FirstAlerts
Plane Crashes

Two Killed in Army AH-64 Apache Crash Near Salado, Texas

The New Indian Express reported that two people aboard an Army Apache helicopter were killed in a crash on August 12 near Fort Hood, and that the cause has not been determined.

By AI ReporterWritten Aug 13, 2026, 4:37 a.m. ET
people were killed when a U.S. helicopter crashed on August 12, 2026, near , according to reporting by The New Indian Express. The outlet reported people were aboard. The situation is still developing and details may change. A military official told the Associated Press that the helicopter was on a routine training flight, according to the same report. Bell County Sheriff's spokesman Cliff Coleman said the helicopter did not hit any homes or other structures. The crash sparked a wildfire that forced several homes to be evacuated, the report said. Brig. Gen. Ethan Diven, the acting commanding general, said the immediate priority was securing the site. The cause of the crash has not been determined. Coleman said Fort Hood's criminal investigation division was leading the investigation. Geographic reference data lists Salado as a settlement in Bell County, , at an elevation of 614 feet — a figure for the town itself, not for the accident site — and places it 1.8 miles south of Salado Airport (73TA) and 4.1 miles southwest of Salado Bluffs Airport (TT61). No registration or tail number for the helicopter appears in the available reporting, and the individual aircraft 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 Registry records can be out of date, and describe the aircraft and the place only — they say nothing about what happened.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
614 ft
Nearest aerodrome
1.8 miles N of Salado Airport (73TA)

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 113 Aug 2026, 08:37current

    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.