Collision with terrain

What happened

On 10 May 2026, a Robinson R44 helicopter was conducting a scenic flight from Hamilton Island to nearby Whitehaven Beach, Queensland. The flight was conducted in conjunction with a second R44 helicopter. Both helicopters had a pilot and 2 passengers on board from the same group.

At about 0910 local time, both helicopters made an approach to land on Whitehaven Beach from the north. The pilots had planned to land so the helicopters would be nose to nose on the beach, the pilot of the first helicopter had planned to land in the downwind direction. The pilot of the first helicopter accelerated to increase the distance from the second helicopter and reduce any effects of their downwash on the second helicopter’s landing. 

Having identified the landing area, the pilot of the first helicopter initiated a left crosswind turn and had intended to bring the helicopter to a hover crosswind at the landing area before conducting a hover turn 90° to the left to land downwind.

The pilot reported they inadvertently overflew the landing area which resulted in them conducting a downwind approach to land. As the aircraft slowed and lost translational lift,¹ the pilot applied additional power, however, the helicopter settled into the soft sand with the right skid low. With a high power setting applied and the right skid anchored by the soft sand, the helicopter quickly rolled onto its right side, impacting the main rotor blades onto the sand before coming to a stop.

The pilot then shut off the fuel supply to the engine and switched the battery off before they assisted the passengers to egress from the back seats. One passenger suffered a minor injury to their leg and was treated by the pilot from the onboard first-aid kit. The helicopter was substantially damaged.

Figure 1: Occurrence R44 helicopter 

* Note – The main rotor blades had been removed for transport. Source: Operator, adjusted by the ATSB

Wind conditions recorded 12 km away at Hamilton Island, at 0900, indicated an east‑south‑easterly wind at 24 kt. 

Safety action

The operator of both helicopters advised that the pilot’s actions were not in accordance with company standard operating procedures and the pilot should have aborted the approach to landing after misjudging the landing area.

Following the occurrence the operator advised they intended to implement a pilot decision‑making course into their pilot training syllabus.

Safety message

Helicopters operate more efficiently at a particular airspeed. At 55 kt, the R44 helicopter uses the least amount of power to maintain height and as airspeed increases or decreases from 55 kt an increase in power is required to maintain the intended flight path.

After misjudging the landing area, the pilot’s decision to continue to land via a downwind approach reduced their airspeed and therefore increased the power required to maintain the desired rate of descent, and consequently was unable to arrest the descent with the power available.

The Robinson R44 pilot operating handbook safety tip number 10 warns pilots on the risks of conducting take-offs and landings downwind:

Never make takeoffs or landings downwind, especially at high altitude. The resulting loss of translational lift can cause the aircraft to settle into the ground or obstacles. 

The misjudgement of the intended landing area in aviation is common, and sound pilot decision‑making following the misjudgement is critical to the continued safety of flight. Often the safest outcome is to abort the landing and allow time to reassess the planned approach. 

About this report

Decisions regarding whether to conduct an investigation, and the scope of an investigation, are based on many factors, including the level of safety benefit likely to be obtained from an investigation. For this occurrence, no investigation has been conducted and the ATSB did not verify the accuracy of the information. A brief description has been written using information supplied in the notification and any follow-up information in order to produce a short summary report, and allow for greater industry awareness of potential safety issues and possible safety actions.

1. ^    Translational lift occurs when clear, undisturbed air flows through the rotor system, either from wind or directional flight improving rotor efficiency

What happened

On 3 April 2026, the pilot of a Cirrus SR20 planned a private solo flight from Bankstown to Shellharbour, New South Wales. The pilot was planning to complete circuit practice and then return the aircraft to Bankstown.

During cruise to Shellharbour at 2,400 ft AMSL, while operating in autopilot mode, the fuel mixture was leaned¹ and the pilot observed multiple brief power reductions shortly thereafter. The vibrations lasted 1–2 seconds and did not persist, and the pilot elected to continue to Shellharbour as planned. 

