Plane crashes at Ann Arbor Municipal Airport

Posted on Thu, Apr 5, 2012 : 11:54 a.m.

Plane crashes at Ann Arbor Municipal Airport

By Kyle Feldscher

Pittsfield Township rescue crews freed the occupant of the wreckage.

Melanie Maxwell | AnnArbor.com

The lone occupant of a plane that crashed just before noon Thursday at the Ann Arbor Municipal Airport has been transported to University of Michigan Hospital.

Kristin Kasten, supervisor at Huron Valley Ambulance, said crews were sent to the scene near South State and Ellsworth roads at 11:43 a.m. Thursday after the aircraft went down.

Witnesses said the occupant was trapped in the plane for an estimated 30 minutes while Pittsfield Township police and fire extricated him from the wreckage.

Joyce Williams, spokeswoman for HVA, said the man was transported in serious but stable condition to the hospital.

It appeared to be a fixed-wing single-engine aircraft licensed by a company from Flat Rock.

Rescue crews were leaving the scene by about 12:30 p.m., though investigators remained near the fallen aircraft.

Lynn Crum, facilities manager at the airport, told the Associated Press the plane took off and circled around before crashing.

The two-seater plane with an overhead wing took off before crashing into a grassy field northwest of the runway, according to Pittsfield Department of Public Safety Director Matt Harshberger. The man was pinned inside the cockpit at the legs, Harshberger said.

Pittsfield firefighters used hydraulic rescue tools and saws to remove the wreckage, he said. It was about 30 minutes before the man could be freed and taken to the University of Michigan Hospital, Harshberger said.

“He was conscious and, beyond that, he had injuries and went to the hospital for those,” Harshberger said. “He was talking with people at the scene.”

Fluids from the airplane, including gasoline, did leak from the plane but there was no fire.

The airport’s tower closed the airport to all air traffic Thursday morning and it remained closed Thursday afternoon as Federal Aviation Authority and Pittsfield Township investigators conducted their review.

Harshberger said there is a fire station near the airport and it took crews about one minute to respond to the crash. He praised the firefighters who cut the man out of the plane — removing the engine in order to free the man’s lower legs — and other responding personnel for getting the man out as safely as possible.

“We were on scene quickly and we did what we had to do to get him out,” Harshberger said. “The firefighters and police officers did a great job.”

View Larger Map

Kyle Feldscher covers cops and courts for AnnArbor.com. He can be reached at kylefeldscher@annarbor.com or you can follow him on Twitter.

Comments

Wilson P. Tanner

Sun, Apr 8, 2012 : 10:55 p.m.

The Ann Arbor Airport Advisory Committee wishes a speedy recovery to the pilot who survived a serious accident while departing Ann Arbor Municipal Airport Thursday. Our community is fortunate to be served by the first responders from Pittsfield Township Fire and Police Departments, Huron Valley Ambulance, Ann Arbor Airport personnel, and fellow pilots who arrived on the scene moments after the incident. The speed and selflessness shown by the first-responders was impressive and greatly appreciated. While general aviation flight remains statistically extremely safe, this incident reminds us that we must continue to avail ourselves of every opportunity to improve aviation safety.

Mark Perry

Sun, Apr 8, 2012 : 2:47 p.m.

The Airport Advisory Committee wishes a speedy recovery to the pilot who survived a serious accident while departing Ann Arbor Municipal Airport Thursday. Our community is particularly fortunate to be served by the many professional first responders from Pittsfield Township Fire and Police Departments, Huron Valley Ambulance, airport personnel, and fellow pilots arriving on the scene moments after the incident assisting in the rescue operation. Their speed of response and selflessness is greatly appreciated. While general aviation flight remains statistically extremely safe, this incident reminds us that we must continue to avail ourselves of every opportunity to improve aviation safety. Wilson P. Tanner, III Chair, Airport Advisory Committee

Sat, Apr 7, 2012 : 4:24 p.m.

Remember folks... Longer runways allows you to carry more fuel. Strange how this crash happened so close to the ARB event. It is an absolute miracle no one was killed. Engine failure on takeoff out of ARB *WILL* have the exact same result as this crash. Why ? Because most civilian light twins are not even required to climb on one engine. The second engine will fly the aircraft to the crash site. As long as we are not DUMB enough to replace the existing 1500' field (Clearway) at the end of the runway with more runway which WILL makes something such as the event in this link, much more probable. Enjoy (You may have to copy and paste.): http://news.yahoo.com/pilots-fiery-navy-jet-crash-faced-tough-choices-122302498.html

Fri, Apr 6, 2012 : 7:06 p.m.

