Ground Worker Dies When Ingested by Aircraft Engine

[The Batt?sai]

Originally posted by: DaY

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: djheater

Originally posted by: Fritzo
SLURP!!!

Stupid reporter. It would seem obvious that an object without a digestive tract cannot ingest something. Still had to go for the snappy headline though...:roll:

I believe that 'ingested' is the correct term for when a jet engine sucks up a foreign object.

Nope, unless the engine some how absrobed him as nourishment.

aircraft engine : " ah he was quite nourishing"

 

[MaxDepth]

The worker's corpse was covered with white clothes under the turbine engine of the aircraft's right wing and left a great deal of blood trailing for several meters behind the engine.

There was a corpse? I was thinking it would be more like puree.

 

[The Batt?sai]

Originally posted by: Itchrelief
Text

"SUMMARY: This document proposes to amend the FAA type certification standards for aircraft turbine engines with regard to bird ingestion."

Text
"The GE90-115BÂ?s high-flow swept fan blades are manufactured from the same materials (fibers and resin system), and by the same process, as current GE90 blades. In more than six years and 2.3 million engine flight hours of airline service, the current fan blade has experienced more than 30 reported bird ingestion events, including a bird weighing more than three pounds, and remained fully serviceable."

😕

 

[Armitage]

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: vailr
Although the aircraft's engine was immediately turned off when the person disappeared, the man died instantly.

As if there was some hope that he would survive that??? Has there ever been a documented case of someone surviving being sucked into a jet engine?

I saw a vid once of a crewman on an aircraft carrier getting sucked into the intake on an A6. He looked like a rag doll - shlup. He survived - the compressor gnawed on his helmet a bit though.

edit - nevermiond, somebody else already posted it.

 

[The Batt?sai]

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: datalink7

in·gest P Pronunciation Key (n-jst)
tr.v. in·gest·ed, in·gest·ing, in·gests
1. To take into the body by the mouth for digestion or absorption. See Synonyms at eat.
2. To take in and absorb as food: ?Marine ciliates... can be observed... ingesting other single-celled creatures and harvesting their chloroplasts? (Carol Kaesuk Yoon).
3. The correct term for when a jet engine sucks up a foreign object.

Note number 3.

:laugh::thumbsup:

That picture almost looks like one of the old BOAC engines...

Also, here's a video clip of an A6 intruder ingesting someone...who LIVES!:Q Now THAT's an interesting headline...

wow. i call bs on that. how could someone survive going into a jet engine? 😕

 

[The Batt?sai]

Originally posted by: BroeBo
I saw a vid a while back of some guy who is ducking under a jet engine.

He lifted his head up too close to the intake and loses it. :Q

lets see a video. 😕

 

[The Batt?sai]

Originally posted by: MaxDepth

The worker's corpse was covered with white clothes under the turbine engine of the aircraft's right wing and left a great deal of blood trailing for several meters behind the engine.

There was a corpse? I was thinking it would be more like puree.

😕

 

[The Batt?sai]

Originally posted by: Armitage

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: vailr
Although the aircraft's engine was immediately turned off when the person disappeared, the man died instantly.

As if there was some hope that he would survive that??? Has there ever been a documented case of someone surviving being sucked into a jet engine?

I saw a vid once of a crewman on an aircraft carrier getting sucked into the intake on an A6. He looked like a rag doll - shlup. He survived - the compressor gnawed on his helmet a bit though.

i wanna see it 😛

 

[Azraele]

Originally posted by: deathkoba
any pics?

Why on earth would you even ask that?😕

 

[PowerMacG5]

Originally posted by: MaxDepth

The worker's corpse was covered with white clothes under the turbine engine of the aircraft's right wing and left a great deal of blood trailing for several meters behind the engine.

There was a corpse? I was thinking it would be more like puree.

Thats what I was thinking.

 

[amdhunter]

Originally posted by: Quasmo
Wow, that "sucks"

LOL

 

[The Batt?sai]

Originally posted by: Azraele

Originally posted by: deathkoba
any pics?

Why on earth would you even ask that?😕

because

😕

 

[djheater]

Originally posted by: Falcon39

Originally posted by: djheater

Originally posted by: Fritzo
SLURP!!!

Stupid reporter. It would seem obvious that an object without a digestive tract cannot ingest something. Still had to go for the snappy headline though...:roll:

It's called a metaphor, Einstein.

There's no need for metaphor if your audience isn't stupid.
It would appear it's an industry standard usage, which doesn't explain why the reporter chose to use the expression to a non-industry audience, I assume it's sensationalism.

Which leads me back to... 'stupid reporter'.

 

[Armitage]

Originally posted by: quasarsky

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: datalink7

in·gest P Pronunciation Key (n-jst)
tr.v. in·gest·ed, in·gest·ing, in·gests
1. To take into the body by the mouth for digestion or absorption. See Synonyms at eat.
2. To take in and absorb as food: ?Marine ciliates... can be observed... ingesting other single-celled creatures and harvesting their chloroplasts? (Carol Kaesuk Yoon).
3. The correct term for when a jet engine sucks up a foreign object.

Note number 3.

:laugh::thumbsup:

That picture almost looks like one of the old BOAC engines...

