Tesla Dashcam Captures Near-Miss with Crash-Landing Military Plane: Was FSD Involved?
![](data:image/svg+xml;charset=utf-8,<svg height="1024px" width="1024px" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" version="1.1"/>)
Dramatic Dashcam Captures Near-Miss with Crash-Landing Military Plane
On October 23, a startling event unfolded in southeast Oklahoma City: an Air Force OA-1K Skyraider II crash-landed on or near a roadway, terrifying drivers in the vicinity. In one extraordinary moment, a Tesla’s dashcam recorded what appears to be a near collision—with the car swerving just in time to avoid the descending aircraft. The footage has ignited debate about whether Tesla’s Full Self-Driving (FSD) technology played a role in averting disaster.
What Happened: Crash-Landing on a Public Road
According to local and aviation sources, the aircraft was conducting a training sortie when it suffered what appears to be an engine failure, forcing an emergency landing attempt.
After the engine issue, the plane struck two power poles, which knocked down lines and ignited a small grass fire. The aircraft came to rest in a field, suffering damage to its left wing, nose, and propeller—but both crew members (a civilian contractor and an active-duty service member) escaped unharmed.
The crash site was pinpointed near Southeast 119th Street and Sooner Road. Reports indicate the aircraft hit a curb, crossed a small field, struck signage and power poles, and spun before coming to rest.
Local fire and utility crews quickly contained the grass fire, restored safety to the power infrastructure, and confirmed there were no injuries.
This incident marks one of the first reported mishaps involving the newly fielded OA-1K platform. The OA-1K, also known as the Skyraider II, is a militarized derivative of the Air Tractor AT-802, designed for light attack and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) missions under the U.S. Air Force’s Armed Overwatch initiative.
The Dashcam Footage: A Close Call on Wheels
Among the startling visuals is a dashcam video captured in a Tesla, shared by social media accounts and reported by several outlets. In the footage, the plane appears to descend toward the highway, skimming close to tree line and roadway lanes before coming down.
At a critical moment, the Tesla swerves sharply to the left and back into its lane—avoiding what may have been a direct collision with the aircraft. The operator of the dashcam, David Bellow, posted dramatic commentary on social media:
“WOW! Tesla full self-driving dodges a freaking plane falling out of the sky!”
However, Bellow also clarified that he was not the driver; he says he received the video from a friend (Matthew Topchian) who owns the Tesla in question.
The footage has spawned speculation that Tesla’s FSD system may have intervened in the moment of crisis.
Was FSD at Work? Analyzing the Possibility
Observers immediately wondered: was this swerve a human reaction or an autonomous intervention by Tesla’s FSD? Analysts and Tesla enthusiasts scrutinized the clip for telltale signs. Some argue the reaction was too smooth and rapid for a startled human driver, and more in line with how an intelligent driving algorithm might handle an unexpected obstacle.
One detail that drew attention was the activation of the “Jump to Event” feature in Tesla’s dashcam system—used to revisit significant events. Its appearance in the video was viewed as suggestive of a system-level awareness of the incident. (However, the mere use of Jump to Event does not confirm FSD engagement.)
Supporters of the FSD hypothesis point to the fluency of the swerve: the car didn’t slow dramatically; it adjusted its trajectory cleanly, then resumed its path. Such finesse in split-second motion is consistent with how a well-tuned autonomous system might operate.
Still, skeptics caution that video alone is not proof. The video lacks metadata, timestamps clearly tied to FSD logs, or system logs showing that FSD was actively controlling the vehicle at that moment. Without access to the vehicle’s internal sensor data or driving logs, definitive attribution is difficult.
In sum: the evidence is tantalizing but not conclusive. The dashcam shows a striking avoidance, and some features point to advanced automation—but we can’t yet confirm or rule out human control.
Dashcams: Guardians of Unseen Moments
Regardless of whether FSD was involved, this incident underscores the power of dashcam technology. In a split second, circumstances changed — and only the camera bore witness. Dashcams continue to demonstrate their value by capturing rare, high-stakes events that otherwise might go undocumented.
The footage acts as both a cautionary tale and proof of concept. It reminds us that hazards can emerge from the sky, not just from other vehicles. It also highlights how modern vehicles, aided by surveillance tools and autonomous features, may offer us enhanced situational awareness and reactive capacity.
Moreover, such recordings help fuel debates, investigations, and refinement of safety protocols. They allow experts to examine how vehicles behave in edge-case scenarios, providing empirical data that might inform future system calibrations or regulatory oversight.
Implications: What This Means for Autonomous Safety
If it is later confirmed that FSD assisted—or even executed—that evasive maneuver, the event would carry significant implications for autonomous vehicle (AV) credibility. It would be among a rare real-world examples where an AV system responded to an airborne threat. That level of reflexive action goes beyond typical highway scenarios and enters the realm of unpredictable external hazards.
Such cases raise important questions:
- Reliability under extreme conditions: Can autonomous systems reliably handle events that deviate from expected road behavior?
- System boundaries and fail-safes: When should human supervision override autonomy, and how should systems signal their confidence or limitations?
- Regulatory and legal frameworks: If an autonomous vehicle acts to avoid a crash and impacts another party, who bears liability? And what standards must systems meet to be deemed safe?
- Transparency and logging: How can manufacturers provide assurance (e.g. logs, black boxes, verifiable data) that systems behaved correctly in edge cases?
Even if we never reach a definitive conclusion about FSD’s involvement in this particular crash scenario, the event fuels important conversations about the trajectory of autonomous technologies—and the line between responsive intervention and human oversight.
Final Thoughts
The dramatic crash-landing of an OA-1K Skyraider II near a public highway—and the Tesla dashcam capturing a car narrowly escaping—offers a potent vignette of modern risk and technological response. Whether the Tesla’s swerve was human instinct or an autonomous calculation, the incident embodies both the unpredictability of real-world hazards and the growing role of advanced driving systems.
For drivers, it’s a reminder: While autonomy and safety systems may assist us, they are no substitute for awareness. For developers and policymakers, it’s a live test case pointing toward the challenges ahead: building systems that can respond to the unexpected, documenting behavior reliably, and calibrating boundaries between human and machine.
As the investigation into the crash continues, more data may emerge. But whatever the ultimate explanation, this moment—caught on camera—underscores how intertwined our roads, skies, and technologies have become. The near-miss is more than viral spectacle: it’s a snapshot of how future mobility will be judged, tested, and evolved.