Prior to the flight the pilot ascertained that the strip was serviceable although rain had fallen in the area. The previous aircraft had landed without difficulty. However, as the pilot of VH-ENU applied braking after touchdown the aircraft began to slide. The pilot considered carrying out a go-around but elected to continue with the landing. The aircraft overran the strip and travelled 67 metres before stopping. Touchdown was made over halfway along the 820 metre-long strip and mainwheel skid marks were evident over the last 120 metrs of the strip. The pilot's decision not to carry out a go-around after landing was influenced by the length of strip remaining after touch down.

The pilot was undertaking a cross country training flight and was forced to make an outlanding. On late final for a ploughed paddock it became apparent that the area was inundated with rocks up to 200 mm in diameter. During the landing roll extensive damage was caused to the undercarriage frame and doors and to the wheel and tyre. Witnesses indicated that more suitable landing areas were available to the pilot. This accident was not the subject of an on-site investigation.

Towards the end of a spraying operation, the pilot manoeuvred the aircraft for a clean-up run. This required flying between two trees, before diverting around another tree and pulling up over a power line. The first part of the manoeuvre was accomplished , but as the pilot applied rudder to yaw around the single tree, his left foot slipped off the rudder pedal. He then tried to lift the right wing over the tree, but the outer section of the wing struck a large branch. The pilot was able to maintain limited control of the aircraft, which touched down heavily in a nearby paddock. The pilot had experienced some discomfort of his left leg, possibly due to his wearing of shoes with lower heels than those on the boots he normally wore. To alleviate the discomfort, he had placed his foot on the side of the left rudder pedal, from which it had slipped when pressure was applied to yaw the aircraft.

Towards the end of a 4 hour competition flight, the pilot realised that the aircraft would not reach the finishing line and that an outlanding would be necessary. After establishing the aircraft on final approach to the selected paddock, the pilot noticed a pile of stones obstructing the target touchdown area. While manoeuvring to avoid this obstruction, the left wing of the aircraft struck the ground and a ground loop ensued. The pilot had been suffering the effects of a head cold and sinus infection, and had probably become fatigued during the flight in demanding conditions. He had persisted in his efforts to reach the finish until the glider was too low to allow a more suitable paddock to be selected for the outlanding. This accident was not the subject of an on-site investigation.

As the pilot was about to flare the aircraft for landing, a sheep ran onto the strip. It struck the left landing gear, and the pilot carried out a go-around. The aircraft continued to perform normally, and a decision was made to land in the opposite direction, which gave a distance of about 1000 metres to the body of the sheep. During the landing roll the left gear progressively collapsed and the aircraft swung to the left. The propeller dug into the ground as the aircraft nosed down, before coming to rest in an upright position. The presence of sheep was a known operational hazard at the strip. The pilot was aware that damage had probably occurred to the left gear, but had elected to conduct another landing at the strip, where no facilities or persons were available to render assistance if required. An aerodrome with full emergency facilities was available 10 kilometres from the strip.

The pilot stated that a characteristic of the strip in use was that there existed off the north-eastern end an area of downdraught caused by prevailing wind blowing over the adjacent terrain and trees. To counteract this downdraught it was necessary to climb to at least 150 feet above the ground level prior to overflying the end of the strip. On this occasion, the pilot believed sufficient altitude had been gained after takeoff, and turned to the left to take advantage of the upgoing air. However, the aircraft encountered a downdraught and the pilot reported that he allowed the airspeed to get too low and the aircraft enetered a spin to the left. During the recovery attempt the aircraft entered a spin to the right and complete recovery was not achieved before ground impact.

The aircraft was cleared via a Standard Instrument DEPARTURE with an unrestricted climb to Flight Level (FL) 220. The aircraft climbed on track at an average rate of 1300 ft/min until FL130. The rate of climb then reduced to 350 ft/min until FL140, when the rate of climb increased to 1800 ft/min. At FL160 the aircraft entered a near vertical descent and radar contact was lost one minute later at 3100 feet. The aircraft impacted the ground in a near vertical attitude. Despite an extensive investigation, the reason for the loss of control leading to this accident could not be determined. There have been several other reported occurrences involving sudden loss of control in this aircraft type and the United States Federal Aviation Administration has conducted a certification review of the type. The results of that review do not appear to indicate any factors relevant to this particular accident.

During a flight earlier in the day, the pilot noted that an airspeed indicator he had fitted was not operating. This had been of no concern, as the original indicator fitted to the aircraft was functioning correctly. After landing and rectifying the defect in the new indicator, the pilot elected to carry out a further short flight. At about 200 feet after take-off the engine failed, and while attempting to restore power the pilot forgot to monitor the airspeed. The aircraft stalled at a height of about 100 feet, and the pilot was only able to regain partial control before the aircraft struck the ground heavily. The reason for the loss of engine power has not been established. This accident was not the subject of an on scene investigation.

As the final sequence of a licence test flight the examiner requested the pilot to carry out a normal autorotative landing from circuit height. The aircraft was flared slightly high, recovered but subsequently contacted the ground in a tail low attitude. It then bounced forward and the tail boom was severed by the main rotor. The aircraft flight manual specifies that touchdown following an autorotative descent must be made with the landing skids level. On this occasion touchdown was made on the heels of the skids, and the resulting oscillations of the aircraft allowed the main rotor blades to sail and strike the tail boom.

On initial touchdown the pilot detected an abnormality with the landing gear. An immediate go around was carried out and the pilot of another aircraft reported that the left main gear was sloping rearwards of its normal alignment. The pilot was committed to a landing with the gear in this position and the gear leg subsequently collapsed at about 60 knots. Initial investigation indicated that the failure of a slotted pin allowed the trunnion forward pivot pin to work itself free, with consequent misalignment of the gear leg. The pivot pin showed evidence of grinding, apparently carried out during maintenance in order to facilitate the fitting of the pin into its appropriate socket. However, the grinding also resulted in excessive free play, which allowed the pivot pin to apply bending loads to the slotted retaining pin and which resulted in the eventual failure of this pin.