Also, here's a video clip of an A6 intruder ingesting someone...who LIVES!:Q Now THAT's an interesting headline...

wow. i call bs on that. how could someone survive going into a jet engine? 😕

It's true - I first saw it in a safety seminar when I was in the Air Force. They had an interview with the guy.

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: djheater

Originally posted by: Falcon39

Originally posted by: djheater

Originally posted by: Fritzo
SLURP!!!

Stupid reporter. It would seem obvious that an object without a digestive tract cannot ingest something. Still had to go for the snappy headline though...:roll:

It's called a metaphor, Einstein.

There's no need for metaphor if your audience isn't stupid.
It would appear it's an industry standard usage, which doesn't explain why the reporter chose to use the expression to a non-industry audience, I assume it's sensationalism.

Which leads me back to... 'stupid reporter'.

If it is an industry standard for stuff that goes into jet engines, it's good reporting to use it. I don't see how you could call it sensationalism, it's just accurate.

 

[djheater]

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: djheater

Originally posted by: Falcon39

Originally posted by: djheater

Originally posted by: Fritzo
SLURP!!!

Stupid reporter. It would seem obvious that an object without a digestive tract cannot ingest something. Still had to go for the snappy headline though...:roll:

It's called a metaphor, Einstein.

There's no need for metaphor if your audience isn't stupid.
It would appear it's an industry standard usage, which doesn't explain why the reporter chose to use the expression to a non-industry audience, I assume it's sensationalism.

Which leads me back to... 'stupid reporter'.

If it is an industry standard for stuff that goes into jet engines, it's good reporting to use it. I don't see how you could call it sensationalism, it's just accurate.

Not if the term is unexplained. Is it my job as the reader to go seariching for an explanation of why a reporter would use a term which implies the victim was eaten by a living creature?
While I'm not claiming that the general public believe jets to be living creatures, I'm simply saying that the headline is designed to elicit a visceral response, which is sensationalism. Saying the pilot was ingested is somehow a little more grotesque than saying he was sucked in.

<---just slightly analytical, yes it pisses off my wife.

 

[Itchrelief]

Originally posted by: djheater

Not if the term is unexplained. Is it my job as the reader to go seariching for an explanation of why a reporter would use a term which implies the victim was eaten by a living creature?
While I'm not claiming that the general public believe jets to be living creatures, I'm simply saying that the headline is designed to elicit a visceral response, which is sensationalism. Saying the pilot was ingested is somehow a little more grotesque than saying he was sucked in.

<---just slightly analytical, yes it pisses off my wife.

There is no problem with the reporter or the public, just you being a bit anal. As the other poster stated, its pretty standard usage. It is not confusing in any way, shape or form. Any normal adult can surmise that the worker was sucked into the engine, not eaten by some magical airplane creature.

In fact, it is not the reporter that comes off as being a bit dense, but you. Come on, give it up already.

 

[JRich]

FOD FTL 🙁

 

[Triumph]

djheater has gone psychotic. i, and the majority of the population, thought nothing of the choice of word when i first read it. even now it sounds fine to me. you are crazy.

 

[djheater]

Originally posted by: Itchrelief

Originally posted by: djheater

Not if the term is unexplained. Is it my job as the reader to go seariching for an explanation of why a reporter would use a term which implies the victim was eaten by a living creature?
While I'm not claiming that the general public believe jets to be living creatures, I'm simply saying that the headline is designed to elicit a visceral response, which is sensationalism. Saying the pilot was ingested is somehow a little more grotesque than saying he was sucked in.

<---just slightly analytical, yes it pisses off my wife.

There is no problem with the reporter or the public, just you being a bit anal. As the other poster stated, its pretty standard usage. It is not confusing in any way, shape or form. Any normal adult can surmise that the worker was sucked into the engine, not eaten by some magical airplane creature.

In fact, it is not the reporter that comes off as being a bit dense, but you. Come on, give it up already.

I understand that we've taken this way further than it should be. I only continued as an explanation of my original post. As I said, in the post you quoted, I don't think people will mistakenly believe that planes are living creatures.

I may have been an editor in a former life.
Yes, I'm crazy. 😱 😛

 

[mordantmonkey]

Originally posted by: djheater
<---just slightly analytical, yes it pisses off my wife.

well, you got the anal part right.

when i read 'ingested' it seemed like the apropriate wording.
minced, mutilated, ground... those would have been sensational

 

[GTaudiophile]

Anyone have a video?

 

[iamaelephant]

Originally posted by: djheater

Originally posted by: Falcon39

Originally posted by: djheater

Originally posted by: Fritzo
SLURP!!!

Stupid reporter. It would seem obvious that an object without a digestive tract cannot ingest something. Still had to go for the snappy headline though...:roll:

It's called a metaphor, Einstein.

There's no need for metaphor if your audience isn't stupid.
It would appear it's an industry standard usage, which doesn't explain why the reporter chose to use the expression to a non-industry audience, I assume it's sensationalism.

Which leads me back to... 'stupid reporter'.

Metaphors are used widely in all forms of media. If you're too stupid to figure it out then that's your problems. The idea of a metaphor is to illicit an appropriate image. "Injested" worked well in this case.