Two Army Pilots Killed in Apache Helicopter Crash Near Salado, Texas
The U.S. Army has temporarily grounded Apache flights and opened a safety investigation; 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 Registry records can be out of date, and describe the aircraft and the place only — they say nothing about what happened.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
- Army Grounds Apache Helicopters After Fatal Crash | NewsRadio 790 WAEB790waeb.iheart.com
- Army Grounds Apache Helicopters After Fatal Crash | News Talk 550 KFYIkfyi.iheart.com
- Army Grounds Apache Helicopters After Fatal Crash | KNST AM 790knst.iheart.com
- Army Grounds Apache Helicopters After Fatal Crash | 1290 WJNOwjno.iheart.com
- Army Grounds Apache Helicopters After Fatal Crash | Newsradio WOOD 1300 and 106.9 FMwoodradio.iheart.com
- Army Grounds Apache Helicopters After Fatal Crash | 570 WSYRwsyr.iheart.com
- Fort Hood helicopter crash: Apache pilots killed identifiedfox4news.com
- Fort Hood helicopter crash: Apache pilots killed identifiedfox7austin.com
- Army identifies 2 pilots killed in Apache helicopter crash near Fort Hood during training exercisefoxnews.com
- Two Pilots Who Died In 'Violent' Fort Hood Apache Helicopter Crash Identified military.com
Revision history
- Version 914 Aug 2026, 22:20current
Added corroborating attribution from knst.iheart.com and wjno.iheart.com throughout, and noted the phase of flight is unknown per wjno.iheart.com.
- Version 814 Aug 2026, 22:14
Added headline and dek, and folded in corroborating attribution from wsyr.iheart.com and 790waeb.iheart.com for the aircraft type, fatalities, operator, grounding and safety investigation.
- Version 714 Aug 2026, 22:10
Corrected the U.S. Army operator registry holdings from two aircraft to one, and added a headline and standfirst.
- Version 614 Aug 2026, 21:59
Added headline and dek; led with the best-supported "AH-64 Apache" type description while keeping the competing descriptions, added woodradio.iheart.com attributions and foxnews.com's training-exercise wording.
- Version 514 Aug 2026, 21:54
Added kfyi.iheart.com reporting that the Army temporarily grounded all Apache flights and its note on Army mishap data, added the sheriff's office statement that no structures were damaged, and corrected the operator registry holdings from three aircraft to two.
- Version 414 Aug 2026, 19:24
Replaced the weather reading with the KGRK observation (wind 170° at 13 kt, 98°F) and added foxnews.com attribution for the aircraft type, fatality count, operator and investigation team.
- Version 314 Aug 2026, 18:54
Added fox4news.com corroboration for the AH-64E designation, the 1:40 p.m. time, the Combat Readiness Center team's Aug. 13 arrival and the pilots' home towns, and attributed the U.S. Army as operator per fox7austin.com.
- Version 214 Aug 2026, 18:24
Added military.com reporting: aircraft-type, time and investigation-status conflicts now shown as sourced ranges; added crew unit, Fort Hood basing and 30-mile distance, 155-acre fire containment, sheriff's quote and governor's statement; corrected registry fleet count to three and the aerodrome bearings.
- Version 114 Aug 2026, 17:05
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.