Tru2Blu. "How many of those crashes resulted in fatalities?? " If I recall the total fatalities are around 7-9, not sure about the exact number. The latest fatality was not that long ago when two pilots stalled an experimental aircraft, right near State St. Runway length was not even remotely a factor as they did not depart the airport but flew a low pass over the runway. Danger to anyone around State St. ? Could be. When a pilots dies due to one reason or another during a crash it is "part of the deal". When we start getting innocent others involved, that is an entirely different story. As to PackMan's "reason" for tower visibility: What do they do in non controlled airports, where NO control tower exists ? Answer: To justify the existence of a control tower for accident reporting ?!?! ...now I have heard it all. How about watchtowers around the country ? In fact, I am not sure if the ARB tower even remotely justifies the cost to TAX payers to maintain that Federal boondoggle of a tower. I am willing to bet it takes as much tax dollars to operate that tower as it takes to keep the entire airport above water. Like I said...would not last a day at Burns Park. Also since one of AA water sources has already been contaminated, let's see how they react when we contaminate the water under the ARB airport. BTW Packman, a simpler solution to Tower viability could be as simple as a remote camera feed ...or removing the hangar which was built at the wrong spot. Turning this into a reason for endangering more area residents can not be taken seriously. Carry on...

Tru2Blu76

Fri, Apr 6, 2012 : 4:53 p.m.

If God meant for Mankind to fly, He would have given us wings. -- LOL! Not included in this report: the number of crashes associated with Ann Arbor Airport since it was built. -?? How many of those crashes resulted in fatalities?? What are the national statistics for small airplane crashes? Obviously, some people view this airport as a huge danger and huge annoyance. Obviously, these people think they live in Lockerbie, Scotland. Just FYI: you don't live in Lockerbie, Scotland. Planes are not falling out of the sky around Ann Arbor Airport every week or every year. People lived in Lockerbie for about 900 years before the 1988 Pan AM crash - and even then, it took a bomb aboard to cause the crash. Meanwhile, those cars you're driving cause over 30,000 fatalities per year: that's about 84 to 100 per day.

Fri, Apr 6, 2012 : 6:01 p.m.

packman

Fri, Apr 6, 2012 : 4:35 p.m.

One of the reasons for the runway offset is to make all portions of the airport visible from the control tower, which is not the case now. The airplane that crashed was taking off AWAY from the Stonebridge area on runway 6. What if the tower, because of lack of visual contact, had not been able to call 911 immediately?

Fri, Apr 6, 2012 : 3:23 p.m.

Well. I had no idea this was a discussion about longer runway... If I want a longer runway, much longer runway, there is Willow Run, right next door. Underutilized and far superior airport. Now back to all the "professionals" who cast a doubt that longer runway will allow aircraft to carry more weight and/or will allow larger aircraft to land at ARB, PUHLEEEESE folks, every private pilots KNOWS that the heavier you are, the more runway you will need ! ...hence for heavier and larger aircraft you DO need longer runway. BTW, lets not forget that such aircraft carry more FUEL... With today's departure and arrival traffic passing over homes at ONE hundred feet +/_ few, what do YOU think is going to happen when the aircraft gets airborne 1000' feet CLOSER to these homes ? Come on people lets get real here. Another aspect is the the fact that this and last year's emergency landing in someone's back yard, were all SMALL Single Engine aircraft. If we had a longer runway and more mufti-engine traffic, the results of such accidents would have been MUCH more ugly. Many do not even remember the crash which killed 3 Doctors next to AA School right after departure from ARB. Present runway at ARB is the perfect solution to keep ARB, just the way it is today by filtering out the larger / heavier traffic. Last. Have you seen the firetruck in the pic above ? Pittsfield Twp fire dept responds to ALL airport accidents. Maybe AA should start sending tax refunds to PT residence ? Such a project as the ARB airport, which started as a WATER project, would not last ONE day at Burns Park. (Before you start with "guess who was here first..." lets remember that no one is asking to close ARB. At least not yet.) Carry on...

Flyn4fun

Fri, Apr 6, 2012 : 2:51 p.m.

