Foreign object damage

Foreign object damage to the compressor blades of a Honeywell Potential foreign object debris (in this case, a screech owl) found
LTS101 turboshaft engine on a Bell 222, caused by a small bolt in the wheel well of a F/A-18 Hornet on a US aircraft carrier
that passed through the protective inlet screen

bris, or article alien to a vehicle or system which could po-

tentially cause damage. The acronym FOD is now used
to describe both the foreign objects themselves, and any
foreign object damage attributed to them.[1][2][3]

1 Examples
Internal FOD is damage or hazards caused by foreign ob-
jects inside the aircraft. For example, cockpit FOD is a
situation where an item gets loose in the cockpit and jams
or restricts the operation of the controls. Tool FOD is a
serious hazard caused by tools left inside the aircraft af-
ter manufacturing or servicing. Tools or other items can
get tangled in control cables, jam moving parts, short out
electrical connections, or otherwise interfere with safe
ight. Aircraft maintenance teams usually have strict tool
control procedures including toolbox inventories to make
sure all tools have been removed from an aircraft before
it is released for ight. Tools used during manufacturing
are tagged with a serial number so if they are found they
can be traced.
Examples of FOD include:[4]
FOD deection system on a PT6T installed on a Bell 412. Air
enters from upper right, and pure air follows the curved ramp Aircraft parts, rocks, broken pavement, ramp equip-
down to the compressor inlet (also covered by a screen). Any ment.
debris being sucked in will have enough momentum that it will
not make such a sharp bend, and will hit the screen on the upper Parts from ground vehicles
left, and will be carried out to the left, getting blown overboard.
Garbage, maintenance tools, etc. mistakenly or pur-
In aviation, foreign object debris is any substance, de- posely deposited on tarmac and/or runway surfaces.

1
2 3 ENGINE AND AIRFRAME DESIGNS WHICH AVOID FOD

Hail: can break windshields and damage or stop en- small cannon. The engine does not have to remain func-
gines. tional after the test, but it must not cause signicant dam-
age to the rest of the aircraft. Thus, if the bird strike
Ice on the wings, propellers, or engine intakes causes it to throw a blade (break apart in a way where
parts y o at high speed), doing so must not cause loss
Bird collisions with engines or other sensitive parts of the aircraft.[5]
of the aircraft.

Dust or ash clogging the air intakes (as in sandstorms

in desert operating conditions or ash clouds in 3 Engine and airframe designs
volcanic eruptions). For helicopters, this is also a which avoid FOD
major problem during a brownout.

