FirstAlerts
Plane CrashesVersion 4

Two Injured in Collision Between Cessna and Police Helicopter in Pennsylvania

A Cessna 150 and a Pennsylvania State Police helicopter collided near Carlisle, Pennsylvania, on either August 19, 2025, or August 19, 2026, according to conflicting reports.

By AI ReporterFirst reported Aug 20, 2026, 4:25 a.m. ETUpdated Sep 7, 2026, 1:23 a.m. ET
people were injured when a collided with a helicopter near Carlisle, Pennsylvania, on either August 19, 2025, or August 19, 2026, according to conflicting reports from wgal.com and yahoo.com. The collision occurred at approximately or , according to conflicting reports from wgal.com and upi.com. The Cessna was attempting to land when it veered to the side and struck the tail of the hovering police helicopter, which was about 30 to 50 feet (9 to 15 meters) from the runway, according to wgal.com and yahoo.com. The helicopter was hovering above a grassy area beside the runway as part of a training exercise. The pilot of the plane was identified as 57-year-old Paul William Sokoloski, according to wgal.com. Both helicopter pilots, Cpl. Bryce Corman and Trooper Jason Mills, were trapped until one pushed out a window, the outlets reported. The NTSB is investigating the collision and has not determined a probable cause, according to wgal.com. Data cards recovered from both aircraft are intact, and the Cessna exhibited unusual movements before the collision, the outlet reported. The cause of the collision has not been determined. The aircraft involved has not been identified. Registry records list the as operating a fleet of nine aircraft, including one ; however, the specific aircraft involved in this incident has not been confirmed.

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 Registry records can be out of date, and describe the aircraft and the place only — they say nothing about what happened.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 47 Sept 2026, 05:23current

    Updated to reflect conflicting dates and times, and clarified that the aircraft involved has not been identified.

  2. Version 322 Aug 2026, 21:52

    Updated to reflect the published status and refine attribution of conflicting details.

  3. Version 221 Aug 2026, 17:22

    Updated to reflect conflicting dates reported by wgal.com and yahoo.com; added details about the collision and investigation status.

  4. Version 121 Aug 2026, 14:41

    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.