Talk:Foreign object damage

Comments

Obviously, Foreign Object Damage has been a concern since the earliest days of flight... but when was the term "FOD" first used? I think it would be appropriate to note when the xpression entered the language. The earliest I can trace it back is to the late 1950s, in the US. I am also trying to identify when the world's navies began "FOD Walkdowns" on their carriers. Again, the earliest I have found is the late 1950s, in the USN. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.91.65.148 (talk) 06:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

FOD is a slang term (new)... can't figure out what it means.. surprised to see it not listed here....

concorde

hi folks,

just a comment from a german wiki-man: how about adding the concorde crash at paris as an example? Regards, Andreas

Done. Akradecki 20:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

debris

FOD also stands for a related term, Foreign Object Debris. For example at the air force base where I work there are signs advising people to "Check Shoes for FOD". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.68.106.168 (talk) 22:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking. Will see how to add it to the article. user:justfred — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.234.130.219 (talk) 16:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the main article should have been "Foreign Object Debris" (which is the more prevalent definition of FOD) with "foreign object damage" redirecting to it. As of this date, the titles/links are reversed. Not sure how to fix. Mulehide (talk) 15:51, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

We can fix this with a move request. Ibadibam (talk) 17:12, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Construction

Noticing in pictures of the F-35 being built caution tape reading "FOD CRITICAL ZONE" http://ueba.net/hosted_pages/F-35-Joint-Strike-Fighter?2

So the term FOD seems to apply to construction too, not just operations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kentborg (talk • contribs) 19:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Why not have some kind of grating over the intakes of a jet engine?

The grating mesh would prevent large objects like birds from getting sucked into the intake. Malamockq 03:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

1) The grate itself would impede airflow. 
2) If a bird impacted the grate, it would probably stick impeding air flow. 
3) Other debris can get caught, build up and impede airflow. 
#1 might be solved through engineering.  
#2 & #3 would cause loss of power and could be as much of a problem as the FOD. 169.3.168.209 15:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, jet engines used on some helicopters (like the Bell 222U and Bell 412 that I work on) do have screens over the inlets, and even with that we occasionally have problems with FOD ingestion. The smallest piece of safetywire, a rivet tail, or cotterpin can trash a turbine engine. Besides the screens, on our engines and on some turboprop engines, especially those with reverse flow like the PT-6A, there is a particle seperator system designed in so that debris heavier than air takes a different route and gets expelled, rather than ingested. And even then we have problems...I've just added a photo of FOD (the damage, not the debris) in a helicopter engine. Akradecki 20:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

A Rolls-Royce Nene showing the wire mesh grille surrounding the air intake

Some early Gloster Meteors had a wire mesh grille installed inside the air intakes. These were colloquially known as Daunt-stoppers after test pilot Michael Daunt. Very early on when the suction power of jet engines was relatively unknown to pilots he was walking around the wing of a Meteor that had its engines running and was pulled into the intake. Luckily he wasn't hurt but from then on people were warned not to approach the front (or back) of a jet with its engines running. The wire mesh grilles were never a long term solution as, as was mentioned above, they disturb the airflow into the engines at higher airspeeds. Ian Dunster (talk) 10:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

See 1945 Flight article on Meteor showing 'Daunt-stoppers' in photo here: [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.68.219 (talk) 19:43, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Bird ingestion tests

The section of the article related to bird ingestion is completely inaccurate. Regulations state that ingestion of small and medium sized birds can not cause less than 25% loss of thrust. The engine is actually required to continue running for several minutes at specific power settings, demonstrating the ability to change power settings and sustain them after the bird strike. See Federal Aviation Regulations part 33 section 33.76 for a detailed summary of the required test. It should be noted that not all engines may need to meet the specifications of FAR 33.76, but any engine on a large commercial aircraft certainly will need to comply. FAR can be seen online at http://rgl.faa.gov/

- Ryan 16 Oct 2007  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.5.138.122 (talk) 03:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC) 

And golly, thanks to whoever made the clarification that the fresh chicken should be dead, but not frozen. Still trying to put that urban legend to bed, eh? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.193.106.48 (talk) 10:15, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Debug

Does this article remind anyone of the term "debug"? Grace Murray Hopper would be displeased to know that her term, based on a true story about an actual FOD moth, doesn't appear in the entire article. Inasilentway (talk) 06:21, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Live Birds?

The article states that wildlife is not generally considered a cause of FOD, and yet quite a bit of the text relates to bird strikes. I placed a citation needed tag at the line that dismisses live animals, but if that is indeed the case, then a portion of the article is irrelevant. Just sayin'... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.193.106.48 (talk) 10:10, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Move article?

It looks as if it's been decided that "FOD" officially means "Foreign Object Debris" nowadays more than "Damage", to the extent that while the article is titled "Foreign Object Damage", it starts out with the bold words "Foreign Object Debris are...". I made the words "Foreign Object Damage" beginning the following paragraph bold as well, for those who were a little confused by the discrepancy, but it seems to be that the title of the page out to match the leading definition, which is "Debris". That appears to be upheld in the text, although I'd always thought that it was a case of double-definition more than one word replacing others...FOD causes FOD, not FOD causes FOD damage (although that's an easier way to say it in real life, obviously). As for the quote "there can be debris without damage, there can be no damage without debris", that's all well and good as it goes, except that it's not technically true: there can be all kinds of damage without debris! Turbine blades letting go, cracked compressor discs, etc, plain old fashioned failure. AnnaGoFast (talk) 23:10, 2 May 2016 (UTC)