Tools, bolts, metal shavings, lockwire, etc. mistak- Some military aircraft had a unique design to prevent
enly left behind inside aircraft during the manufac- FOD from damaging the engine. The design included
turing process or maintenance. an S-shaped bend in the airow, so that air entered the
inlet, was bent back towards the front of the plane, and
bent back again towards the back before entering the en-
All aircraft may occasionally lose small parts during take- gine. At the back of the rst bend a strong spring held
o and landing. These parts remain on the runway and a door shut. Any foreign object ying in the intake ew
can cause damage to tires of other aircraft, hit the fuse- in, hit the door, opened it, ew through, and then exited
lage or windshield/canopy, or get sucked up into an en- the aircraft. Thus, only small objects swept up by the air
gine. Although airport ground crews regularly clean up could enter the engine. This design did indeed prevent
runways, the crash of Air France Flight 4590 demon- FOD problems, but the constriction and drag induced by
strated that accidents can still occur: in that case, the the bending of the airow reduced the engines eective
crash was said to have been caused by debris left by a power, and thus the design was not repeated.
ight that had departed only four minutes earlier.
A similar approach is used on many turboshaft-powered
helicopters, such as the Mi-24, which use a vortex-type
or centrifugal intake, in which the air is forced to ow
through a spiral path before entering the engine; the heav-
ier dust and other debris are forced outwards, where it is
separated from the airow before it enters the engine in-
let.
The Russian Mikoyan MiG-29 and Sukhoi Su-27 ghters
have a special intake design to prevent ingestion of FOD
during take-o from rough airelds. The main air intakes
could be closed with mesh doors and special inlets on the
top of the intakes temporarily opened. This would allow
enough airow to the engine for take-o but reduced the
chances of the engine sucking up objects from the ground.
A Foreign Object Damage walk down aboard the aircraft carrier Another interesting design to minimize the risk of FOD
USS John F. Kennedy (CV 67). is the Antonov An-74 which has a very high placement
of the engines.
On aircraft carriers, as well as military and some civilian
Boeing oered a gravel runway kit for early 737s that al-
airelds, sweeps are conducted before ight operations
lows the plane to be used from unimproved and gravel
begin. A line of crewmen walk shoulder to shoulder along
runways, in spite of having very low-slung engines. This
the ight operations surfaces, searching for and removing
kit included gravel deectors on the landing gear; fold-
any foreign objects.
away lights on the bottom of the plane; and screens that
prevented gravel, entering the open wheelwells when the
gear was extended, from hitting critical components. It
2 Jet engine design and FOD also included vortex dissipators, devices that would re-
duce the airow into the engine from the bottom so as to
[6][7]
Modern jet engines can suer major damage from even reduce the likelihood of ingesting gravel.
small objects being sucked into the engine. The FAA Airbus are investigating a novel approach to reduc-
(Federal Aviation Administration) requires that all engine ing FOD. By developing, in conjunction with Israel
types pass a test which includes ring a fresh chicken Aerospace Industries, the Taxibot, a tractor controlled by
(dead, but not frozen) into a running jet engine from a the pilot, aircraft will not need to use jet engines while
4.4 Bird strikes 3

taxiing, so will not be vulnerable to FOD on aprons or net. The bomb rack struck the right wing of the Skyhawk,
taxiways.[8] shearing o almost half the wing. The Skyhawk caught
re within seconds of being struck; the two persons on
board ejected.[9][10]
4 FOD damage examples

4.1 Runway debris 4.4 Bird strikes

The crash of a Concorde, Air France Flight 4590, at
Charles de Gaulle Airport near Paris on 25 July 2000 was On 20 November 1975 a Hawker Siddeley HS.125 tak-
caused by FOD; in this case a piece of titanium debris on ing o at Dunsfold Aerodrome ew through a ock of
the runway which had been part of a thrust reverser which northern lapwings immediately after lifting o the run-
fell o from a Continental Airlines McDonnell Douglas way and lost power in both engines. The crew landed the
DC-10 that had taken o about four minutes earlier. All aircraft back on the runway but it overran the end and
100 passengers and nine crew on board the ight, as well crossed a road. The aircraft struck a car on the road,
as four people on the ground, were killed. killing its six occupants. Although the aircraft was de-
stroyed in the ensuing re, the nine occupants of the air-
A Bombardier Learjet 36A was taking o from New- craft survived the crash.[11]
port News/Williamsburg International Airport in Virginia
on March 26, 2007, when the crew heard a loud pop. On 17 November 1980 a Hawker Siddeley Nimrod of
Aborting the takeo, the crew tried to control the sh- the Royal Air Force crashed shortly after taking o
tailing and activate the drag chute. The chute did not from RAF Kinloss. It ew through a ock of Canada
work and the Learjet ran o the runway, its tires blown. geese, causing three of its four engines to fail. The pi-
Airport personnel reported seeing rocks and pieces of lot and copilot were killed; the pilot was subsequently
metal on the runway after the accident. The NTSB said posthumously awarded an Air Force Cross for his actions
that the accident was caused by Foreign Object Debris in maintaining control of the aircraft and saving the lives
(FOD) on the runway. Failure of the drag chute con- of the 18 crew. The remains of 77 birds were found on
[12][13]
tributed to the accident. or near the runway.
On January 15, 2009, US Airways Flight 1549 ew into a
ock of Canada geese and suered a double engine fail-
4.2 Volcanic ash ure. The pilot ditched the aircraft in the Hudson River,
saving the lives of all on board.
On 24 June 1982, British Airways Flight 9 en route to
Perth, Australia, ew into a volcanic ash cloud over the
Indian Ocean. The Boeing 747-200B suered engine
surges in all four engines until they all failed. The pas- 4.5 Persons
sengers and crew could see a phenomenon known as St.
Elmos re around the plane. Flight 9 dived down until
it exited the cloud allowing the airborne ash to clear the People working near aircraft have been sucked [14]
into jet
engines, which were then restarted. The cockpit wind- engines. Some have died from their injuries.
shield was badly pitted by the ash particles but the aircraft
landed safely.
On 15 December 1989, KLM Flight 867, en route to
Narita International Airport, Tokyo ew through a thick 5 Wildlife and wetlands near air-
cloud of volcanic ash from Mount Redoubt, which had ports
erupted the day before. The Boeing 747-400's four en-
gines amed out. After descending more than 14,000
feet, the crew restarted the engines and landed safely at Signicant problems occur with airports where the
Anchorage International Airport. grounds were or have become nesting areas for birds.
While fences can prevent a moose or deer from wander-
ing onto a runway, birds are more dicult to control. Of-
4.3 Item jettisoned from aircraft ten airports employ a type of bird scarer that operates on
propane to cause a noise loud enough to scare away any
An unusual case of FOD occurred on 28 September 1981 birds that might be in the vicinity. Airport managers use
over Chesapeake Bay. During ight testing of an F/A-18 any means available (including trained falcons) to reduce
Hornet, the Naval Air Test Center of the United States bird populations. Another solution under investigation is
Navy was using a Douglas TA-4J Skyhawk as a chase the use of articial turf near runways, since it does not
plane to lm a jettison test of a bomb rack from the Hor- oer food, shelter, or water to wildlife.[15]
4 10 STUDIES