Having completed 3 non-eventful circuits on runway 34 at Shellharbour, a fourth circuit was commenced. While the aircraft was established on downwind, the pilot switched fuel tanks to conserve fuel. A landing and subsequent take‑off for a fifth circuit was then commenced. During upwind at approximately 350–450 ft AMSL, the pilot observed several momentary power losses followed by a sustained loss of power and a significant vibration. The engine was fluctuating between the production of power and loss of power. 

The pilot was aware of the low altitude and low airspeed and conducted a forced landing in a vacant paddock to the west of the airfield. Prior to landing, the pilot confirmed that the throttle was in the full position with an accompanying rich fuel mixture and the fuel pump in the on position. Just prior to touching down, the aircraft entered an aerodynamic stall and collided with terrain resulting in substantial damage to the left wing and undercarriage (Figure 1). The pilot sustained minor injuries. 

The post-flight engineering inspection revealed an induction leak at the no. 1 position induction pipe and a brief rough running magneto. Engineers replaced the no. 2 fuel injector nozzle and 2 of the magneto plugs. 

Cirrus airframe parachute system 

The Cirrus airframe parachute system (CAPS) is designed to safely lower the aircraft and its occupants to the ground, under parachute, in the event of a life-threatening emergency where activation is determined to be safer than continued flight, such as medical incapacitation or airframe failure. In this instance, due to the aircraft’s low altitude, the pilot did not deploy the parachute.

Figure 1: Aircraft wreckage

Source: Media, annotated by the ATSB

Safety message

During emergency operations at low altitude, pilots are encouraged to be decisive when selecting the appropriate landing area, as well as vigilant in maintaining the speed required for a forced landing to avoid a stall prior to touchdown. Should the aircraft enter an aerodynamic stall, execute the stall recovery technique. 

About this report

Decisions regarding whether to conduct an investigation, and the scope of an investigation, are based on many factors, including the level of safety benefit likely to be obtained from an investigation. For this occurrence, no investigation has been conducted and the ATSB did not verify the accuracy of the information. A brief description has been written using information supplied in the notification and any follow-up information in order to produce a short summary report, and allow for greater industry awareness of potential safety issues and possible safety actions.

1. ^    The mixture is leaned for stages of flight that would require less fuel to maintain efficient engine operation. 

What happened

On 16 April 2026, a pilot and passenger on board a Van’s RV-7 departed Archerfield Airport on a private flight to Fig Tree Aircraft Landing Area (ALA), Queensland. The Fig Tree ALA had a 400 m unsealed grass runway at an elevation of 1,600 ft AMSL. The pilot noted that they were conscious of the increased risk of operating into an airstrip with a short runway and had conducted short field landing practice at Archerfield the day prior.

After arriving overhead Fig Tree airfield, a standard field inspection and a go-around was conducted to gain familiarity with the runway characteristics, as was required by the field operator. At 1110 local time, the aircraft commenced an approach and landing on runway 16. As the aircraft touched down midfield on the runway, the pilot determined that with the remaining landing distance available and the aircraft’s high speed, a go-around was required. During the go-around at approximately 20 ft AGL, the aircraft encountered sink and failed to climb as expected. The pilot made the decision to reduce the power to idle and attempted to conduct an off-field landing. The aircraft subsequently collided with thick shrubbery off the end of runway 16, resulting in substantial structural damage. (Figure 1). Both occupants were uninjured and extricated themselves from the aircraft. 

After the occurrence, the pilot recalled that the accident approach was faster than anticipated. The operator determined there were no technical faults with the engine that affected the reduced climbing performance.

Figure 1: Fig Tree ALA

Source: Operator, annotated by the ATSB

Safety message

The margin for error while operating at airfields with short runways is limited and requires pilots to conduct the appropriate short field take-off and landing technique. In the case when an approach becomes unsuitable for a safe landing to occur, it is vital that pilots conduct a go-around as soon as practical.

The occurrence also highlights the importance for all pilots to have a personal minimums checklist that aligns with their individual flying experience. If at any time the conditions exceed these minimums or doubt is experienced, pilots should not continue to land and consider using alternative runways, alternative airfields or returning to the departure location if the available fuel permits.

