2 critically injured when plane crashes in Pittsfield Township back yard
A Pittsfield Township police officer looks on as FAA inspector Carl R. Welke examines the wreckage of a single-engine plane that crashed landed in the backyard of a home off Warner Road on Friday, critically injuring two people.
Steve Pepple | AnnArbor.com
Update to this story: Pittsfield Township couple flew over their home moments before plane crash
Two people suffered critical injuries when a single-engine plane crashed in the back yard of a home on Warner Road in Pittsfield Township Friday morning.
Pittsfield Township Fire Chief Sean Gleason said firefighters freed a man who piloted the plane and a woman from the wreckage after the plane crashed about 11:45 in the 7000 block of Warner Road. The victims live in the Saline area, he said. Deputy Police Chief Gordy Schick said they are husband and wife.
FAA officials investigate at the crash site after an experimental plane went down in the back yard of a home in Pittsfield Township Friday.
Steve Pepple | AnnArbor.com
The plane crashed in the back yard of Jan Haupt's home, about an eighth of a mile east of Warner Road. Haupt was in her kitchen just before the plane crashed. "I looked up and saw a shadow come across the skylight," she said. She said she could not hear any noise from the engine.
She went outside and saw the neon green plane crashed in her back yard about 100 feet from her house. She ran up to the plane and found the pilot unconscious, and the passenger alert but badly injured and obviously in pain. The pilot had regained consciousness by the time paramedics arrived, Haupt said.
Gleason did not know the cause of the crash. The Federal Aviation Authority was en route to investigate it, he said.
The plane was mostly intact after the crash, although the wheels and a few other pieces came off, Gleason said. The crash caused extensive damage to the front end, he said. There was no fire.
Firefighters worked for about 15 minutes to free the couple, Gleason said,
It was the second plane crash in less than two months in the area. A single-engine plane crashed April 5 at the Ann Arbor Municipal airport about 3 miles to the northwest of the site of today's crash.
FAA records show the plane is an Aeros Sky Ranger II, a fixed-wing experimental aircraft. The manufacturer is Aeros LTD/Skyranger Aircraft Co. It is registered to an address on Partridge Way in Pittsfield Township, not far from the crash site. Records show the plane was manufactured in 2006.
The plane departed Friday morning from the Ann Arbor airport, said Tony Molinaro, spokesman from the FAA's Great Lakes Region in Chicago. He said the circumstances of the crash were unknown and no further information would be available until the FAA completes its investigation. The aircraft is a home-built plane constructed from a kit, he said.
The pilot did not file a flight plan with the FAA, and one is not required for a plane of this type, he said. He did know what time the plane departed from the airport.
AnnArbor.com reporter Amy Biolchini contributed to this report.
Comments
JS
Mon, May 28, 2012 : 12:04 a.m.
Duuude, that plane hurt someone. Therefor airplanes should be illegal. Seriously tho, I really hope that they're going to be ok and back to doing what they love soon.
Hammer
Sun, May 27, 2012 : 3:39 a.m.
Best wishes for a speedy recovery. Next time, push the stick forward to make the houses bigger. Pull it towards you to make them smaller.
Technojunkie
Sat, May 26, 2012 : 12:44 p.m.
The main reason the experimental kit airplane industry exists is that trial lawyers nearly destroyed the commercial small plane industry. I'd much rather buy a professionally built small plane but the lawyer tax has made new ones insanely expensive. Kit planes are literally a fraction of the cost and they're not all kites like the one in this story. So, thanks to trying to use the courts to legislate perfect safety, or simply to loot companies, we have far fewer planes and they're less safe than they otherwise would be.
Skyjockey43
Sat, May 26, 2012 : 12:08 p.m.
Smokeblwr, statistically speaking, you are in FAR greater danger from inexperienced and inattentive drivers if your house is located next to a road than in the vicinity of a general aviation airport. Thanks for the ridiculous hyperbole nonetheless.
Lola
Fri, May 25, 2012 : 11:13 p.m.
Okay JRW, we get it. Now give it a rest. I hope for a full recovery for the injured couple.
John of Saline
Fri, May 25, 2012 : 8:11 p.m.
Sometimes I see a guy flying east of Saline in what looks like a powered parachute; he's suspended under a parachute with an engine strapped to his back. It looks mildly insane (not to mention loud).
sertraline
Fri, May 25, 2012 : 7:50 p.m.
That's a manned kite. This was a manned kite crash. You could not pay me to willingly fly in one of those. I do sincerely hope the pilot/passenger make a full recovery.
