Loss of control

What happened

On the morning of 21 August 2026, the pilot prepared a Eurocopter AS 350 helicopter for a personal transport flight, under the day visual flight rules,¹ from a private property to the Hunter Falls in the Jardine River National Park, Queensland. The pilot completed a pre‑flight inspection which included a visual check of a minor blade repair which was undertaken during a recent periodic inspection. Since the repair, the helicopter had flown about 21 hours without incident and the pilot recalled that no defects were observed with the repair during the inspection. 

The flight departed at about 1200 local time with the pilot and 3 passengers on board. After arriving at Hunter Falls the pilot conducted an orbit of the easternmost falls. While manoeuvring the helicopter towards the westernmost falls they detected a mild vibration through the cyclic.² Conscious of the recent repair, the pilot thought it prudent to conduct a precautionary landing to check the helicopter for the source of the vibration. The falls were surrounded by vegetation with limited suitable areas for a landing, however one such site was identified at the top of the westernmost falls (Figure 1).

 Figure 1: Flight path

To expedite the landing, the pilot elected to conduct a downwind approach to the clear area at the top of the western falls. The pilot recalled this required additional control inputs to manage the tailwind, however they did not experience any difficulty maintaining control. 

As the helicopter approached the landing site the pilot assessed there was enough room to land and that the main rotors would pass clear of the trees. However, at about 5 ft above the ground, the main rotor blades contacted a small tree and the helicopter began to buck fore and aft, and side to side, edging towards the rock ledge of the waterfall. The pilot shifted their focus to landing as soon as possible while managing the oscillating and erratic movements of the helicopter in close proximity to trees. After placing the skids on the rocky surface, the helicopter tail swung counter-clockwise coming to rest against a small tree (Figure 2). The occupants of the helicopter were uninjured. The helicopter sustained significant damage to the main rotor blades and tail rotor blades, with minor damage to the lower section of the vertical stabiliser and the right horizontal stabiliser. 

Figure 2: Landing site

Safety message

Precautionary landings in response to abnormal indications often require the pilot to land as soon as possible. When flying over bushland, the first suitable location may be an unfamiliar, unprepared and confined landing site. A full assessment of the site may not always be possible, especially when managing a technical fault. While the main rotor clearance was misjudged on this occasion, the prompt decision‑making of the pilot ensured the flight was terminated before the abnormal indications could progress to a potentially more serious condition.

CASA guidance in Advisory Circular AC 91-29 Guidelines for helicopters – suitable places to take off and land  provides recommended minimum standard safety margins for the selection of and operation at confined landing sites.

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. ^    Visual flight rules (VFR): a set of regulations that permit a pilot to operate an aircraft only in weather conditions generally clear enough to allow the pilot to see where the aircraft is going

2. ^    Cyclic: a primary helicopter flight control that is similar to an aircraft control column. Cyclic input tilts the main rotor 

   disc, varying the attitude of the helicopter and hence the lateral direction

What happened

On the morning of 26 September 2026, a student pilot and instructor on board a Cessna 172R set out to conduct a flight check at 0830 local time. The aircraft departed Gold Coast Airport, Queensland, for Murwillumbah Airfield, New South Wales, to carry out circuits as part of the check.

At approximately 0838 local, the aircraft arrived overhead the airfield and joined the circuit intending to conduct a touch-and-go¹ on runway 19, a grass landing strip. The landing distance available at Murwillumbah on runway 19 was 800 m due to a 245 m displaced threshold² (Figure 1). 

Figure 1: Murwillumbah Airfield

During the first circuit, the aircraft touched down approximately halfway down the runway. At some point during the ground roll, the decision was made to abort the touch-and-go (take-off) and the pilot flying applied brakes. Upon braking, the crew immediately noticed the aircraft failed to slow down and recognised the aircraft had begun to skid. The aircraft wheels had lost traction, and the crew had lost effective control as the aircraft continued to skid. The aircraft subsequently exited the end of runway 19 and collided into a ditch off the end of the runway.

The aircraft sustained substantial damage, and both occupants received various minor injuries.

It was reported by the crew that the aircraft appeared high and fast on final approach which contributed to the delayed touchdown, therefore reducing the distance available to stop the aircraft. 