It's interesting to read all the misconceptions. The two biggest misconceptions being: 1. "Longer runway means larger planes." This isn't true. According to the experts I've listened to (I'm not an expert but I do listen to experts) the additional runway length will not be enough to qualify the airport for any larger airplanes than are currently allowed. The current runway is on the short end of "allowable" for some of the planes that are already landing there. So, it will just be a little safer for those who land a little fast and long. For those taking off, there will be no difference at all. When you take off, you accelerate and lift off as soon as possible no matter how long the runway is. 2. "Regulation of aviation fuel has fallen through the cracks." Avaition fuel is regulated just like any other fuel - the regulations themselves are different but it is nevertheless regulated. And there is, and has been, a lot of pressure to eliminate the lead. In fact, the amount of lead in the fuel was significantly reduced some time ago. That's why it's called 100LL - the LL stands for "Low Lead". And the reason there is still some lead in the fuel is because there is currently no other solution that would allow a large number of the planes to continue flying. This is also the reason that some older WWII planes can't run full power anymore - fuel is no longer available with the octane requirements of those planes. They simply can't run full power with 100 octane fuel. Luckily, those planes had a lot of excess power so they can still take off safely under lower power. Many of the smaller planes can't. Also, there is a major effort in the avaition industry to come up with an unleaded fuel that can meet the octane requirements and significant progress has been made. (I wonder what impact that will have on the automotive industry? And if it is used in the automotive industry, I wonder how many drivers will thank the avaition industry for crea

Fri, Apr 6, 2012 : 1:49 p.m.

Cont. "...Otherwise known as avgas, this particular fuel accounts for over 50 percent of the lead-based pollution in the United States, and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that within close proximity to the 20,000 airports where pollution is dangerous due to hazardous avgas being used, there are over 16 million people living close enough to feel the negative health effects. Schools within one mile of these airports are home to over 3 million full-time students. Needless to say, this is entirely unacceptable, especially since there are cleaner and easily affordable alternatives to the leaded fuel. There is no reason whatsoever that small aircrafts should be given the right to ignore the pollution regulations that every other industry has complied with for the last 35 years. Consumers and industries are increasingly looking for ways to go greener, be it cutting out toxic metals like lead or installing solar panels on their roofs for cleaner energy production. Consumers have long since stopped fueling up with leaded gasoline, so why are these small planes any different? On a positive note, the EPA has set out to oust the leaded avgas once and for all. But with the opposition they are facing, it could be awhile before we see the final demise of leaded gasoline. Join in the discussion in the comments below and/or share the piece."

Fri, Apr 6, 2012 : 1:48 p.m.

Facts: 1.Most airplanes at ARB DO USE leaded fuel. 2. AA gets its water from wells on the field. 3. The area was purchased by AA for its water, NOT to operate a airport. Enjoy the rest: Lead Still in Aviation Fuel by Chris Keenan on January 18, 2012 Lead can wreak havoc with the human body. To begin with, it can result in cardiovascular and brain damage. Studies have revealed that kids who are exposed to even minor levels of lead are likely to have a lower IQ than children who are not. Therefore, it's obvious why health and environmental groups are constantly working to eradicate the main source of lead-related pollution (leaded gas) in countries around the world. The United Nations has recently declared profound success in doing just that. Nearly every country on the planet has now ceased the sale of gasoline that contains lead. There are a few nations, such as Myanmar and North Korea, which have refused to follow suit, but they rarely play nice anyway, so it's not a surprise. However, before you get too excited, this ban only applies to motor fuels. Unfortunately, there are major loopholes in many of these bans, even here in our own backyard. Aviation fuel used for small planes is still permitted to contain lead. Aviation fuel falls under different regulations than typical motor fuel, and therefore, has apparently fallen through the cracks in the United States. Throughout the country, leaded gasoline has been outlawed for a few dozens years, yet small jets are allowed to fuel up with it every day, all across the nation. For those of you who think this is just a crazy and harmless exception, you might want to reconsider. More than half of the country's lead pollution directly results from aviation fuel that contains leaded gas.

u812

Fri, Apr 6, 2012 : 1:34 p.m.

Hoping for a full recovery surprised this doesn't happen more with all the light aircraft flying in the air with Willow run airport and Ann arbor airport.

Sallyxyz

Fri, Apr 6, 2012 : 1:24 p.m.

