I just got off the phone with Joanie from the ICAO (International Coalition of Abbreviation Officials), and she said the abbreviation is appropriately set for both meanings.

 

Arguing that it "should not" isn't going to get you anywhere. That's about as effective as me arguing that YOLO shouldn't mean "you only live once," because that's been clear since we have discovered people eventually die (unless you believe in reincarnation). People generate acronyms for whatever they'd like, and the consensus of acceptance is in and of that group. Since the majority of airlines agree that it is used in both cases, and you singularly don't, you're welcome to remain the odd man out.

 

Furthermore, even the FAA describes it in an official context as Foreign Object Debris.

 

As far as the meaning being rendered worthless, I'd also argue that you're incorrect:

Debris is simply scattered remains in a very vague sense. By stating foreign object, it explains the debris further by saying that it is from a foreign object ("foreign object" is essentially the adjective to the noun "debris").

 

In either case, one could get very semantic (and like some, pedantic) and argue that both are incorrect. What if a piece of my nosewheel came off and was ingested by my own engine. Since it is of my airplane, is it truly foreign? No. Then again, we can get even more semantic/pedantic and say "well, since it's not supposed to be in the engine, then it's foreign."

 

...and just like my PAR versus PAR example (which can be figured out in context), so can FOD and FOD.

I cleaned the ramp of FOD.

I conducted a walkaround of aircraft 703. FOD to engine one. Appears to be a bird.

 

The latter is clearly damage, while the former is clearly debris.

 

 

 

Cue the people in here who are going to come down hard on wikipedia under the false assumption that it's not a relevant source. Just to fend some of it off before it's even said: wikipedia commonly gets more peer review than many encyclopedias. Additionally, if credible sources are cited in the wiki, then it can also be considered credible.

 

Kyle,

 

Well said! I believe you are one of the more informed folks I've read on this forum. All new hires at Boeing (including me about 2 years ago) prior to being allowed to enter an aircraft being assembled in our Everett factory, have to go through FOD training with the "D" being described as both Debris and Damage. The prevention of FODebris entering the airplane (from things such as loose pens, articles of jewelry to un-necessary fasteners and nuts) reduces the chances of FODamage to the airplane. The point is that what the D stands for depends on the context of the user.

Thanks Thong!

Thanks for the lecture, Kyle, but I never said FOD wasn't used for debris so there really wasn't any need to spend any time demonstrating that it was. My point was that the phrase "foreign object debris" is meaningless English. Not only that it's three words where one will suffice (debris). The "foreign object" part is completely redundant. You didn't bother to address that point.

 

As for apparently calling the ICAO to verify this, words fail me.

 

Alex's post (#26) shows that the the meaning of FOD for some operations has become totally inverted. The original usage is lost and the I TRIED TO USE A PROFANITY HERE - AREN'T I STUPID!ised usage has replaced it.

Thanks for the lecture, Kyle, but I never said FOD wasn't used for debris so there really wasn't any need to spend any time demonstrating that it was. My point was that the phrase "foreign object debris" is meaningless English. Not only that it's three words where one will suffice (debris). The "foreign object" part is completely redundant. You didn't bother to address that point.

 

You're welcome! I was simply explaining that it is and why it is used that way. I was also arguing why the argument that an acronym (or even a backronym) shouldn't be used is rather backwards itself. Acronyms are developed and used by the masses. If they use it, they use it. There is no Overlord Grammarian regulating their use. That was my point.

 

As for apparently calling the ICAO to verify this, words fail me.

 

Read it again. Carefully.

 

I'll even copy and paste it right here so you don't have to go looking for it:

"I just got off the phone with Joanie from the ICAO (International Coalition of Abbreviation Officials), and she said the abbreviation is appropriately set for both meanings."

 

Since you're so picky about the English language, perhaps you're familiar with the phrase "tongue in cheek."

 

 

 

Further, you should really go re-learn the definition of 'debris'. If I have an aircraft tire (tyre in your parlance - wouldn't want to set you off about whether tire or tyre came first) laying around on the ramp, is that debris? No. It's a complete tire. If pieces came from that object, it would be debris. Since debris can essentially mean anything that's been busted up (as in the case of gravel), the addition of 'foreign object' is there to mean any of that debris that is foreign to this environment. Whereas gravel would be debris that warrants removal at a major airport - it is debris, and also foreign to that environment - it would not warrant removal at the gravel strips in Alaska. It is still debris, as it's broken up rock, but it is not foreign to that environment.

 

[/Pedantic Semantics]

 

Alex's post (#26) shows that the the meaning of FOD for some operations has become totally inverted. The original usage is lost and the I TRIED TO USE A PROFANITY HERE - AREN'T I STUPID!ised usage has replaced it.

 

It's been inverted? Really? You have proof that Foreign Object Damage came first?

OMG ROFL.

 

Should the L be for Laughing or Languishing.

 

You be the judge.

 

Jas

Further, you should really go re-learn the definition of 'debris'. If I have an aircraft tire (tyre in your parlance - wouldn't want to set you off about whether tire or tyre came first) laying around on the ramp, is that debris? No. It's a complete tire. If pieces came from that object, it would be debris. Since debris can essentially mean anything that's been busted up (as in the case of gravel), the addition of 'foreign object' is there to mean any of that debris that is foreign to this environment. Whereas gravel would be debris that warrants removal at a major airport - it is debris, and also foreign to that environment - it would not warrant removal at the gravel strips in Alaska. It is still debris, as it's broken up rock, but it is not foreign to that environment.

I don't think engine damage from ingested debris is any different whether the debris was foreign to the runway environment or not. Things may be different in DC of course. The example of gravel strips is not relevant as aircraft operating from those have additional protection, and or tougher structures.

 

It's been inverted? Really? You have proof that Foreign Object Damage came first?

Proof no, but are you seriously trying to tell me the "Foreign Object Damage" version came first? Or are you just pointlessly playing Devil's Advocate?

 

=========================================================

 

I'd just like to point that the "I TRIED TO USE A PROFANITY HERE - AREN'T I STUPID" is completely inaccurate. I did no such thing. The "profanity" that I now see was auto-deleted was part of a perfectly acceptable and inoffensive word in any English dictionary

 

http://dictionary.re...######ised?s=t

Are people actually arguing on how an acronym is being used?

Yes they are, and it's pointless.

You guys need a parking lot to sort this out?

The thread is completely derailed.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone...typing errors imminent

Trainsim=derailed, flightsim=deplaned

jeff

Yes they are, and it's pointless.

You guys need a parking lot to sort this out?

The thread is completely derailed.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone...typing errors imminent

Trainsim=derailed, flightsim=deplaned

jeff

Feel free to continue the original discussion.

Feel free to continue the original discussion.

 

Haha. Exactly.

And that's twice now. This 2nd time coming 12 days from the end of the world in the 12th month...maybe the Mayans were right...

Haha. Exactly.

And that's twice now. This 2nd time coming 12 days from the end of the world in the 12th month...maybe the Mayans were right...

:LMAO: Do you think a third time would trigger the end of the world? Better if we keep disagreeing until after the 21st, then we can :drinks:

I was just kidding mate

jeff

Do you think a third time would trigger the end of the world? Better if we keep disagreeing until after the 21st, then we can

 

No, it wouldn't. You have wholly terrible ideas only only write rubbish...ever...

I disagree on principle, because I can...and such...

 

(See you on the 22nd :wink: :drinks:)