FirstAlerts
Plane CrashesVersion 11

Two Killed in Army Apache Helicopter Crash Near Fort Hood, Texas

A military official told the Associated Press the AH-64 was on a routine training flight; Fort Hood's criminal investigation division is leading the inquiry and the cause has not been determined.

By AI ReporterUpdated Aug 13, 2026, 3:52 a.m. ET
people aboard an helicopter were killed when the aircraft crashed in a central Texas field near on August 12, 2026, according to the Boston Herald, the Bangor Daily News, KSAT, mymotherlode.com, WHEC, KLKN and KRGV. people were on board, the Boston Herald, the Bangor Daily News, mymotherlode.com, KLKN and KRGV reported. The outlets described the aircraft as belonging to the , referring to the operator variously as the "" and the "." The situation is developing and details remain incomplete. A military official told the Associated Press the Apache was on a routine training flight when it went down, the outlets reported. Bell County Sheriff's spokesman Cliff Coleman said the helicopter did not hit any homes or other structures. A sheriff's official said the crash sparked a wildfire that forced several homes to be evacuated. Photographs from the scene showed firefighters walking around a charred field with dark smoke and flames in the wreckage. The reporting described as a base of 214,968 acres (336 square miles) used to train and deploy heavy forces. Brig. Gen. Ethan Diven, the acting commanding general, said the immediate priority is securing the site and supporting initial response efforts, according to the same reporting. The cause has not been determined. 's criminal investigation division was leading the crash investigation, according to Coleman as quoted by the Boston Herald, the Bangor Daily News, KSAT, click2houston.com, mymotherlode.com, WHEC, KLKN and KRGV. That is the stated investigative posture and not a finding about what happened. As a matter of record, the reporting also noted that in November 2015 four soldiers were killed when a Black Hawk helicopter crashed during a training exercise; that earlier case says nothing about the cause of this crash. The aircraft involved has not been identified. Registry records list one aircraft on the registry under the ; that is a registry holding and not an identification of the helicopter in this crash. Geographic reference data places in Coryell County, Texas, at a settlement elevation of 741 feet, and locates the settlement about 5.7 miles east-southeast of Landing Strip 50, about 5.7 miles southwest of the Cold Springs UAV Airstrip and about 8.0 miles east of Landing Strip 12 Hammer. Those bearings are geocoded from the place name and locate the settlement only; the precise crash site has not been established in the available facts.

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
741 ft
Nearest aerodrome
5.7 miles ESE of Fort Hood Landing Strip 50 (US-6498)

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 1113 Aug 2026, 07:52current

    Added the reported November 2015 Fort Hood Black Hawk training crash as record, noting it bears on nothing in this case; added click2houston to the investigation attribution and completed Diven's quote.

  2. Version 1013 Aug 2026, 07:23

    Added KSAT to the outlets cited for the fatalities, date and investigative posture.

  3. Version 913 Aug 2026, 06:58

    Added Bangor Daily News to the attribution lists and restored the base's size as stated in the reporting (214,968 acres / 336 square miles, used to train and deploy heavy forces).

  4. Version 813 Aug 2026, 06:33

    Added KRGV as a corroborating source for the fatality count, souls on board and the investigation attribution.

  5. Version 713 Aug 2026, 06:18

    Added KLKN attribution to the fatality, souls-on-board and investigation-lead sourcing.

  6. Version 613 Aug 2026, 05:43

    Added WHEC as a third corroborating outlet for the fatality count, aircraft type and investigative posture, and clarified which outlets reported the two on board.

  7. Version 513 Aug 2026, 05:24

    Added mymotherlode.com as a corroborating source throughout and attributed the routine-training-flight account to the Associated Press.

  8. Version 413 Aug 2026, 04:33

    Added that the crash occurred in a central Texas field and the Boston Herald's description of Fort Hood as a 214,968-acre base.

  9. Version 313 Aug 2026, 03:54

    Added Brig. Gen. Ethan Diven's statement that the immediate priority is securing the crash site.

  10. Version 213 Aug 2026, 03:03

    Corrected the reference-data bearings to nearby airstrips (previously reversed), added the third airstrip, noted the operator was described as both "U.S. Army" and "Army," and matched the wreckage description to the sourced wording.

  11. Version 113 Aug 2026, 01:34

    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.