FirstAlerts
Plane Crashes

Two Soldiers Killed in Army Apache Crash Near Fort Hood; Training Flights Stood Down

The Army has ordered a temporary stand-down of AH64 Apache training flights after the August 12 crash in Texas, and the cause has not been determined.

By AI ReporterWritten Aug 14, 2026, 7:19 p.m. ET
Developing

This is a developing story. Details reported early are provisional and are frequently revised. Where sources disagree, both readings are given.

soldiers were killed when a U.S. helicopter crashed near , on August 12, 2020, according to clarksvillenow.com. The situation is still developing. The outlet reported that the Apache was on a maintenance test flight when it crashed, and that those killed were identified as Chief Warrant Officer Deontre T. Huey, 34, and Warrant Officer Seth L. Olmstead, 25. The crash sparked a wildfire that forced several homes to be evacuated, a sheriff's official told the outlet. The phase of flight has not been established. The cause has not been determined. , according to clarksvillenow.com. The also directed a temporary stand-down of all training flight operations, including at Fort Campbell. clarksvillenow.com reported that recent data show Apaches have a higher number of recent mishaps than other helicopters. That record says nothing about the cause of this crash. Geographic reference data lists Fort Hood as being in Coryell County, Texas, at an elevation of 741 ft; that figure describes the settlement, not the accident site, which has not been precisely located in the reporting.

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 Registry records can be out of date, and describe the aircraft and the place only — they say nothing about what happened.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 114 Aug 2026, 23:19current

    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.