Figure 2: Aircraft post-accident

Safety message

Unstable approaches are a common precursor to runway overruns. Pilots must consider conducting an early go-around when the speed and height of the aircraft become undesirable on approach. Go-arounds are a key defence to prevent fast and long landings that reduce the landing distance available for the aircraft to be safely stopped.

Brake lockup is another risk that can lead to a loss of control during the ground roll and subsequent overrun. When the braking force applied by the pilot exceeds the tyres’ traction to the surface, the wheels may stop turning, leading to the aircraft entering a skidding state. Unsealed grass runways offer less traction, therefore increasing the risk of brake lock up.

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. ^    Touch-and-go: a manoeuvre in which an aircraft conducts an approach, touches the runway, and immediately takes off again.
2. ^    Threshold: the beginning portion of the runway useable for landing.

What happened

On 22 September 2026, a Robinson R44 Raven I helicopter was conducting personal transport operations under the day visual flight rules¹ with a pilot and 3 passengers on board. The purpose of the operation was to transport the 3 passengers, who were on a hunting trip, to various locations on a private cattle station near Katherine, Northern Territory. During the morning and early afternoon, several flights were undertaken to different locations for the passengers to undertake this activity.

At about 1345, the pilot commenced a take-off from a treed area, with an elevation of about 30 ft, with the 3 passengers on board. The weather at the time of the occurrence recorded at Tindal Airport, located around 115 km to the east of the take-off site, captured a wind of between 4–9 kt from the south‑south‑east, a sea-level barometric pressure (QNH) of 1014 hPa and a temperature of 35°C. The pilot reported that shortly after take-off, at a height just above tree level, the helicopter encountered a change in wind direction, with it shifting to the west. This resulted in the helicopter operating downwind, and it began to sink. 

The pilot recalled hearing a warning horn, likely the low rotor speed warning, as they tried to maintain height, but the helicopter continued to sink. In response, the pilot elected to commence a landing in a small clearing. As the helicopter descended towards the clearing, the pilot recalled that the tail rotor contacted a tree, the helicopter began to yaw, and they were unable to maintain control. They recalled that the helicopter then started to rotate and struck another tree before it impacted the ground and rolled onto its left side. The pilot then assisted the passengers to egress the helicopter by removing a side bubble window. 

One passenger suffered a serious neck injury, while the pilot and the 2 other passengers sustained minor cuts and bruises. All 3 passengers were wearing car-style seat restraints. The helicopter was substantially damaged.     

The group was able to call for assistance using a satellite phone and emergency services arrived by helicopter about 90 minutes later.

Safety message

Helicopter performance can be significantly affected by environmental conditions, particularly during low level operations at low airspeed. 

Pilots should remain aware of prevailing wind conditions and the potential effect on helicopter performance when operating downwind or transitioning from into wind to downwind flight. Pilots should also consider the effects of temperature on performance. 

When operating at low height, consideration should be given to the surrounding obstacles and maintaining a flight path that provides options in the event of an unexpected reduction in performance.

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. ^    Visual flight rules (VFR): a set of regulations that permit a pilot to operate an aircraft only in weather conditions generally clear enough to allow the pilot to see where the aircraft is going.

What happened

On the afternoon of 5 July 2026, a Yakovlev Aircraft Factories YAK-52 ex-military aircraft was being prepared for a private solo familiarisation flight from Whitsunday Airport (Shute Harbour), Queensland. The pilot advised that the intention was to exercise the aircraft’s engine through normal operation and to conduct practice aerobatics.

Following the pilot’s routine daily pre-flight inspection, the aircraft departed Shute Harbour with a maximum expected flight duration of 50 minutes. The pilot reported the approach to Shute Harbour airport runway 14 was normal and recalled confirming ‘three greens’ and ‘barber poles out’ indications¹ for safe extension of the landing gear.

Upon touchdown, the pilot recalled that the aircraft began porpoising² and wobbling laterally, before veering to the left. Unable to control the directional change with braking, the aircraft left the runway edge, crossed the eastern taxiway and struck an electrical junction box (pillar box) before coming to rest in a drainage ditch (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Aircraft at rest within a drainage ditch

The pilot, who was uninjured, immediately shut down the aircraft’s fuel, electrical, oil and air systems before safely evacuating. The pilot recalled observing the left main landing gear had collapsed and the corresponding barber pole indicator lowered as they were leaving the aircraft. 