5.1 Conferences 8 Technologies, information and

training materials helpful in pre-
In the United States, the most prominent gathering of
FOD experts has been the annual National Aerospace venting FOD
FOD Prevention Conference. It is hosted in a dier-
ent city each year by National Aerospace FOD Preven- Aerospace Tool Control Systems
tion, Inc. (NAFPI), a nonprot association that focuses
on FOD education, awareness and prevention. Confer- FOD Prevention Program Manuals
ence information, including presentations from past con-
Magnetic Bars
ferences, is available at the NAFPI Web site.[2] However,
NAFPI has come under some critique as being focused Promotional and Awareness Materials
on tool control and manufacturing processes, and other
members of the industry have stepped forward to ll the Tool and Parts Control/Retrieval
gaps. BAA hosted the worlds rst airport-led conference
on the subject in November 2010.[16] Tow-behind friction sweeper

Tow-behind Sweepers

Training Materials
6 Detection technologies Vacuum Truck Sweepers

There is some debate regarding FOD detection systems Walk-behind Sweepers

as the costs can be high and the domain of responsibility
is not clear. However, one airport claims that their FOD
detection system may have paid for itself in a single inci- 9 Economic impact
dent where personnel were alerted to a steel cable on the
runway, before a single aircraft was put at risk.[17] The Internationally, FOD costs the aviation industry US$13
FAA has investigated FOD detection technologies, and billion per year in direct plus indirect costs. The indi-
has set standards for the following categories:[18] rect costs are as much as ten times the direct cost value,
representing delays, aircraft changes, incurred fuel costs,
unscheduled maintenance, and the like.[19] and causes
Radar
expensive, signicant damage to aircraft and parts and
death and injury to workers, pilots and passengers.
Electro-Optical [visible band imagery (standard
It is estimated that FOD costs major airlines in the United
CCTV) and low light cameras]
States $26 per ight in aircraft repairs, plus $312 in such
additional indirect costs as ight delays, plane changes
Hybrid: and fuel ineciencies.[20]
There are other costs that are not as easy to calculate
RFID on metal but are equally disturbing, according to UK Royal Air
Force Wing Commander and FOD researcher Richard
Friend.[21] From accidents such as the Air France Con-
corde, Flight AF 4590, there is the loss of life, suering
7 Damage tolerance improvements and eect on the families of those who died, the suspicion
of malpractice, guilt, and blame that could last for life-
times. This harrowing torment is incalculable but should
The negative eects from FOD can be reduced or entirely
not be forgotten, ever. If everyone kept this in mind,
eliminated by introducing compressive residual stresses
we would remain vigilant and forever prevent foreign ob-
in critical fatigue areas into the part during the manufac-
ject debris from causing a problem. In fact, many factors
turing process. These benecial stresses are induced into
combine to cause a chain of events that can lead to a fail-
the part through cold working the part with peening pro-
ure.
cesses: shot peening, or laser peening. The deeper the
compressive residual stress the more signicant the fa-
tigue life and damage tolerance improvement. Shot peen-
ing typically induces compressive stresses a few thou- 10 Studies
sandths of an inch deep, laser peening typically imparts
compressive residual stresses 0.040 to 0.100 inches deep. There have only been two detailed studies of the eco-
Laser peen induced compressive stresses are also more nomic cost of FOD for civil airline operations. The rst
resistant to heat exposure. was by Brad Bachtel of Boeing, who published a value