Will we learn the identity of the pilot?

addy bennett

Sat, Apr 7, 2012 : 1:54 a.m.

probably not im not gonna tell you i promise that to oyou he will not appreciate me telling the public ask at my email or message on facebook

OLDTIMER3

Fri, Apr 6, 2012 : 12:37 p.m.

Your chances are way greater of being struck by an automobile than a plane landing on your head. Hope the pilot gets better soon.

addy bennett

Sat, Apr 7, 2012 : 1:55 a.m.

jitll be 2 or more years to a full recovery

E. Crowe

Fri, Apr 6, 2012 : 11:06 a.m.

Is there any update as to the pilot's condition? Thanks for chiming-in concerned citizens of the runway extension project. An airport, in some form or another, has been around that general area for more than 90 years. Maybe the people complaining about the traffic should have built their McMansions somewhere else instead of off the end of the most active runway, at an airport with one of the most active rosters of student pilots in SE Michigan. Maybe you should move?

addy bennett

Sat, Apr 7, 2012 : 1:52 a.m.

his leg is badly hurt but he wont lose it like we thought he will be in the hospital for over two months and probably will never get complete use of it again and he has a black eye he is my uncle thats how i know

SPIKE ROBERSON

Fri, Apr 6, 2012 : 4:59 a.m.

As a current airline pilot who has been flying for a living for over three decades; first in the Marines, now in civilian aviation; once in turboprops and helicopters, now in jets; I feel fairly well qualified to speak to the topic. What happened and why will be sorted out by the NTSB as well as the FAA and if appropriate, the pilot's certificate will be suspended or revoked. Few things in this world are more regulated in this world than aviation. Secondly; all this silliness of the "risk" posed to somebody by a lengthened runway or the impact of such a light aircraft is just exactly that -- silliness. The real issue is noise; you bought your house cheaper because it was near an airport and now you want to do everything you can to shut it down. The chance of there being a deadly crash in your community is extraordinarily remote -- you're just using this as the excuse to push your agenda. I've seen this play out countless times at countless airports, both military and civilian. I grew up under the Final Approach Fix to runway 30 (or is it 31? Can't remember now) at BWI and it never occurred to any of us back then to complain about the airport that was there first. I can only hope that Ann Arbor's airport is not the latest victim to this kind of selfishness.

addy bennett

Sat, Apr 7, 2012 : 1:51 a.m.

wcflawler3 "Also, this accident was NOT the result of any factor that would have put your neighborhood at risk- based on what I believe to have occurred, this crash was probably a result of factors that affected specifically the takeoff." first of all true, he is my uncle it was the stinking wing gust he doesnt do this crap on purpose ive known the wau he acts about anything like this he doesnt do outlandish stupid things in the kind of environment this happened in. he took this VERY seriously and i am ashamedof the way you people assumed he was at total fault he isnt at fault for the wind he just happened to be in the plane

wcflawler3

Fri, Apr 6, 2012 : 4:53 p.m.

As it stands right now, there are only two jets based on the field, and the airport currently lacks the facilities to really house any more. The only large planes that operate out of the airport are single and multi-engine turboprops, such as the Pilatus and King Air, and the occasional citation-sized jet. Those are the largest aircraft that the airport can currently handle, and that would remain the case, even with an extension (which is not so much an extension as it is a runway shift- the effective landing distance is not going to significantly increase, thus still limiting the size aircraft that can use the runway). In order to facilitate the next largest class of aircraft, most runways would need to be at least 5,000 feet (the extension here would only be to 4,300 feet). The expansion would really just give improved safety margin to the type of aircraft that already fly in here. It would also allow them to carry a heavier fuel load, so that they could fly further without refueling. You need to keep in mind that these are professional flight crews piloting these turbine aircraft, and they go through extensive training to deal with every conceivable emergency and abnormality. There is always the risk of something going wrong, but if you look at the statistics, you will find the amount of incidents per operation is EXTREMELY small with commercial operations versus general aviation operations (and even with GA, over the last few years, we've had 1 accident and 1 emergency landing out of several hundred thousand operations- very small odds). Given the neighborhood's close proximity, the risk involved with living near the airport is not going to change, regardless of whether or not the runway is extended. Also, this accident was NOT the result of any factor that would have put your neighborhood at risk- based on what I believe to have occurred, this crash was probably a result of factors that affected specifically the takeoff.

Usual Suspect

Fri, Apr 6, 2012 : 4:52 p.m.

