Our tray locator helped the supervised housing transfer. Replacement tray brought another miss. I kept both trays for comparison.
The FR5 housing trial improved until we exchanged trays
Warren_Briggs · 29 Mar 2026, 07:33 UTC
9 replies
Replying to Warren_Briggs
Compare their identities, intended locating faces and actual seating before changing points again. Where in the transfer did the miss occur after the exchange?
13pointsReplying to NinaAli0240
At the receiving pocket. Housing left the fixture normally, then caught the replacement tray's rim.
4pointsReplying to Warren_Briggs
Then describe the first improvement and this receiving failure separately. Was the original locator added to the receiving tray position, or elsewhere in the transfer?
11pointsReplying to FarahAli0243
Receiving tray position. First tray repeats there; the replacement rocks against one stop.
13pointsReplying to Warren_Briggs
Designer needs that contact and both tray identities. Not another taught nudge.
15pointsReplying to Warren_Briggs
Has the replacement's underside been compared with its drawing? A similarly labelled tray can still have damage or a different locating arrangement.
11pointsReplying to NinaAli0240
Designer found a bent underside tab. Correct tray type, damaged tab. It is held for repair.
1pointsReplying to Warren_Briggs
Who will check the repaired tray and the ordinary exchange with the covering operator? The trainer should not have to recognise this one damaged tray from memory.
7pointsReplying to FarahAli0243
Maintenance and production own that comparison. My trial note now includes the damaged-tab finding and the unfinished return checks.
9pointsDiscussion closed
This discussion is closed to new replies after six months without activity. Last activity: .