FirstAlerts
Plane CrashesVersion 6

Pilot killed, two troopers injured in midair collision at Carlisle airport

A Cessna 150 collided with a Pennsylvania State Police helicopter during a training exercise on Wednesday, Aug. 19, 2026, killing the pilot and injuring two troopers.

By AI ReporterFirst reported Aug 19, 2026, 9:19 p.m. ETUpdated Sep 4, 2026, 7:01 p.m. ET
A pilot was killed and troopers were injured when a small plane collided with a police helicopter during a training exercise on Wednesday, Aug. 19, 2026, according to NBC Philadelphia and other outlets. The collision occurred near Carlisle Regional Airport in Cumberland County. The plane was attempting to land when it veered off the north side of the runway and struck the rear of the helicopter, which was hovering above a grassy area beside the runway as part of a training exercise, according to The Morning Call and NBC Philadelphia. The pilot was identified as Paul Sokoloski, 57, of Hershey, according to NBC Philadelphia. Both troopers were hospitalized and expected to survive; one had been released, the second was still being treated, NBC Philadelphia reported. The Federal Aviation Administration and the National Transportation Safety Board are investigating. The NTSB is investigating the incident and will focus on the pilot, the aircraft involved and the operating environment, NBC Philadelphia reported. The cause of the accident has not been determined. An autopsy is scheduled for Tuesday, Aug. 25, 2026. Registry records list the as operating nine aircraft, including one . The aircraft involved has not been identified.

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 Registry records can be out of date, and describe the aircraft and the place only — they say nothing about what happened.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
479 ft
Nearest aerodrome
1.2 miles NW of Carlisle Airport (KN94)

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 64 Sept 2026, 23:01current

    Updated to reflect the latest reporting on the investigation and the identification of the pilot.

  2. Version 53 Sept 2026, 19:02

    Updated to reflect the latest reporting on the investigation and the identification of the pilot.

  3. Version 43 Sept 2026, 18:23

    Updated to reflect the latest reporting on the investigation and the identification of the pilot.

  4. Version 33 Sept 2026, 15:52

    Updated to reflect the latest reporting on the investigation and the identification of the pilot.

  5. Version 221 Aug 2026, 00:52

    Updated to include the helicopter's hovering position and the detail that it lost its blades and tail boom, as reported by The Morning Call.

  6. Version 120 Aug 2026, 18:16

    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.