"Thrust reverser".

 

You can't do that on aircraft with the engines on the wing.

 

The MD-80 and DC-9 had a procedure that, when cleared, the captain would increase forward thrust just enough to start moving forward. He would then bring the engines into reverse to a max of 1.3 EPR and steer with the tiller. The powerback has fallen to the wayside in part of the unnecessary noise it creates.

 

Low engine aircraft such as the 737 prohibit powerback maneuvers because of the possibility that you can cause damage to the engine if you suck something into it (rocks, dirt, garbage).

 

Thanks John , ive never seen that before , looks quite funny.

Jeff

I used to see this everyday when I worked the ramp at KDFW in the 90's. AA and Delta did it with the MD-80 series everytime. I did not realize they stopped doing it. Thanks for the flashback.

 

I wonder if Jennifer and Gary made it to Milwaukee that day.

FOD is actually Foreign Object Debris.

Further, a plane actually crashed due to ice and a powerback, nasty situation.

FOD is Foreign Object Damage. That is damage done by a foreign object. Over time, FOD has also come to mean the stuff that does the damage, but redefining the acronym to suit that is meaningless as foreign object debris is a tautology. The debris that causes FOD is by definition a foreign object.

Kevin,

 

It's really both. I've sat through the ground training for UAL/UAX (twice), ACA, and IDE (twice). All of them list the acronym as both Foreign Object Debris and Foreign Object Damage. It's actually used more in the case of the former (debris), in that rampies are always encouraged to go on FOD walks to pick up any object that may cause damage.

 

Furthermore, to assert an acronym only has one meaning is absurd in the world of aviation.

 

What does PAR mean?

Talking to a controller at a RAPCON (military TRACON), they'd probably tell you Precision Approach Radar.

Talking to a controller in the TMU (traffic management unit), they'd probably tell you it's Preferred Arrival Routing.

FOD is Foreign Object Damage. That is damage done by a foreign object. Over time, FOD has also come to mean the stuff that does the damage, but redefining the acronym to suit that is meaningless as foreign object debris is a tautology. The debris that causes FOD is by definition a foreign object.

You are technically correct! Yaaaay! Here's what I really said, and why;The person who posted before me called it FLYING Object Debris/Damage, which is what I was correcting, so ultimately I'm not going after the D, but the F. Further, pilots (typically) use debris more often than damage, because (hopefully) we encounter debris to avoid more than the damage it has caused. If we encounter something that's not supposed to be there, we call FOD (debris this time), tower reports it as FOD (debris again), and airport ops comes out to get the FOD (debris a third time). So while you may be definitonally correct, that is not the only kind of right there is.

When I was on the 727 and F100 we did power backs all the time. Our MD-80s did them all the time too. The reason given for why we don't do them any more is fuel costs. We sometimes layover at the Hyatt right at DFW and when a plane would do a power back it was very loud at the hotel also. When I was going through training on the 737 I read in some of our materials that it is approved for powering back which always seemed like a bad idea because of how low the engines are. I have never seen any 737 power back in real life or a video though. I did see a video of a bunch of passengers pushing an old 100 or 200 back with their hands. It was at one of the lesser developed airports somewhere I can't remember.

Kevin,

 

It's really both. I've sat through the ground training for UAL/UAX (twice), ACA, and IDE (twice). All of them list the acronym as both Foreign Object Debris and Foreign Object Damage. It's actually used more in the case of the former (debris), in that rampies are always encouraged to go on FOD walks to pick up any object that may cause damage.

 

Furthermore, to assert an acronym only has one meaning is absurd in the world of aviation.

 

What does PAR mean?

Talking to a controller at a RAPCON (military TRACON), they'd probably tell you Precision Approach Radar.

Talking to a controller in the TMU (traffic management unit), they'd probably tell you it's Preferred Arrival Routing.

It should not be both. FOD to mean debris is widely used, especially on your side of the pond, but I believe it is inaccurate and misleading. FOD is damage caused be a foreign object. To have the same acronym to mean the damage done and the stuff that does the damage is madness. I can understand how such usage came about, but to then redefine the acronym to be Foreign Object Debris is just plain bad English. It's debris on the runway which is also a foreign object. Foreign Object Debris is therefore a pointless duplication, and a backronym as well. I've even heard people refer to "FOD damage" in an engine! That brings it 180 degrees around so the original meaning of FOD is almost destroyed.

 

Someone walking the runway might say they'd found some FOD but it's unimaginable that anyone would ever say they had found some "foreign object debris". It's meaningless when spoken in full.

 

PAR in your example has two distinct and different definitions, clearly understood in context.

Foreign Object Debris (FOD) is a substance, debris or article alien to a vehicle or system which would potentially cause damage.

Foreign Object Damage (also abbreviated FOD) is any damage attributed to a foreign object (i.e. any object that is not part of the vehicle) that can be expressed in physical or economic terms and may or may not degrade the product's required safety or performance characteristics. FOD is an abbreviation often used in aviation to describe both the damage done to aircraft by foreign objects, and the foreign objects themselves.^[1][2]

It should not be both. FOD to mean debris is widely used, especially on your side of the pond, but I believe it is inaccurate and misleading. FOD is damage caused be a foreign object. To have the same acronym to mean the damage done and the stuff that does the damage is madness. I can understand how such usage came about, but to then redefine the acronym to be Foreign Object Debris is just plain bad English. It's debris on the runway which is also a foreign object. Foreign Object Debris is therefore a pointless duplication, and a backronym as well. I've even heard people refer to "FOD damage" in an engine! That brings it 180 degrees around so the original meaning of FOD is almost destroyed.

 

Someone walking the runway might say they'd found some FOD but it's unimaginable that anyone would ever say they had found some "foreign object debris". It's meaningless when spoken in full.

 

PAR in your example has two distinct and different definitions, clearly understood in context.

 

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.

 

Foreign Object Debris (FOD) is a substance, debris or article alien to a vehicle or system which would potentially cause damage.

Foreign Object Damage (also abbreviated FOD) is any damage attributed to a foreign object (i.e. any object that is not part of the vehicle) that can be expressed in physical or economic terms and may or may not degrade the product's required safety or performance characteristics. FOD is an abbreviation often used in aviation to describe both the damage done to aircraft by foreign objects, and the foreign objects themselves.^[1][2]

 

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.

And even in the US carries can vary. We use FOD for Foreign Object Debris and FOD isn't used for any other meaning, plus when it comes to damage regardless of cause we simply call it aircraft damage with no acronym.

just got off the phone with Joanie from the ICAO (International Coalition of Abbreviation Officials)

 

Wait, don't you mean the "International Civil Aviation Organization"? Sorry, I couldn't help myself.

 

But seriously I agree with you as I have heard FOD refer to both debris and damage in my short time out on the apron during PPL training so i agree that it is a contextual matter. It all comes down to SA (situational awareness).

Lol

Wait, don't you mean the "International Civil Aviation Organization"? Sorry, I couldn't help myself.

 

I think that that was meant to be a tongue-in-cheek reference.

Omg lol

 

He he :-)