No - more houses near the airport means fewer places to ditch. Stop building houses by the airport, and stop buying them when fools build them.

applehazar

Fri, Apr 6, 2012 : 11:46 a.m.

Spike. Longer runway means bigger airplanes. Bigger airplanes mean less places to ditch in case of emergency. Remote possibility everyone says. Tell that to the homeowners at stone bridge that had a plan land on the fairway last year. The airport and the FAA are not playing by the rules. Wonder what other rules are being broken?

Townie

Fri, Apr 6, 2012 : 11:09 a.m.

Spike - a few points that need to be made: 1) Yes, the airport was there first. OK. But the airport wants to expand so it can handle bigger aircraft (corporate jets) - that's the issue that the subs near by object to. I think you'd agree that a single engine light aviation plane hitting a house compared to a twin engine jet are two different situations. 2) Remote event - yes, but Stonebridge has already had a plane down in its community (landed on the golf course, dead engine). Remote, but not that remote it appears. 3) AA Airport has been very deceptive about the expansion plans -- not notifiying Pittsfield Township until the comment period closed and its application to the FAA stated several things that were untrue (no bird issue - geese all over the place). It has not been an honest partner in the community and is distrusted as a result.

grimmk

Fri, Apr 6, 2012 : 1:51 a.m.

Good Lord, that is a terrible thing to have happened. I wish the pilot all the best in recovery. I live near Willow Run and every time I hear a plane fly over head I hope it lands safely. And I never knew there was a garden next to the airport, that's nice.

Chris Goosman

Fri, Apr 6, 2012 : 12:23 a.m.

I'm glad the pilot survived. This appears to be a Remos GX, which is a very pricy ($100k+), folding carbon fibre wing, Light Sport Aircraft category plane. It is usually equipped with a ballistic parachute recovery system, though from the looks of it, the pilot was probably too low to deploy it.

julieswhimsies

Fri, Apr 6, 2012 : 8:04 p.m.

My brother's planes are jet assisted 11 seaters...I know nothing about aircraft...I do know he never flies without a co-pilot.

julieswhimsies

Thu, Apr 5, 2012 : 11:18 p.m.

My heart skips a beat every time I hear about one of these crashes. My brother has two planes, and is constantly making jaunts here and there. I'm glad this pilot made it out okay. I hope there will be an announcement soon of the pilot's name. Lot of worried family and friends right now.

julieswhimsies

Thu, Apr 5, 2012 : 11:21 p.m.

Good Sounds like it was not my brother. He owns two double engine planes, and is definitely not a student....but a 63 year old doc with a commercial pilot's license.

GirlNextDoor

Thu, Apr 5, 2012 : 10:59 p.m.

Local 4 News @ 6 PM said he was a student pilot. They made some speculation about the winds today being a factor in the accident, but beyond that they didn't offer any other details. They didn't release his name. I hope he makes a full recovery; a very lucky man.

Thu, Apr 5, 2012 : 10:58 p.m.

All. are you aware of the fact that the leaked fuel contains LEAD ? are you also aware of the fact that AA gets its water via four Wells on the field ? such 100L L fuel is about to be banned in several states. Here, we have an airport on top of our water supply. as a reminder, many years ago A A bought the land for the water supply not to operate an airport.

E. Crowe

Fri, Apr 6, 2012 : 11:10 a.m.

The car in your driveway pollutes the water supply more than an aircraft, powered by 100 LL aviation fuel, flown for its entire useful life, ever will.

Fri, Apr 6, 2012 : 12:02 a.m.

Hey, I have direct knowledge of that aircraft, 90 hours flying it. First, that aircraft burns 94 octane UNLEADED Gas. The amount that may have leaked will only be twent gallons or less. That is all it holds. Properly cleaned up will never reach the water. So the airport was purchased before 1927, for water? So Ann Arbor wanted to poison the residents, is that your contention?

HRH

Thu, Apr 5, 2012 : 10:46 p.m.

.....and fluids from the airplane, including gasoline, did leak from the plane. Ah well Ann Arbor - that might be some lead in your water supply then. Lots of your wells on that there airport in Pittsfield Township!!

Fri, Apr 6, 2012 : 12:04 a.m.

Read next comment about the fuel. Unleaded fuel.

Sallyxyz

Thu, Apr 5, 2012 : 10:24 p.m.