of $4 billion USD per year.[22] This top-down value was
for several years the standard industry gure for the cost
of FOD. The second work (2007) was by Iain McCreary
from the consultancy Insight SRI Ltd. This more detailed
report oered a rst-cut of the cost of FOD, based on
a bottom-up analysis of airline maintenance log records.
Here, data was broken into Per Flight Direct Costs and
Per Flight Indirect Costs for the top 300 global air-
ports, with detailed footnotes on the supporting data.[23]
The Insight SRI research was a standard reference for
2007-2009 as it was the only source presenting costs and
thus was quoted by regulators, airports, and technology
providers alike.[24]
However, while that 2007 Insight SRI paper remains the
best free public source of data, the new analysis (2010)
from Insight SRI oers new numbers. The author of the
new report (not free) says Readers are cautioned not to
rely on or in the future refer to numbers from the 2007-
08 Insight SRI paperThe Economic Cost of FOD to Air-
lines. This earlier eort was The rst document detail-
ing the direct and indirect cost of FOD that was based
on airline maintenance data (the entire document was a
single page of data, followed by 8 pages of footnotes).
Per Flight Direct Costs of $26[23] are calculated by con-
sidering engine maintenance spending, tire replacements,
and aircraft body damage.
Per Flight Indirect Costs include a total of 31 individual The study concludes that when these indirect costs are
categories:
1. Airport eciency losses
2. Carbon / Environmental issues
3. Change of aircraft
4. Close airport
5. Close runway
6. Corporate manslaughter/criminal liability
7. Cost of corrective action
8. Cost of hiring and training replacement
9. Cost of rental or lease of replacement equipment
10. Cost of restoration of order
11. Cost of the investigation
12. Delay for planes in air
13. Delays at gate
14. Fines and citations
15. Fuel eciency losses
16. Hotels
17. In-air go-around
5
18. Increased insurance premiums
19. Increased operating costs on remaining equipment
20. Insurance deductibles
21. Legal fees resulting
22. Liability claims in excess of insurance
23. Loss of aircraft
24. Loss of business and damage to reputation
25. Loss of productivity of injured personnel
26. Loss of spares or specialized equipment
27. Lost time and overtime
28. Missed connections
29. Morale
30. Reaction by crews leading to disruption of schedule
31. Replacement ights on other carriers
32. Scheduled maintenance
33. Unscheduled maintenance
added, then the cost of FOD increases by a multiple of
up to 10x.[25]
Eurocontrol and the FAA are both studying FOD. Euro-
control released a preliminary assessment of FOD De-
tection technologies in 2006, while the FAA is con-
ducting trials of the four leading systems from Qinetiq
(PVD, Providence T. F. Green Airport), Stratech (ORD,
Chicago O'Hare International Airport), Xsight Systems
(BOS, Boston Logan International Airport), and Trex
Aviation Systems (ORD, Chicago O'Hare Airport) dur-
ing 2007 and 2008. Results of this study should be pub-
lished in 2009.
11 References
Notes
[1] According to the National Aerospace Standard 412, main-
tained by the National Association of FOD Prevention,
Inc.
[2] NAFPI website
[3] The Damage term was prevalent in military circles, but
has since been pre-empted by a denition of FOD that
looks at the debris. This shift was made ocial in
the latest FAA Advisory Circulars FAA A/C 150/5220-24
'Airport Foreign Object Debris (FOD) Detection Equip-
ment' (2009) and FAA A/C 150/5210-24 'Airport For-
eign Object Debris (FOD) Management'. Eurocontrol,
6 11 REFERENCES