About this report

Decisions regarding whether to conduct an investigation, and the scope of an investigation, are based on many factors, including the level of safety benefit likely to be obtained from an investigation. For this occurrence, no investigation has been conducted and the ATSB did not verify the accuracy of the information. A brief description has been written using information supplied in the notification and any follow-up information in order to produce a short summary report, and allow for greater industry awareness of potential safety issues and possible safety actions.

What happened

On 28 March 2026 at approximately 1400 local time, a Robinson R22 Beta was conducting commercial aerial mustering operations near Elliott, Northern Territory. As the helicopter was mustering cattle into a yard at about 20 ft above ground level (AGL), the tail of the helicopter contacted the ground, resulting in a loss of control. The pilot reported that they cut the throttle to settle the helicopter, landing upright but with a ‘slight yaw to the right’. As the ground underneath was uneven, the helicopter subsequently rolled over, coming to rest on its right side (Figure 1).

The helicopter sustained substantial damage to the main rotor blades, cockpit window, fuselage and tail rotor. The pilot received minor lacerations and was taken to hospital for further assessment.

Figure 1: R22 resting position

Source: Operator

Safety message

This incident highlights that low-level flying operations have a lower margin for error with minimal time to recover the aircraft in the event of a loss of control. 

Low-level flying, particularly during aerial mustering operations, is inherently high risk and therefore requires effective risk management. This should include a risk assessment to consider the hazards common to the type of operation, as well as specific to the location, to develop mitigations and reduce the chance of an accident occurring.

About this report

Decisions regarding whether to conduct an investigation, and the scope of an investigation, are based on many factors, including the level of safety benefit likely to be obtained from an investigation. For this occurrence, no investigation has been conducted and the ATSB did not verify the accuracy of the information. A brief description has been written using information supplied in the notification and any follow-up information in order to produce a short summary report, and allow for greater industry awareness of potential safety issues and possible safety actions.

What happened

On the afternoon of 28 March 2026, a Robinson R22 Beta II helicopter with the pilot and a passenger on board was conducting a private, stock monitoring flight around 55 km to the south-east of St George Airport, Queensland. The weather was reported as fine, with 20 km/h (10.8 kt) winds from the south. The pilot reported that while hovering into wind at a height of about 30 ft, they commenced a pedal turn¹ to the right, away from a line of trees. During the turn downwind, the turn rate began to increase and they were unable to arrest or control the rotation – estimating that the helicopter spun through approximately 450 degrees before it descended to heavily contact the ground. The rotating motion during ground contact resulted in the helicopter rolling onto its left side, sustaining substantial damage to the main and tail rotors, tail boom and cabin. Both pilot and passenger were able to egress through the right doorway and were uninjured.

Figure 1: Helicopter after being returned upright following the accident

Source: Helicopter operator, edited by the ATSB

Engineering examination

The helicopter was recovered and examined by maintenance personnel, with attention to the tail rotor drive train and controls. No evidence of pre-existing mechanical defects was identified, with all damage consistent with being sustained during the accident sequence.

Safety message

Unanticipated yaw

Directional (yaw) control of single main rotor helicopters is primarily achieved through the pilot’s manipulation of tail rotor thrust. The torque produced by the drive transmitted through the main rotor is counterbalanced by the tail rotor thrust, with the pilot’s control of that thrust allowing controlled movement of the helicopter about its vertical axis.

In the hover and at low forward airspeeds, several aerodynamic effects can influence the anti-torque effectiveness of the tail rotor system. These can produce yaw motions unanticipated by the pilot, and which, if not immediately arrested, can result in a loss of helicopter control. Collectively known as Loss of Tail Rotor Effectiveness (LTE) phenomena, these include:

• main rotor disk vortex interference
• weathercock stability
• tail rotor vortex ring state
• loss of translational lift.

The United States Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) advisory circular AC 90-95 and the Helicopter Flying Handbook - Chapter 11: Helicopter emergencies and hazards explain these effects and recommend avoiding the following flight conditions when operating at forward airspeeds below 30 kt:

• tailwinds
• out-of-ground effect hovers and high-power demand situations such as low‑speed downwind turns
• hovering in winds above 8–12 kt (especially when out-of-ground effect).

