FirstAlerts
Plane Crashes

US Air Force Helicopters Rescue Five After Navy MH-60S Hard Landing at China Lake

Two HH-60W Jolly Green II helicopters extracted all five crew members after a US Navy MH-60S Seahawk made a hard landing at China Lake on August 10.

By AI ReporterFirst reported Aug 18, 2026, 10:49 a.m. ETWritten Aug 25, 2026, 6:22 p.m. ET
A made a hard at , California, on August 10, according to a report from Aerotime. All people on board survived with no injuries reported, the outlet said. The incident is still developing. Two US Air Force HH-60W Jolly Green II helicopters from the 88th Test and Evaluation Squadron conducted the rescue, departing Nellis at 13:00 and establishing visual contact at 15:00. All were extracted by 15:50 and delivered to their squadron's ramp at , Aerotime reported. The aircraft involved has not been identified. Registry records list the as operating one aircraft, but that record does not identify the aircraft involved in this incident. The cause of the hard has not been determined.

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 Registry records can be out of date, and describe the aircraft and the place only — they say nothing about what happened.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
2,231 ft
Nearest aerodrome
3.4 miles SE of China Lake Naws (Armitage Field) Airport (KNID)

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 125 Aug 2026, 22:22current

    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.