance. Approximately one hour elapsed between the time the aircraft was refuelled and when the engine was started for the ferry flight back to home base. During that time the aircraft was parked on a significant slope and unknown to the pilot, fuel had transferred from the high wing to the low wing, even though the pilot had positioned the fuel selector to prevent this occurring. Because of an unserviceable alternator and low battery power, the engine had to be started by the use of jumper leads. Approaching the destination, the engine failed due to fuel starvation. The pilot changed tanks and activated the high prime which probably did not work because of the state of the battery. The engine failed to restart, and the aircraft touched down just short of the strip that the pilot was intending to land on. It then ran through a fence and gorse hedge causing substantial damage to the stub wings. The pilot discovered after landing that the right inboard tank, which had been selected during refuelling and for the ferry flight, was empty. However, the left inboard tank was full and there was also a significant amount of fuel in the left outboard tank which had been empty at the time of refuelling. Tests conducted showed that the fuel selector was faulty, allowing fuel to transfer from the high inboard tank to the lower inboard tank. Non-return valves were not fitted in the fuel supply lines to the selector. Fuel transfer was also possible between the left inboard and outboard tanks via the fuel vent line between the two, with the aircraft parked laterally across a significant slope. It was also established that the pilot did not physically check the fuel in each tank before start-up, nor did he check the fuel indicators in flight. At the time of the engine failure he had not commenced prelanding checks.

The student was undertaking his fourth solo flight, and had been instructed to practice circuits with touch and go landings. After acknowledging a landing clearance, the pilot inadvertently dropped the microphone. He leant down to retrieve it, and shortly afterwards the aircraft touched down heavily about 200 metres in from the threshold. The aircraft bounced, the pilot applied forward elevator control, and a further heavy touchdown took place on the nosewheel and propeller. The nosegear folded back and the aircraft groundlooped to a halt on the flight strip. The student had become distracted from controlling the aircraft while attempting to retrieve the microphone. When he looked up again, he realised that the aircraft had deviated from the desired flight path, but he had persevered with the approach.

The pilot intended to conduct a short flight using Night VMC procedures. Shortly after take off from runway 29C, when the aircraft had reached a height of about 250 feet above the ground, the engine commenced to run roughly, with an associated loss of power. The pilot applied carburettor heat, but was unable to regain climbing power. A skidding left turn was carried out to position the aircraft for a downwind landing on the aerodrome. Touchdown occurred on a north-easterly heading near the eastern end of runway 29 on an unlit area. The aircraft bounced and power was applied to effect recovery. During the recovery the aircraft passed over a series of hangars before stalling at a low height and landing heavily on a sealed taxiway. An inspection of the engine revealed that the power loss was caused by a mechanical failure of the right magneto which affected the ignition timing.

The aircraft was being taxied on a confined apron when it collided with a concrete tie-down block. Earlier in the morning another aircraft was parked on the apron and tied to the block. That aircraft was subsequently moved into an adjacent hangar by aircraft maintenance personnel, but they neglected to remove the tie-down block. The pilot reported that he did not notice the tie-down block, which was similiarly coloured to the apron surface. His attention was apparently diverted to maintaining wingtip clearance from five other aircraft parked around the perimeter of the apron.