The pilot reported that at no stage did they touch or inadvertently move the landing gear selector during the landing roll or subsequent runway excursion. A supplied picture of the cockpit configuration taken after the aircraft came to rest (Figure 2) showed the landing gear selector in the down and locked position and the flap selector in the lowered position.

Figure 2: Cockpit layout with landing gear and flap controls noted

Engineering examination

The YAK-52 aircraft employs pneumatic systems for many aircraft functions, including landing gear extension and retraction. When extended, the landing gear is locked in place by a mechanism within the actuation ram; the gear is released for retraction by air pressure supplied by a pilot-operated selector in the cockpit.

Following recovery of the aircraft, the operator removed and shipped the left main landing gear actuation assembly to the aircraft’s maintenance provider for examination and testing. The assembly was found to be in good operational condition, with no evidence of defects or damage that would have prevented the gear leg from locking into position. Tests confirmed the locking mechanism worked as required, locking down positively and releasing smoothly.

The ATSB was advised that no other components from the aircraft’s landing gear assemblies or rigging had been examined following the aircraft’s recovery and the factors contributing to the collapse of the aircraft’s left main landing gear remained unidentified.

Safety message

In this instance, while there was no reported evidence to suggest that the left main landing gear collapse and subsequent runway excursion had resulted from any pilot action, the aircraft type has a history of unintended gear retraction during landing and ground operation.

In many instances these occurrences have been attributed to the cockpit design, which places the landing gear selector lever immediately adjacent to 2 indicator lamps that report the aircraft’s wing flap position (raised/lowered). While the flap selector lever is located to the pilot’s left, the co-location of the flap indicators and landing gear selector creates an ergonomic risk that pilots may unintentionally raise the landing gear when intending to raise the flaps after landing.

The following occurrences are examples of those that have been associated with inadvertent landing gear retraction in the YAK‑52:

• LY-AKF, 3 October 1999, AAIB Ref: EW/G99/10/02
• LY-AHF, 24 July 2001, AAIU Ref: 2002-014
• G-CBMD, 3 May 2014, AAIB Ref: EW/G2014/05/02
• G-LYFA, 22 September 2025, Aviation Safety Network Ref: 566953

About this report

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

1. ^    The YAK-52 aircraft provides 2 independent landing gear position indicating systems – the conventional, electrically‑operated red/green indicator lamps within the cockpit, and separate external, mechanically-operated red and white striped poles (barber poles) that extend from the corresponding upper wing surfaces when the landing gear is lowered.
2. ^    Porpoising is an informal term used to describe the repeated upward and downward movement of the aircraft about the pitch axis during the landing process.

What happened

On 7 September 2026, at Parafield Airport, South Australia, a pilot was undergoing a proficiency check flight with an instructor in a Bell 47G-5A helicopter. At about 1130 local time, the helicopter was taxiing to the north of the airport when the pilot flying reported encountering control issues in the hover. The pilot elected to conduct a running landing and then assess the control issues encountered while on the ground.

During the running landing, the pilot reported they misjudged the helicopter’s proximity to the ground resulting in the helicopter touching down hard on the taxiway. As a result, the main rotor disk flexed and struck the helicopter tail boom section. The tail rotor assembly separated, and the main rotor sustained various chip and split damage associated with a main rotor tail strike (Figure 1). The left horizontal stabiliser was also cut from the helicopter (Figure 2). After the helicopter came to rest, a fuel leak was detected. The pilot and instructor were not injured.

Figure 1: Main and tail rotor damage

Figure 2: Left horizontal stabiliser 

Running landing

A running landing is a shallow approach manoeuvre conducted by helicopter pilots utilising the effects of translational lift.¹ The helicopter lands with significant forward motion and maintains some forward motion after touching down. The landing method can be used during various emergency situations including jammed anti-torque pedals, hydraulic failure or when a pilot encounters a lack of power to sustain the helicopter in a hover.

Safety message

Pilots should have a thorough understanding of the correct running landing technique to ensure the manoeuvre is carried out safely. Maintaining sufficient ground speed and rotor RPM to remain in translational lift decreases the risk of an abrupt or hard landing. It is equally important to continuously monitor the helicopter’s proximity in relation to the ground to allow for a smooth touchdown. As highlighted by this occurrence, an abrupt or hard landing may result in the main rotor blades flexing and striking the tail boom. 