Brad
Fri, May 25, 2012 : 7:41 p.m.
I hope they will both be OK.
GoNavy
Fri, May 25, 2012 : 7:07 p.m.
Looks like we should give a little credit to the pilot for landing the plane in a fashion that at least gave the occupants a chance to survive. Good luck to both of them -
leaguebus
Sat, May 26, 2012 : 2:02 a.m.
The pilot missed the houses too. Hope he and his wife will be OK.
JRW
Fri, May 25, 2012 : 10:57 p.m.
Credit? For flying an experimental aircraft over a residential neighborhood and endangering innocent people on the ground? I don't think so. Totally and completely irresponsible.
Roaring_Chicken
Fri, May 25, 2012 : 6:51 p.m.
"O Holy spirit.God's own power Give peace in sudden dangers hour, O wind of heaven by thy might Save all who dare the eagles flight, And keep them in Thy watchful care From every peril in the air." NO kind of flying is a "sure thing," except coming back down. Best wishes for a full recovery and many more hours in the air!
Matt Cooper
Sat, May 26, 2012 : 3:18 a.m.
I was amazed to see that a post wishing a speedy recovery to two critically injured people such as this actually had a -2 rating when I read it. Are people so caught up in their hatred of life that they can't even wish these injured folks a quick recovery? Shameful if you ask me! I loved the poem, and thank you R_C for posting it and for being compassionate enough to wish this couple well. I'll be praying for their recovery myself tonight. As for the rest...just remember, what comes around, goes around, and you better pray that you're never critically injured and need help and prayers and well-wishes. Might not get 'em.
Craig Lounsbury
Fri, May 25, 2012 : 6:34 p.m.
..."She said she could not hear any noise from the engine....." "There was no fire."
Peregrine
Fri, May 25, 2012 : 6:19 p.m.
Planes that are marked as "EXPERIMENTAL" are home-built and are not subject to a variety of Federal Aviation Regulations. They don't have regular inspections like other aircraft. Their maintenance is not done by a federally licensed mechanic, like other aircraft. I would have to trust the builder/maintainer immensely before getting into such an aircraft. The FAA requires them to have EXPERIMENTAL labels on each door and on the control panel, and that word was chosen to trigger some healthy doubt in those unfamiliar with flying.
Middle America
Sat, May 26, 2012 : 5:28 a.m.
Silly Sally is my favorite automobile safety expert and men's/women's bathroom expert.
Silly Sally
Sat, May 26, 2012 : 2:20 a.m.
@JRW - So, so silly. How good of an automobile driver are you? Perhaps since you are not a professional driver your car should be taken away, you could hurt someone. We can't have the public endangered by amateurs. Too risky. Take a taxi from now on.
Peregrine
Sat, May 26, 2012 : 1:22 a.m.
The question is what are the relative risks to those who knowingly get into the aircraft and those on the ground who might be hit. Holding a private pilot's certificate, I generally read about any crash I learn about, and it's incredibly rare for those on the ground to be hurt. In fact, I can't recall ever reading about an experimental aircraft crashing and hurting people on the ground. One thing that many don't realize is just how light these aircraft are, much much lighter than a sedan or even a compact car. So even when they crash into a structure, they don't do much damage. So my sense is that those on the ground are at very little risk from experimental aircraft.
JRW
Fri, May 25, 2012 : 10:53 p.m.
No experimental plane should be allowed to be built and flown over a residential neighborhood. I have not read about this level of irresponsible behavior in a long time. Should be illegal. NO reason to endanger the lives of innocent people on the ground. If two people want to risk their lives in dare-devil stunts, do it without endangering others.
rs
Fri, May 25, 2012 : 6:18 p.m.
Man, that thing looks like a tent with wings. Those are some pretty brave people that put their lives on the line to fly these ultralights and experimental airplanes.
Anthony Clark
Sun, May 27, 2012 : 1:23 a.m.
There are a whole host of activities that many people consider dangerous and irresponsible. Motorcycle riding, power boating, go carts, downhill skiing, snow mobiles, dirt bikes, the list could go on and on. Should we outlaw every activity that is dangerous and irresponsible in someone's opinion? People get shot every year during firearm deer season. Even non participants in their own back yards. Shooting guns within 3 miles of a house is "dangerous and irresponsible". That is my opinion. Let's outlaw hunting. On second thought, let's live and let live. You live the way you see fit and let others do the same. When you can back up your opinion that experimental aircraft are a significant public hazard with facts, then we'll talk.
