Army Identifies Two Pilots Killed in Apache Helicopter Crash Near Fort Hood
The August 12 crash near Salado, Texas, killed both crew members and started a grass fire that forced evacuations; the cause has not been determined.
This is a developing story. Details reported early are provisional and are frequently revised. Where sources disagree, both readings are given.
Was this report accurate and useful?
Reference data
From aircraft and geographic registries, not from the news sources. Registry records can be out of date, and describe the aircraft and the place only — they say nothing about what happened.
- Terrain elevation
- 614 ft
- Nearest aerodrome
- 1.8 miles N of Salado Airport (73TA)
Sources
- 2 dead in Army Apache helicopter crash in Texas: Officialsabcnews.com
- Deadly military helicopter crash in Texas kills 2, sparks wildfire and forces evacuations: officialsfoxnews.com
- Salado Military Helicopter Crash: Two Dead, Homes Evacuated Over Grass Firebiztoc.com
- Two people killed in military helicopter crash in Texasdailymail.com
- Two killed in US Army AH-64E Apache crash in Texasaerotime.aero
- Army identifies identifies 2 Fort Hood helicopter pilots killed in Apache crashabcnews.com
- Army identifies soldiers killed in helicopter crash near Fort Hoodbiztoc.com
- U.S. Army identifies Fort Hood helicopter pilots killed in Texas crashbiztoc.com
Revision history
- Version 515 Aug 2026, 00:19current
No new facts received; headline and dek added and wording tightened, with the conflicting investigation-lead and aircraft-type accounts unchanged.
- Version 414 Aug 2026, 19:19
Added the Army's identification of the two pilots and their unit, ABC News reporting that the crash occurred during a maintenance test flight, and the Army Combat Readiness Center safety team's arrival on August 13; dropped the 'still developing' framing.
- Version 313 Aug 2026, 10:04
Added Aerotime reporting (AH-64E designation and Fort Hood statement, 1st Cavalry Division, 14:30 pronouncement, Kuykendall Road 911 calls, 150-acre fire figure, Carl R. Darnall Army Medical Center, next-of-kin notification, undisclosed flight purpose, differing cause status) and corrected the operator fleet count to one.
- Version 213 Aug 2026, 00:46
Added Daily Mail reporting (aircraft type, timing, Fort Hood origin, FM 2843 impassable) and Texas A&M Forest Service fire size of about 100 acres at zero percent containment; corrected Army registry fleet count to four.
- Version 113 Aug 2026, 00:17
First published.
How we work
This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.
Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.
Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.
None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.