Single engine planes and other light aircraft are risky. It was quite windy today and who knows what caused the crash. I hope annarbor.com does a follow-up to let us know what happened. Glad to hear the pilot made it out alive. My grown kids live in the southwest US and have occasionally flown in small aircraft for pleasure, and I do worry. Good wishes to him in his recovery.

SMC

Thu, Apr 5, 2012 : 10:06 p.m.

Accidents like this clearly demonstrate that the entry corridor to the airport is too wide. It must be narrowed immediately, to allow only one plane to take off or land at a time. In single file. Also, there should be bike lanes on either side of the runway.

janeqdoe

Fri, Apr 6, 2012 : 3:49 p.m.

SMC, you are too funny. Next, you will be proposing runways with roundabouts and pedestrian crossings... :-)

actionjackson

Fri, Apr 6, 2012 : 2:34 p.m.

A crosswalk with strobe lights and a senior learning program to slip over the new Costco would be an huge advantage.

jns131

Fri, Apr 6, 2012 : 1:50 p.m.

Quite right. So true. I am wondering if they might have to do this for Costco traffic as well. Thanks for the rethink on this one.

Dudley

Fri, Apr 6, 2012 : 11:43 a.m.

uh, there is a single runway.. and only one plane can depart or land at a time... this comment makes no sense. I hope they extend the runway right tru the neighborhood. Then you can watch how it actually works.

Anthony Clark

Fri, Apr 6, 2012 : 3:56 a.m.

Are you being serious or is this sarcasm? Only one plane can occupy the runway at a time as it is. If a plane is approaching to land and another plane is still on the runway, then the plane approaching must "go around". That is, they must climb back up to pattern altitude and fly the whole pattern again. This ensures the safest possible outcome.

drewk

Thu, Apr 5, 2012 : 10:41 p.m.

It would be interesting to see what happens if they install a bus stop too.

nunya

Thu, Apr 5, 2012 : 9:29 p.m.

Yes, I knew the airport was here when I bought the house. I also knew there was some farm land. I expect it to stay that way. I don't expect the airport to be expanded right up to Lohr Road. I don't see any need to expand it. But I doubt the likelihood of this incident would've been any more or less if it were. Heck, I was right there and didn't even know that it happened.

Usual Suspect

Fri, Apr 6, 2012 : 2:01 a.m.

nunya, if you want control over hat happens to the farmland, buy it. Is there a rule that says once you buy your house everything else must stay the same?

tdw

Thu, Apr 5, 2012 : 11:52 p.m.

action and johnny.....I was going to say something along the same lines but I figured I shut up a bit

actionjackson

Thu, Apr 5, 2012 : 10:17 p.m.

I remember when that subdivision was farmland. I expected it would stay that way also.

McFly

Thu, Apr 5, 2012 : 8:20 p.m.

It seemed like such a great little airport 30 years ago, especially on football saturdays but now the flight patterns have changed. It is no longer a pleasant experience for the homes that were purchased long before those flight patterns changed. I watch them when standing in my buddy's yard north east of the airport near stone school and Eisenhower as they low fly overhead seemingly barely above tree top level. Feels like his house is getting buzzed more often than not. Imagine if this crash had slammed into a few occupied houses. Scary stuff.

Anthony Clark

Fri, Apr 6, 2012 : 3:51 a.m.

The only change that has been made to "flight patterns" in the 20 years that I have been flying out of Ann Arbor Airport is an increase in the pattern altitude. It was raised from 800 feet above ground level to 1000 feet above ground level a few years ago. So, if anything, planes are higher above the trees and houses.

wcflawler3

Thu, Apr 5, 2012 : 11:59 p.m.

McFly- It's still a great little airport! ;-) But, this is still the same runway, with the same alignment, same length, same Cessnas/Beechcraft/Pipers flying, using the same traffic pattern procedures that have always been used. We teach our students to climb to 300-500 feet below pattern altitude (1300-1500 feet above the ground), then start their turn. And that's the way it used to be, too. Also, the factors that lead to the accident would not have caused it to crash into the neighborhood- it was during takeoff with gusty winds

julieswhimsies

Thu, Apr 5, 2012 : 11:25 p.m.

I wonder how long you'd last living in Norfolk, VA.

djacks24

Thu, Apr 5, 2012 : 9:29 p.m.

