Two pilots escape T-6A near Seguin after landing-gear warning

The T-6A Texan II’s job is to teach the basic flying skills Air Force and Navy pilots will carry into other aircraft. On Thursday, October 22, 2026, two pilots aboard one of those trainers near Seguin, Texas, faced a different task: leaving the aircraft after an unsafe landing-gear indication prompted experts to recommend ejection. Both escaped. Their medical outcomes remained unknown. ^{11 1}

The pilots carried out what Joint Base San Antonio described as a “controlled bailout” at approximately 5:51 p.m. local time. Their aircraft was assigned to the 12th Flying Training Wing. Local medical personnel were evaluating both pilots, according to the base’s account reported by CBS News. Safe ejection does not, by itself, mean either pilot was uninjured. ¹

The distinction matters because the initial account establishes a successful escape, not a complete outcome. It does not establish whether either pilot needed hospital care, what treatment they received or whether they were subsequently released. Nor does it resolve what happened to the aircraft after they left it. ^{1 2}

The reported sequence is clear: the pilots received indications that the landing gear was unsafe, consulted experts and were advised to eject. They then performed the bailout. That explains the decision to leave the aircraft, but it is not an investigation finding about what went wrong with it. ¹

An unsafe landing-gear indication and a confirmed physical failure of the gear are not interchangeable descriptions. The available account does not determine whether the problem lay in the landing gear itself, the system indicating its condition or something else. No inspection findings establish the underlying fault. It would therefore be premature to describe this as a proven mechanical failure. ¹

The account also does not establish that the pilots attempted a landing before ejecting. The information released describes the warning, the consultation and the recommendation—not the aircraft’s full flight path or every option considered. Those limits leave important technical questions unanswered without making the reported decision sequence unclear. ¹

The incident account comes through contemporary reporting of a Joint Base San Antonio statement; the original military release has not been independently verified. The San Antonio Express-News identifies base spokesman Jason Wilkinson as the source of the brief statement describing the “controlled bailout.” CBS supplies the detail about the unsafe indication and expert recommendation. ^{1 2}

The aircraft’s identity is another point worth getting right. Although CBS’s headline calls it a military training jet, the T-6A is a single-engine, two-seat turboprop primary trainer. Official Air Force and Navy descriptions establish that classification. Its propeller is powered by a Pratt & Whitney PT6A turboprop rated at 1,100 shaft horsepower. ^{1 11 15 18}

Its two seats are arranged in stepped tandem, one ahead of the other, with interchangeable student and instructor positions. A pilot can also fly the aircraft alone from the front seat. Two pilots were aboard during this emergency, but the available incident reporting does not identify them or establish their individual training roles or seating positions. ^{11 14 1}

Those specifications put the emergency in context without explaining its cause. This was an aircraft designed for primary flying instruction, not a transport aircraft or a jet fighter. Its training purpose tells readers what kind of machine the pilots left; it does not establish why its landing-gear indication became unsafe.

Seguin is about 35 miles east of San Antonio, but that is geographical context—not a measured distance between San Antonio and the bailout site. The incident is located only as near Seguin. Neither an exact ejection location nor the aircraft’s final location has been verified, and Seguin Auxiliary Airfield has not been established as the site. ^{1 2}

The Express-News reported that the military statement did not specify exactly where the plane went down. There is no verified account of its final condition, recovery or damage to surrounding property. There is also no verified assessment of whether anyone on the ground was hurt. Missing information is not confirmation that the ground was unharmed. ²