In addition, pilots should be aware of the issues associated with excessive aft cyclic² inputs to correct forward nose pitching movements while conducting the manoeuvre. The main rotor blades may contact the tail boom if the rotor disk aft pitch is excessive.

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 from wind or forward speed.
2. ^    Cyclic: a primary helicopter flight control that is similar to an aircraft control column. Cyclic inputs tilt the main rotor disc, varying the attitude of the helicopter and hence the lateral direction.

What happened

On 11 September 2026 at approximately 0900 local time, the pilot of a PZL M-18B aircraft departed Mount Wilkins airstrip, Queensland, operating under visual flight rules (VFR).¹ The pilot reported fine weather conditions with an east-south-easterly wind of approximately 13 kt and a temperature of 18–19°C. During the take-off roll while transitioning to a tail-up attitude, the aircraft encountered a suspected willy-willy.²

The pilot lost directional control of the aircraft and reported a sudden and violent movement of the control column resulting in an uncommanded roll. The pilot attempted to apply full aileron and forward control inputs but was unable to regain control of the aircraft. The aircraft subsequently departed the runway and collided with a fence resulting in substantial damage to the airframe, wing structure, engine and propeller (Figure 1). The pilot sustained minor soft-tissue injuries. 

The post-flight inspection indicated no evidence of a mechanical failure.

Figure 1: Aircraft damage

Safety message

Past studies have indicated that willy-willies are unseen, unpredictable and can adversely affect light aircraft when they are operating on or close to the ground. Pilots must be prepared to react to mitigate the effects of willy-willies and maintain control of the aircraft.

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. ^    Visual flight rules (VFR): a set of regulations that permit a pilot to operate an aircraft only in weather conditions generally clear enough to allow the pilot to see where the aircraft is going.

2. ^    Willy-willies (also known as dust devils) are revolving masses of air resulting from local atmospheric instability, such as that caused by intense heating of the air mass adjacent to the ground by the sun on a hot day. They can be 3–100 m in diameter and up to 300 m high. Wind speeds inside the vortex reach a maximum of 100 km/h.

    

What happened

On 24 August 2026, the pilot and sole occupant of a Robinson R22 helicopter was returning to base after conducting commercial cattle mustering in the area. The helicopter pad used for take-off and landings was a large concrete slab, slightly elevated above the ground (Figure 1). Upon landing, the pilot recalled that one of the helicopter skids caught the raised edge of the pad and the helicopter entered a spin. At this point, the pilot lost control of the helicopter and the tail rotor collided with terrain. The helicopter then tipped to the right, and the fuselage collided with the helicopter pad resulting in substantial damage. The pilot received minor injuries (bruising) in the accident. 

Substantial damage to the major components included the:

• main rotor blades and gearbox
• fuel tanks
• tail rotor assembly and gear box (detached)
• airframe panels on belly and pilot (right) side.

Figure 1: Landing location

The pilot advised the ATSB that their recollection of the events leading up to the accident was limited. They reported that the quick loss of control following the initial skid catch offered little time to perceive the events and attempt to prevent the resulting collision with terrain.

Dynamic rollover

A helicopter with one skid contacting the ground or a fixed object introduces the susceptibility for an uncontrolled lateral rolling movement around the skid known as ‘dynamic rollover’. As discussed in Aviation Brief AB-2026-039, once the critical rollover angle (specific to the helicopter) is passed, the main rotor thrust continues the roll and recovery is not possible. In dynamic rollover, a pilot’s instinct is to apply opposite cyclic input to rectify the lateral roll, however, once the critical roll angle is exceeded, cyclic inputs may be ineffective. Pilots should smoothly reduce the collective at the onset of lateral rolling movement around the skid.

Safety message

Helicopter landing locations can present unique hazards to pilots. Inadvertent contact of a helicopter’s skid can quickly lead to a serious outcome with minimal time afforded to pilots to attempt corrective action and recover the helicopter. 

Pilots should therefore have a thorough understanding of the principles and contributing factors of dynamic rollover, as well as the recovery methods, as described in the Robinson Helicopter Company’s Safety Notice SN-9.

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 26 June 2026, a pilot was landing a Robinson R22 helicopter in a paddock about 9 km north-west of Moree Airport, New South Wales.

The pilot reported being ‘rushed’ due to operational needs. During the landing, the helicopter's skid contacted a tuft of grass with a small amount of sideways movement while the collective was in a raised position. This resulted in a roll to the right.