My home is in a flight pattern with Willow Run airport. These are much bigger planes (usually coming in for landing) flying right over my house. It doesn't bother me at all. Its really cool when the airshow is in town. I wonder sometimes about the likelihood of one of these planes crashing into my house, but they would have to be at least a couple miles short of the runway (as the crow flies) to land anywhere near my house.

dougfair

Thu, Apr 5, 2012 : 9:02 p.m.

There is a prescribed height at which planes must fly. Then height at which they fly over your buddy's yard is determined by the landing approach or take-off angle. Planes are higher up than you feel they are.

Ariel

Thu, Apr 5, 2012 : 7:43 p.m.

What was the cause of the crash? Did he not know how to land it? Did the plane malfunction? I wish the man a full recovery.

addy bennett

Sat, Apr 7, 2012 : 2:14 a.m.

wcflawler3 I learned from my co worker, who was one of the first to the scene, that it was a student pilot flying a Remos. The accident occurred at takeoff, and she thought it may have been caused by gusty winds, which caused a large disrupt which the student couldn't correct for, or possibly lead to a stall, from which the student couldn't recover. But the crash happened well off the centerline of the runway, pretty close down the runway from the threshold, which leads me to believe that he got airborne too early, and lost control. But the NTSB will have a much better idea when they finish their investigation- we can only really guess at this point he was my uncle he was a student he has been doing this for about a year now it was like his first solo flight ever he was caught by a gust of wind

tdw

Thu, Apr 5, 2012 : 11:47 p.m.

Suspect...Yep I know that's what I was going to say but article said the FAA was there

wcflawler3

Thu, Apr 5, 2012 : 11:43 p.m.

I learned from my co worker, who was one of the first to the scene, that it was a student pilot flying a Remos. The accident occurred at takeoff, and she thought it may have been caused by gusty winds, which caused a large disrupt which the student couldn't correct for, or possibly lead to a stall, from which the student couldn't recover. But the crash happened well off the centerline of the runway, pretty close down the runway from the threshold, which leads me to believe that he got airborne too early, and lost control. But the NTSB will have a much better idea when they finish their investigation- we can only really guess at this point

Usual Suspect

Thu, Apr 5, 2012 : 10:49 p.m.

tdw there's this thing called the NTSB that's what they do.

tdw

Thu, Apr 5, 2012 : 8:07 p.m.

Ariel there's this thing called the FAA that's what they do.It takes more than a few hours.I'm pretty sure that's it's illegal to fly solo if you don't know how to land.

heresmine

Thu, Apr 5, 2012 : 7:18 p.m.

I guess I'm missing something from this story. Exactly how does a runway extension relate to this? Would the crash not have happened if there'd been one? Would it be more severe if there'd been one? Really confused about the extension comments.

Tom Whitaker

Fri, Apr 6, 2012 : 5 p.m.

"Its one thing if they were there before the airport, but the airport has been here long before the subdivisions. So maybe they should have not bought a house close to the airport." I'm not taking sides in the runway issue, but this comment misses the point. Those who bought houses in this location certainly DID know there was an airport of a certain size nearby, and that this airport serviced certain types and sizes of planes. I haven't seen or heard any of these homeowners demanding that the airport, as it currently operates, be shut down, but rather they've simply opposed the existing facility being upgraded to handle planes that are larger, faster, heavier, and noisier.

Usual Suspect

Thu, Apr 5, 2012 : 10:23 p.m.

Perhaps people shouldn't have bought a house so close to the airport? It reminds me of the people near the railroad tracks downtown complaining about the engineers sounding the locomotive horns at crossings and waking them up. It's not like the railroad tracks - or the airport - were secretly hidden from view and then you found out about them after you bought the house.

djacks24

Thu, Apr 5, 2012 : 9:23 p.m.

"when people, who live close to the airport hear that a small plane has crashed on that airport they feel some anxiety and fear regarding the implications of an expanded airport." Its one thing if they were there before the airport, but the airport has been here long before the subdivisions. So maybe they should have not bought a house close to the airport.

a2doc

Thu, Apr 5, 2012 : 7:56 p.m.

Okay.. the worry is that a longer runway (moved additionally moved closer to homes) may encourage larger, faster, heavier planes to land at the little Ann Arbor Municipal airport and thereby increase the likelihood of damage / injury / death if one of these planes crash. So, when people, who live close to the airport hear that a small plane has crashed on that airport they feel some anxiety and fear regarding the implications of an expanded airport.

applehazar

Thu, Apr 5, 2012 : 7:07 p.m.

