" 
 
 I think perhaps he is referring to all types of turbine engines, not ALL types of engines. Seriously, why does this only discuss jet engines? The phrase ""turbine engine failure"" is only used when a jet-powered aircraft has an engine failure? Really? A turboshaft is a turbine engine. A turboprop is a turbine engine. But this says that a ""turbine engine failure is when a turbine engine ceases to produce thrust"". That clearly leaves out anything other than jets. Turboshafts don't produce ""thrust"", they produce power. All of the modes of failure listed here, everything, is clearly only talking about issues for jet engines. A helicopter jet engine is far less at risk to bird ingestion than a turbofan. They are unlikely to have ""flames coming out the exhaust pipe"". 
 I also would ask: ""what is it called when a peak-production gas turbine generator in a power plant fails""? If ""turbine engine failure"" only refers to, specifically, turbine-powered jet aircraft, then I guess they have to call it something else. What about turbine engines used onboard vessels? A lot of these engines are simply modifications of aircraft engines, so it would seem like the same words ought to apply to them. Hell, for that matter, what about steam turbines? Do those never fail? ""Turbine engine failure"" is way too broad to cover only what is covered in this article. That's like a page called ""engine failure"" that only covers failures in gasoline-fueled, piston-engined road vehicles. Kind of missing a lot there. This ought to be retitled as ""Aircraft engine failure"", and it ought to have a section discussing potential failures for each type of engine. A lot of what it says in this article could be applied to any type of engine, and would only need to be said once; they could easily be fit into a reasonable length article. Alternatively, it could be re-titled ""Gas-turbine aircraft jet engine failure"", and left as it is (which seems like a bad idea to me). Or, you could leave the title as Turbine engine failure, and make the article actually cover the entire topic of turbine engine failures, not just jet-powered turbine aircraft. I just don't see how using such a broad title is justified on an article of such narrow scope. It's misleading and it's leaving a lot of important information out. "