|
TIPSY NIPPER MK.I c/n 21 OO-MIL |
| 1959 | - | Constructed by Avions Fairey SA at Gosselies |
| | - | Fitted with a Pollman-Hepu KFM40/3500 engine |
| 25/01/60 | - | Registered as OO-MIL (CofR 1291) to Aeroclub De Wouw vzw/Le Milan asbl |
| 01/03/60 | - | CofA issued |
| 13/07/63 | - | Crashed at Goetsenhoven when right wing hit the ground during low turn (pilot killed) |
| 30/08/63 | - | CofA expired |
| 10/05/68 | - | Cancelled from the Belgian Civil Register as 'destroyed in an accident' |
| | - | TT 161 hrs |
|
|
The OO-MIL accident happened at Goetsenhoven airfield on July 13th, 1963 at 8.45pm. during a local flight.
The aircraft was completely destroyed and the pilot was killed in the accident. He had a total of 76hrs since he got his flyinglicence.
The aircraft had totalled 161hrs since new.
Because none of the leading members of the Aeroclub where present when the aircraft took off, it is not possible to reconstruct the flight completely.
Firstly there was a spin, made above the airfield. Was this made on purpose or not? All present confirmed that it was, because they saw the aircraft prepare
itself to carry out the figure, so the pilot was not surprised when the Nipper went into the spin at a height of 400 to 600m. Upon reaching 150m,
after making two turns, the aerobatic figure was correctly stopped and the aircraft regained normal flight.
As of this moment, it becomes very hard to reconstruct the flight. According to one of the witnesses, the Nipper continued its normal flight in the direction
of the Tienen-Hannut road. This must be correct because the spin was made above the centre of the airport, some distance of the place of the impact.
Upon reaching the clubhouse at the border of the airfield, the Nipper descended to 50m. The pilot now made a right turn, between 50m and 20m from the ground.
This manoeuvre was carried out in a briskly manner making the Nipper lose even more height. It was then that the right-hand wing touched the ground.
What was the reason for carrying out this last manoeuvre?
There are two possibilities:
1. The pilot can have thought that the light wind would not bother him, making his landing in the opposite direction.
2. Because there was no other traffic, the pilot was going to make a last low pass over the airport.
Conclusion was that the second possibility was the most plausible, moreover there was no indication that a technical or mechanical problem was the cause of the accident.
|
|
|