If this doesn't end the runway extension - what will??

Tru2Blu76

Fri, Apr 6, 2012 : 4:33 p.m.

Don't worry, applehazar, the insistence of people on buying or renting homes adjacent to airports will surely win over any foolish ideas about expanding this and other airports. It's the "Wisdom of the Market" you see. ;-)

wcflawler3

Fri, Apr 6, 2012 : 12:07 a.m.

I talked to a fellow flight instructor who was one of the first on the scene. The accident was most likely caused by an upset of the airplane from gusty winds. That means that it had NOTHING to do with the length of the runway.

johnnya2

Thu, Apr 5, 2012 : 11:19 p.m.

So without knowing the cause of the crash you are going to make this assumption? What if the crash could have been avoided had there been a longer runway? Oh wait, that does not fit your narrative, so you will need new spin. Typical of those who speak before they know the facts.

wcflawler3

Thu, Apr 5, 2012 : 7:49 p.m.

How exactly does this incident demonstrate whether or not a runway extension is necessary? Details on this incident will not be made available until the NTSB preliminary findings are released- so how can you possibly conclude anything based on your limited understanding of what occurred?

a2doc

Thu, Apr 5, 2012 : 6:40 p.m.

hope the pilot is ok. I guess it is lucky that it wasn't a twin engine. I gather those things can't just turn around. Would have ended up in the subdivision... Goes back to my worry about the proposed runway extension, into the subdivision.

Usual Suspect

Thu, Apr 5, 2012 : 10:19 p.m.

"I guess it is lucky that it wasn't a twin engine. I gather those things can't just turn around." How in the world do you figure this? Are the twin-engine models built without rudders these days?

dougfair

Thu, Apr 5, 2012 : 9:06 p.m.

The airport was there, in the middle of nowhere, long before the subdivisions off Lohr were thought of. Anyone buying a house in the area knew there was an airport nearby.

RuralMom

Thu, Apr 5, 2012 : 7:37 p.m.

I guess that would have been a consideration prior to making that purchase, the airport isn't a new fixture out there!

jcj

Thu, Apr 5, 2012 : 6:49 p.m.

Yep all those twin engines have to fly around the world to get home.

liekkio

Thu, Apr 5, 2012 : 4:54 p.m.

One person was injured when a small plane crashed at the Ann Arbor Municipal Airport today, police said. According to Pittsfield Township police, the person suffered non-life-threatening injuries. The small plane crashed at the airport, and firefighters had to free the pilot, who was the lone occupant, from the wreckage. The pilot was transported to the hospital, officials said at 12:40 p.m. http://www.freep.com/article/20120405/NEWS/120405025/1-injured-small-plane-accident-Ann-Arbor-Municipal-Airport?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|FRONTPAGE|p

spm

Thu, Apr 5, 2012 : 4:33 p.m.

I hope the pilot was able to make it out alive.

addy bennett

Sat, Apr 7, 2012 : 1:44 a.m.

he is my uncle he got out fine he will possibly get full use of his leg back in two years he wont be able to do anythoing he loves

Tom Whitaker

Fri, Apr 6, 2012 : 4:52 p.m.

"This is a perfect example of why AnnArbor.com's policy of editing stories in-place, instead of adding updates to the article, is wrong." Amen! It's not just the risk of reader confusion that is so wrong about this, but it is terrible and unethical journalistic practice to continuously go back and change--not only typos and grammar--but factual elements of a story after publishing it. Either a new story should be posted, an update added at the bottom, or changes shown as cross-outs and highlights, with original text still visible.

ArthGuinness

Fri, Apr 6, 2012 : 2:53 p.m.

It does say 'Updated', but minor confusion arises because we don't know which part was updated.

Usual Suspect

Fri, Apr 6, 2012 : 1:58 a.m.

This is a perfect example of why AnnArbor.com's policy of editing stories in-place, instead of adding updates to the article, is wrong. It's funny that it's OK for them to do in their articles, but they won't let us do it in our comments.

spm

Fri, Apr 6, 2012 : 1:08 a.m.

They've updated the story since I made that comment when there was no info. On the pilot.

Usual Suspect

Thu, Apr 5, 2012 : 10:17 p.m.

If you read the article, you will find out.

ThaKillaBee

Thu, Apr 5, 2012 : 4:16 p.m.

Holy crap.