Editorial pack · DroneLedger
Drone and Army helicopter collide near New York City in September 2017
Current state
A privately operated drone collided with a US Army helicopter near New York City on21September2017. Investigators recovered drone parts from the helicopter. DJI later described using sales records to trace a recovered fragment during the NTSB investigation.
Evidence states
| Drone presence | confirmed · sources [1], [2] |
|---|---|
| Impact | confirmed · sources [1], [2] |
| Attribution | none · sources none |
The NTSB statement describes damage to the helicopter. DJI reports no injuries. No airport shutdown, casualties or wider disruption is established by these sources.
The NTSB statement reports physical parts recovery and operator interviews. DJI separately describes its own fragment-tracing contribution. These are distinct original evidence contributions within the same investigation, not two unrelated investigations. The current NTSB completed-case page was also read and is consistent with a collision finding; its publication date is not displayed, so none is fabricated in the public source list.
Claims
2 sources · 2 original statements. Sources that repeat the same statement count once.
| Claim and source passage | Original source | Assessment |
|---|---|---|
| The NTSB reported recovery of drone components from the helicopter. “A motor and arm from a small drone” [1] | National Transportation Safety Board (relayed) | supports: Short literal passage read on the public source page; reported drone presence is not technical identification. |
| The Army helicopter sustained damage. “The Army helicopter sustained damage” [1] | National Transportation Safety Board (relayed) | supports: Short literal passage read on the public source page; reported drone presence is not technical identification. |
| DJI says it helped identify the purchaser from a recovered component using its records. “use the serial number to identify” [2] | DJI (relayed) | supports: Short literal passage read on the public source page; reported drone presence is not technical identification. |
| DJI reports no injury. “No one was injured” [2] | DJI (relayed) | context: Short literal passage read on the public source page; reported drone presence is not technical identification. |
Not established
The October statement was preliminary; the May2020 manufacturer account describes the later investigation. The manufacturer’s privacy-policy assertions are not independently assessed here. No precise airborne position, altitude, flight route, private operator name or device serial included.
The investigation identified a private drone operator. No government or organisational direction, criminal conviction or state attribution is asserted here.
Chronology
- 21 Sep 2017: A privately operated drone collided with a US Army helicopter near New York City on21September2017. Investigators recovered drone parts from the helicopter. DJI later described using sales records to trace a recovered fragment during the NTSB investigation. [1]
- 16 May 2020: DJI publishes an original account of its contribution to identifying the recovered component in the NewYork2017 investigation. Follow-up publication, not a second event. [2]
Sources
- NTSB5October2017 statement via sUASNews (2017-10-05, source family: us-ntsb)
https://www.suasnews.com/2017/10/ntsb-investigating-collision-drone-u-s-army-helicopter/ - DJI Viewpoints: original manufacturer investigation account (2020-05-16, source family: dji)
https://viewpoints.dji.com/blog/how-i-know-dji-doesnt-have-your-drone-data
How to cite
DroneLedger. “Drone and Army helicopter collide near New York City in September 2017.” Dossier new-york-drone-helicopter-collision-2017-09-21, revision 1, updated 16 Oct 2026. https://droneincidents.com/incident/new-york-drone-helicopter-collision-2017-09-21/v1/
Editorial changes
- Revision 1 (2026-10-16): Curated dossier created after checking the cited sources line by line.
Evidence states: confirmed = established by the cited evidence; reported = stated by a source, not independently established; inconclusive; debunked; unknown. A claim by a party to a conflict remains a claim. Methodology: https://droneincidents.com/methodology/