With the helicopter’s skid still in contact with the ground, the main rotor blades impacted the ground. The helicopter came to rest on its right side and was substantially damaged (Figure 1). The pilot was uninjured.

Figure 1: Damaged helicopter in hangar post‑occurrence

Helicopter dynamic rollover

For dynamic rollover to occur, some factor must first cause the helicopter to roll or pivot around a skid or landing gear wheel, until its critical rollover angle is reached (Figure 2). The angle at which dynamic rollover occurs will vary based on helicopter type but is usually in the order of 15°. Beyond this point, main rotor thrust (and sometimes tail rotor thrust) continues the roll and recovery becomes impossible.

Figure 2:  Dynamic rollover 

Recovery from dynamic rollover prior to this point can be achieved by smoothly lowering the collective lever while controlling any tendency to roll in the opposite direction with cyclic to re-establish the helicopter’s weight evenly on the ground. In general, the application of smooth collective inputs is more effective in avoiding rollover issues than using the cyclic control.

Safety message

While bush landing sites and paddocks can be suitable landing areas, they are also prone to concealed hazards. Pilots need to make a conscious effort to operate in a slow and methodical manner so they can assess the environment and minimise sideways movement at touchdown.

Pilots should have a thorough understanding of the principles and contributing factors of dynamic rollover, as well as the recovery methods. This knowledge is essential to conduct safe helicopter operations, especially landing in unprepared areas.

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 19 May 2026, a non-scheduled passenger air transport flight was planned between Maningrida Airport and Garmedi Aircraft Landing Area, Northern Territory. The flight was operated in a Cessna 210 with a pilot and 3 passengers on board.

At approximately 1400 local time, the pilot conducted a straight-in approach for runway 10 during which the ‘before landing’ checklist was completed. One step in the checklist was to move the landing gear position lever to the down position for landing. On final approach, the pilot observed a green gear-down indication (Figure 1) and used a secondary exterior mirror installed on the wing to visually confirm the landing gear position. The pilot reported to the ATSB that the landing gear appeared to be down and locked.

Figure 1: Landing gear panel

The touch down and initial landing roll all appeared normal to the pilot. After beginning to apply the brakes, the aircraft started to tilt and veer to the right of the runway centreline as the right main landing gear collapsed. The pilot attempted to correct the uncommanded right movement with full left rudder and brake, but the aircraft did not respond to the control inputs. As it became clear a runway excursion was imminent, the pilot promptly shut down the engine by cutting the fuel flow to the engine. The passengers were instructed to brace and the aircraft veered off the right side of the runway. The aircraft sustained substantial damage, however the pilot and passengers were uninjured.

Engineering notes

The Cessna 210L has a retractable tricycle landing gear system powered by an electrically-driven hydraulic pump. When the landing gear lever is moved to the ‘down’ position, the pump provides pressure to the hydraulic actuators. The actuators move and lock the gear into the selected position and 3 microswitches close to illuminate the gear‑down indicator light (Figure 1). When the light is illuminated, the hydraulic pump pressure is switched to the landing gear door system, effectively stopping the actuators from operating.

After the occurrence, the engineering inspection found damage to the down and lock microswitch for the right main gear and determined it was stuck in the closed position. When the landing gear cycle was commenced, it is likely the left main gear and nose gear locked first. With 3 microswitches closed, the down and locked indicator illuminated and the actuators ceased, rendering the right main gear not fully down and not locked. The pilot was unaware of the landing gear state and consequently, the right main landing gear collapsed during the landing roll. 

Safety message

A similar occurrence involving the same aircraft model was reported to the ATSB: Landing gear failure involving Cessna 210L, at Hodgson Downs, Northern Territory, on 17 April 2019 (AB-2019-015),which highlights the difficulty of dealing with a collapsed landing gear during the landing roll.

In this recent occurrence, the pilot’s quick actions to shut the engine down prior to the runway excursion likely reduced the risk of a more serious outcome.

Landing gear microswitches on the Cessna 210 becoming stuck or jammed is a known issue that can be mitigated with the use of aircraft wing mirrors. It is important that the pre-landing checks always include a thorough visual mirror check to confirm the configuration of the landing gear. If any doubt is experienced, conducting a go-around is always encouraged.

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.