ECAC, and the ICAO have all rallied behind this new
denition. As Iain McCreary of Insight SRI put it in a
presentation to NAFPI (August 2010), You can have de-
bris present without damage, but never damage without
debris. Likewise, FOD prevention systems work by sens-
ing and detecting not the damage but the actual debris.
Thus FOD is now taken to mean the debris itself, and the
resulting damage is referred to as FOD damage.

[4] Technology articles about FOD

[5] FAA Advisory Circular

[6] Unpaved Strip Kit. The (unocial) 737 Technical Site.

Retrieved 2008-08-09.

[7] A Brief Description of the 737 Family of Airplanes

(PDF). October 2005. Retrieved 2008-08-09.

[8] Airbus MoU with IAI to explore eco-ecient engines-

o taxiing. Retrieved 2009-07-30.

[9] List of ejections from aircraft in 1981. Retrieved: 30 Au-

gust 2008.

[10] Page with link to WMV clip of destruction of TA-4J

BuNo. 156896. Retrieved 30 August 2008.

[11] AAIB Ocial Report of the investigation into the crash of

HS.125-600B registration G-BCUX retrieved 2010-05-
19.

[12] Aviation Safety Network XV256 accident page retrieved

2008-01-23.

[13] RAAF Exchange Pilot Valour Cited in RAF Accident

Report, Newsdesk - Military, Australian Aviation mag-
azine No. 16, September 1982, p45. Aerospace Publica-
tions Pty. Ltd., Manly NSW

[14] Aftermath Of Man Being Sucked Into Jet Plane Engine.

Sickchirpse. 9 October 2013. Retrieved 23 January 2017.

[15] Airside Applications for Articial Turf (PDF). Federal

Aviation Administration. 2006.

[16] BAA Global FOD Conference. BAA London Heathrow

Airport. Retrieved 2010-12-02.

[17] YVR Airport. TV Interview. Retrieved 2009-07-30.

[18] FAA Advisory Circular (PDF). Retrieved 2009-09-21.

[19] Runway Safety - FOD, Birds, and the Case for Auto-
mated Scanning. Insight SRI Ltd. Retrieved 2010-12-02.

[20] The Economic Cost of FOD to Airlines (PDF). Insight

SRI Ltd. Retrieved 2008-10-29.

[21] Make It FOD Free website

[22] Foreign Object Debris and Damage Prevention. Boeing

Aero Magazine. Retrieved 2008-10-28.

[23] The Economic Cost of FOD to Airlines. Insight SRI Ltd.

Retrieved 2008-10-28.

[24]

