Analysis of a video recording taken of the take-off run by the occupant of the front seat, indicated that the aircraft became airborne after a ground roll of about 18 seconds. The aircraft then continued in the direction of takeoff for a further 11 seconds at what appeared to be near to takeoff speed. The aircraft did not climb away. It was not clear from the recording whether or not the aircraft was airborne throughout the 11 seconds. At the end of this time however, the aircraft was on the ground and it then veered sharply to the right. At the time the prevailing wind was a left quartering crosswind. The pilot was unable to regain directional control and the aircraft ran off the side of the strip and struck an embankment before coming to rest inverted. No defect was found with the engine or flight controls and the aircraft weight and centre of gravity were within the required limits. The aircraft had been fitted with a braking system and had recorded 27 hours in service since the modification. An examination of the brake shoes revealed an excessive rate of wear to the left brake shoes, and a cable within the braking system was found to be incorrectly adjusted. However, whether these defects contributed to the development of the accident could not be established. The reason for the loss of directional control was not determined.

Before lining up for takeoff, the motor glider pilot estimated that there would be sufficient time for his takeoff to be completed between a landing glider, and the tug aircraft that had just joined the circuit. The takeoff was delayed by the time taken to clear the landing glider from the strip. The tug aircraft, just prior to turning final, was observed to increase power and head towards the departing motor glider which had just commenced its takeoff run. It passed low over the motor glider and the tow rope struck the right aileron of that aircraft. The glider pilot had lined his aircraft up for takeoff on the strip the tug pilot intended to use for landing. The tug pilot stated that his intention was to teach the glider pilot a lesson not to attempt to takeoff in front of him again. In taking this action the tug pilot forgot that the tow rope was still attached and trailing his aircraft.

The pilot reported that when the aircraft was in the cruise at 3500 feet he heard a noise followed by severe vertical and less severe lateral vibration. The aircraft was descended and checks carried out in an attempt to ascertain the cause of the vibration. The cause of the vibration was not determined and the pilot decided to hover taxi the aircraft back to the platform. The aircraft was subsequently landed on a barge without further incident. An inspection of the aircraft found that one of the two lugs on a main rotor blade flapping hinge had failed. The lug fractured as a result of fatigue which originated adjacent to an area of fretting where the blade retaining pin passes through the lug. These lugs had been known to suffer from a defect discovered in service, and the manufacturer introduced a requirement to fit protective washers to the spindle during overhaul in order to prevent the initiating of cracking. The head from this aircraft had been overhauled by the manufacturer some months before the accident and the protective washers were not fitted. The operator had not carried out a recent Maintenance Manual amendment to inspect the lugs of spindles without protective washers. This inspection was not mandatory in Australia at the time of the accident.

The glider was being winch launched. The launch was normal until the glider reached an altitude of about 70 feet above the strip when the winch cable went slack. The aircraft was levelled before commencing a descent and the landing flare was initiated at about 10 feet above the strip. The aircraft then stalled, landed heavily and bounced. The wheel collapsed during the landing roll. The winch engine failed during the launch due to an ignition problem.

During the takeoff run, the pilot reported that the aircraft encountered a crosswind from the left. Despite the application of left rudder and aileron the aircraft continued to drift towards the right of the strip. The pilot attempted to manoeuvre the aircraft over a gable marker but one of the mainwheels struck the marker and caused the aircraft to turn further to the right. The aircraft continued and the lower right wing was torn off after it struck a fence post. The aircraft came to rest 13 metres beyond the boundary fence. During the takeoff the wind velocity had changed appreciably and the aircraft had drifted well to the right of the strip before the pilot had attempted to take corrective action. The takeoff was not abandoned until after the aircraft had struck the fence.

The pilot was conducting a navigational exercise from Benalla to Benalla via overhead Tocumwal N.S.W. The wind conditions were northerly and gusting. The pilot realised he would be unable to effect a return and decided to outland. A paddock was chosen which appeared suitable and provided a good landing run into wind. However the paddock had been ploughed and grass had grown to 0.3 metres high. Following touchdown well into the field the combination of rough ground medium high grass and heavy braking caused the glider to ground loop breaking the rear fuselage as it did so. This accident was not the subject of an on-site investigation.

The pilot reported that on late final approach he lost all visual reference due to sunglare. He decided to carry out a go-around but heard a loud noise and the helicopter started to rotate. He was able to fly the aircraft clear of the platform before it descended into the sea. As the aircraft sank the pilot exited through the left door and after inflating his life jacket swam to the platform. Witnesses on the platform reported that the tail rotor struck the platform. No fault was found with the aircraft that may have contributed to the occurrence. It is considered likely that on encountering the loss of visual reference, the pilot inadvertently placed the helicopter in a tail-low attitude causing the tail section to strike the platform. This accident was not the subject of an on-site investigation.

During the final approach the aircraft became low and the right wing struck a tree. The aircraft turned sharply to the right and skidded sideways for 43 metres before coming to rest in the undershoot area. After completing the left base turn, the pilot thought that he was too high on the approach. He elected not to use flap or airbrake but turned the glider to the right, away from the strip. When he again turned left to assume a new base leg he realised that he had descended further than expected and immediately turned onto an oblique final. On final it was realised that a strong headwind was present which reduced the achievable gliding distance and resulted in the aircraft undershooting the strip.

At a height of about 100 feet after takeoff, the engine faltered briefly. It then returned to full power, but the pilot decided to conduct a low level circuit and land in order to investigate the apparent anomaly. On the downwind leg the engine stopped and the pilot was committed to a wheels-up landing in a paddock. Shortly before touchdown engine power was regained and the propeller contacted the ground under almost full power. The pilot later advised that he had inadvertently selected an almost empty fuel tank prior to takeoff. He had not checked the fuel selector when the first loss of power was noticed, because he had been convinced that he had selected the correct tank.

The pilot was carrying out a period of solo circuit training, after having completed three check circuits with an instructor. On the second landing, the aircraft bounced, then touched down again heavily on the nosewheel. The nosegear leg failed due to overload and the aircraft ran off the runway. The pilot was attempting to carry out a short field landing and misjudged the flare. He stated that following the bounce, the nose of the aircraft dropped and he was unable to regain the landing attitude before the nosewheel struck the runway. This accident was not the subject of an on-site investigation.