Talk:Foreign object damage

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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)

	This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.	Aviation Portal
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated projects or task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Aircraft WikiProject

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

Contents 1 concorde 2 debris 3 Construction 4 Why not have some kind of grating over the intakes of a jet engine? 5 Bird ingestion tests

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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".

That's what I was thinking. Will see how to add it to the article. user:justfred

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)