[25] The economic cost of FOD to airlines (PDF). Insight

SRI Ltd. March 2008.
 7

12 Text and image sources, contributors, and licenses

12.1 Text
Foreign object damage Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_object_damage?oldid=783557542 Contributors: Heron, Edward,
AllardsGap, Charles Matthews, David.Monniaux, Chris 73, Justanyone, Vaoverland, Foobar, Gzornenplatz, HorsePunchKid, Piotrus,
Blue387, Imjustmatthew, DMG413, Discospinster, Pmsyyz, Alistair1978, Night Gyr, CanisRufus, Art LaPella, Hooperbloob, Anthony Ap-
pleyard, Wdfarmer, Mysdaao, M3tainfo, Bluve, Uncle G, Pol098, Tabletop, BD2412, Pmj, XLerate, Old Moonraker, Timo Kouwenhoven,
Epolk, Simon Lieschke, Sfrahm, Lao Wai, Cleared as led, Ospalh, RG2, Sacxpert, SmackBot, GraemeMcRae, Chris the speller, Snori,
Shalom Yechiel, Alexmcre, LouScheer, Harryboyles, John, Bollinger, JoeBot, Lenoxus, Courcelles, CmdrObot, Ilikefood, JohnCD,
Orca1 9904, Fnlayson, A876, Sthomson06, Underpants, GassyGuy, Epbr123, Graemec2, Uruiamme, Akradecki, TimVickers, Albany
NY, Charlene.c, Bongwarrior, Kuyabribri, Father Goose, BilCat, PrestonH, Youngjim, Cometstyles, Gcrossan, Signalhead, Jblando, Seb
az86556, Andy Dingley, AlleborgoBot, Sloumeau, UnneededAplomb, Ori, Xe7al, TFCC, Lloydpick, YSSYguy, ClueBot, Nimbus227,
SchreiberBike, Jellysh dave, SDY, XLinkBot, SilverbackRon, Dave1185, Addbot, Mortense, Adams gay, Woy23, M.nelson, FODsolu-
tion, Fod123, Yobot, Donfbreed, II MusLiM HyBRiD II, AnomieBOT, Jim1138, Dohhunter, Chovesh, LilHelpa, FreeRangeFrog, Xqbot,
GrouchoBot, Jprevey, FrescoBot, Odedomer, Olivier Bommel, Full-date unlinking bot, December21st2012Freak, Reninola, ABook828,
Ropagnis, Pilot850, Plasticengineering, TjBot, DexDor, John of Reading, Eekerz, Azindustries, Immunize, GoingBatty, Tkpowell, Canda-
ceIDZ, Kellystark, Fuujin1, L Kensington, ClueBot NG, Clickingban, Funraiser, Aero2445, Helpful Pixie Bot, Jay8g, Werefox1, BattyBot,
Omid, PauloMSimoes, Reatlas, Holiday178, Sedolo55, NQ, PHMTBiker, Julietdeltalima, Appable, AnnaGoFast, Liquidtrails and Anony-
mous: 120

12.2 Images
File:Commons-logo.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/4a/Commons-logo.svg License: PD Contributors: ? Origi-
nal artist: ?
File:Mercy-tech-N429MA-fod-060318-01cr-8.jpg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3f/
Mercy-tech-N429MA-fod-060318-01cr-8.jpg License: CC BY 2.5 Contributors: Own work Original artist: Alan Radecki
File:PT6T-FOD-screens.jpg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/78/PT6T-FOD-screens.jpg License: CC BY
2.5 Contributors: Own work Original artist: Alan Radecki
File:Screech_Owl_named_Fod_found_on_USS_Harry_S._Truman_(CVN_75).jpg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/
wikipedia/commons/0/0f/Screech_Owl_named_Fod_found_on_USS_Harry_S._Truman_%28CVN_75%29.jpg License: Public domain
Contributors: 080317-N-4632D-001 from [1] Original artist: Ocial U.S. Navy photo by Aviation Boatswains Mate Handling 3rd Class
Alex Dieringer (Released)
File:US_Navy_040921-N-8704K-001_All_hands_participate_in_a_Foreign_Object_Damage_(FOD)_walk_down_on_
the_flight_deck_aboard_the_conventionally_powered_aircraft_carrier_US_John_F._Kennedy_(CV_67).jpg Source:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7e/US_Navy_040921-N-8704K-001_All_hands_participate_in_a_Foreign_
Object_Damage_%28FOD%29_walk_down_on_the_flight_deck_aboard_the_conventionally_powered_aircraft_carrier_US_John_F.
_Kennedy_%28CV_67%29.jpg License: Public domain Contributors:
This Image was released by the United States Navy with the ID 040921-N-8704K-001 <a class='external text' href='//commons.wikimedia.
org/w/index.php?title=Category:Files_created_by_the_United_States_Navy_with_known_IDs,<span>,&,</span>,lefrom=040921-N-
8704K-001#mw-category-media'>(next)</a>.
This tag does not indicate the copyright status of the attached work. A normal copyright tag is still required. See Commons:Licensing for more information.
Original artist: U.S. Navy photo by Photographers Mate 3rd Class Joshua Karsten

12.3 Content license

Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0