AC 90-95 recommends the following recovery actions if experiencing LTE:

• application of full pedal opposite the direction of rotation
• forward cyclic movement to increase speed
• reduction in power if altitude permits.

About this report

Decisions regarding whether to conduct an investigation, and the scope of an investigation, are based on many factors, including the level of safety benefit likely to be obtained from an investigation. For this occurrence, no investigation has been conducted and the ATSB did not verify the accuracy of the information. A brief description has been written using information supplied in the notification and any follow-up information in order to produce a short summary report, and allow for greater industry awareness of potential safety issues and possible safety actions.

What happened

On 27 March 2026, a Bell 206L helicopter was being used to transport a passenger to a remote telecommunications work site. The helicopter made a refuelling stop at Weipa Aerodrome, where the passenger was disembarked to a safe location for the refuelling. In preparation for the subsequent departure, the pilot conducted a visual inspection down both sides of the helicopter, including rechecking the fuel cap was secured and the bowser was safely stowed.

As the pilot initiated the hover for take-off, the passenger notified the pilot that the ground (tie-down) cable was moving while, simultaneously, the helicopter rolled onto its left side, due to the left skid becoming caught on the cable. The pilot and the passenger were able to exit the helicopter uninjured, however the helicopter was substantially damaged.

Figure 1: Aircraft damage

Source: Queensland Police, edited by the ATSB

Safety message

In this occurrence, the proximity of the ground tie-down cable to the helicopter’s skid was not identified during the visual inspection prior to departure from the refuelling stop. Given the significance of the consequences when a skid becomes stuck on an object during take-off, the ATSB emphasises the importance of pilots conducting thorough visual checks when parking helicopters in the vicinity of potential hazards. 

About this report

Decisions regarding whether to conduct an investigation, and the scope of an investigation, are based on many factors, including the level of safety benefit likely to be obtained from an investigation. For this occurrence, no investigation has been conducted and the ATSB did not verify the accuracy of the information. A brief description has been written using information supplied in the notification and any follow-up information in order to produce a short summary report, and allow for greater industry awareness of potential safety issues and possible safety actions.

What happened

On the morning of 30 of March 2026, a pilot was conducting aerial agricultural spraying operations in a Thrush S2R-T34, consisting of multiple loads.

After returning to the work area to conduct the second load at approximately 0830 local time, the aircraft entered the next spray run over a tree line. While the pilot began to round-out the aircraft for the run, prior to releasing the load at approximately 5 ft above ground level, the aircraft collided with terrain. The main landing gear struck the ground first, subsequently collapsing, and the aircraft slid wings level, eventually coming to rest in the paddock.

The initial impact resulted in the main landing gear sustaining most of the damage with further minor damage to the propeller and wings reported by the operator (Figure 1). The pilot was not injured and extracted themself from the aircraft.

Figure 1: Aircraft post-accident

Source: Operator, annotated by the ATSB

A discussion with the operator post-accident revealed the pilot entered the spray run at a low airspeed and was unable to round-out after passing over the tree line. As the aircraft had returned to the work area for the second load of the day, the aircraft was operating close to the maximum operating weight with an approximate load of 1,800 litres on board. This combination probably affected the pilot’s ability to arrest the descending manoeuvre. The pilot reported that they felt ‘fully alert’ and had obtained 12 hours of sleep in the previous 24 hours. 

Safety message

Pilots of aircraft conducting agricultural operations must ensure that they maintain continuous situational awareness of the aircraft’s state. Due to the reduced safety margins while flying at low level, effective and active information scanning is key to building an accurate mental model of the pilot’s environment, which enables timely and sound decisions to be made. If an aircraft does enter an abnormal state (such as becoming too slow), effective instrument scanning provides the pilot with information to be able to decide if a spray run or other complex manoeuvring should be aborted.

About this report

Decisions regarding whether to conduct an investigation, and the scope of an investigation, are based on many factors, including the level of safety benefit likely to be obtained from an investigation. For this occurrence, no investigation has been conducted and the ATSB did not verify the accuracy of the information. A brief description has been written using information supplied in the notification and any follow-up information in order to produce a short summary report, and allow for greater industry awareness of potential safety issues and possible safety actions.