JRW
Fri, May 25, 2012 : 10:55 p.m.
Not brave, they are stupid and irresponsible. Endangering innocent people on the ground with an experimental aircraft is totally irresponsible. Should be illegal.
Chad Iverson
Fri, May 25, 2012 : 6 p.m.
my daughter and i were outside this morning and saw this plane fly over, it was real quiet like an ultralight and it seemed like the winds were too much for it.
Ann English
Fri, May 25, 2012 : 11:20 p.m.
I was ready to conclude that the one engine was OFF during the descent until reading your comment. So the only way to tell an ultralight plane is flying nearby is to SEE it, not hear the engine. The article says the plane took off from the Ann Arbor Municipal Airport, three miles northwest of where it came down. You'd think from some of these comments that it took off from the couple's private runway, as if they had one. So the winds were too much for it? Like automobiles, like airplanes. If they're too light, the wind from either side can make driving or flying them more difficult.
GreenPus
Fri, May 25, 2012 : 5:28 p.m.
And Ann Arbor airport wants to lengthen the runways so we can look forward to even bigger planes landing on our houses.
john
Fri, May 25, 2012 : 9:46 p.m.
This just go to show that people not in aviation don't really understand what they're saying when they open their mouths and complain about aviation. If bigger airplanes come to Ann Arbor airport they will not be flying at low altitudes taking pictures of the pilot's house. Larger airplanes at A2 will be coordinated into paths leading to the runways. The little airplanes are the ones that fly low and slow and circle houses miles from the airport. Not bigger ones.
Unusual Suspect
Fri, May 25, 2012 : 7:36 p.m.
So, Pus, once you buy a house then everything around it must stop changing? How does this work? I think you need to reorient your house to accommodate our airport.
GoNavy
Fri, May 25, 2012 : 7:08 p.m.
The house that plane landed on appears to be camouflaged to look a lot like grass.
GreenPus
Fri, May 25, 2012 : 6:29 p.m.
djm... I'm not complaining about the airport as it exists today, but changing it to accommodate larger planes is changing the deal. If it ever gets off the drawing board they better be ready for a court challenge. It's Ann Arbor's airport. If they want to make it bigger, let them re-orient the runways to keep the air traffic and noise pollution over Ann Arbor instead of exporting it to the townships.
djm12652
Fri, May 25, 2012 : 5:58 p.m.
Man, I feel bad...you bought a house and no one told you there was an airport near it....
hepcat
Fri, May 25, 2012 : 5:24 p.m.
Looks like an ultralight to me.
Anthony Clark
Sun, May 27, 2012 : 12:58 a.m.
It is not an ultralight. Ultralight aircraft have an empty weight of 254 pounds or less and don't require a license to fly.
Neighbor
Fri, May 25, 2012 : 4:57 p.m.
According to pictures posted on Channel 4's website, the tail number is N192RR. An online lookup shows that this is an experimental aircraft owned by a man in Saline. Hope they're both OK.
JRW
Fri, May 25, 2012 : 10:54 p.m.
Totally stupid and irresponsible activity, to build an experimental plane and fly it over a residential neighborhood. This should be totally illegal.
Neighbor
Fri, May 25, 2012 : 5:16 p.m.
Oops, meant to say the crash site was one street away from the aircraft's registration address. Bad proofreading.
Neighbor
Fri, May 25, 2012 : 5:10 p.m.
Also of note: The aircraft is registered to an address on Partridge way according to the FAA database, which puts the crash site one street away from where the plane went down.
smokeblwr
Fri, May 25, 2012 : 4:33 p.m.
Living under an approach path at a small airport must be unsettling whatwith all the in-experienced pilots and crazy little planes.
Silly Sally
Sat, May 26, 2012 : 2:12 a.m.
Wise-up! This is not Stonebridge Drive just to the west of the Ann Arbor Airport. THis is miles away, miles from any established flight paths. The flight pattern is much, much closer to the airport. Do you notice planes at the Briarwood Mall or Meyers or Best Buy? No, and they are all 1 mile away. This pilot was in the area because he was flying over his home. Have you ever flown a plane from this airport? No, I didn't think so. I have. Oh, such a silly comment.
smokeblwr
Fri, May 25, 2012 : 11:39 p.m.
Is it east of the airport? Did a plane crash in it? Sounds like an approach path.
ffej440
Fri, May 25, 2012 : 4:54 p.m.
This is not an approach path. i live here and we NEVER have low flyers