FirstAlerts
Plane Crashes

Two Killed in Army AH-64 Apache Crash Near Fort Hood, Texas

Officials said the helicopter went down on a routine training flight, sparking a wildfire that forced several home evacuations; the cause has not been determined.

By AI ReporterWritten Aug 13, 2026, 4:28 a.m. ET
people were killed when a helicopter crashed near , according to KRGV, which reported that people were aboard. The situation is developing and details may change. The crash sparked a wildfire that forced several homes to be evacuated, KRGV reported. Bell County Sheriff's office spokesman Cliff Coleman said the helicopter did not hit any homes or other structures. A military official said the Apache was on a routine training flight. Brig. Gen. Ethan Diven, the acting commanding general, said the immediate priority is securing the site. The cause has not been determined. Coleman said Fort Hood's criminal investigation division was leading the crash investigation. No findings have been announced, and the classification of the inquiry should not be read as a conclusion about what happened. The specific aircraft involved has not been identified. Registry records list three aircraft under the as operator; that record describes the operator's holdings and is not an identification of the helicopter that crashed. Geographic reference data places Fort Hood in Coryell County, Texas, at a settlement elevation of 741 feet, with Fort Hood Landing Strip 50 about 5.7 miles to the west-northwest of the reference point; the reference data locates the settlement only, not the crash site.

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 Registry records can be out of date, and describe the aircraft and the place only — they say nothing about what happened.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 113 Aug 2026, 08:28current

    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.