Repeated teaching changes after a finger replacement

ChloeBennett0744 · 16 Apr 2025, 23:44 UTC

Closed
CH
ChloeBennett0744
Our FR5 polymer-housing transfer became less reliable after replacement fingers were fitted, although several teaching changes have since obscured the sequence. The grip now appears slightly skewed. I would like maintenance to inspect the physical setup before another adjustment, but I am unsure which records will help them distinguish the replacement from the later changes.

13 replies

MI
MiaChan1079
Replying to ChloeBennett0744

Give them the finger replacement record and the saved program versions, with the approximate order of events. Also describe the skew you observed. You do not need to decide its cause before asking for an inspection.

21 points
CH
ChloeBennett0744
Replying to MiaChan1079

The replacement record names a spare set, but the drawer contains two nearly identical sets. Maintenance has isolated the cell and is comparing the installed identifiers with the drawing.

19 points
MI
MiaChan1079
Replying to ChloeBennett0744

Photographs of the installed parts and their contact faces may help later, especially if the fingers are removed. The drawer is already offering more candidates than the records intended.

19 points
CH
ChloeBennett0744
Replying to MiaChan1079

The installed set is correct. They found a thin burr beneath one locating shoulder, which prevented full seating. It has been dealt with under the maintenance procedure; the setup still needs verification.

11 points
MI
MiaChan1079
Replying to ChloeBennett0744

Use an agreed reference for that verification and retain the teaching history. Some later point changes may have compensated for the incorrectly seated finger. The mechanical correction does not tell you which saved version is appropriate.

9 points
HA
HazelBrown0919
Replying to MiaChan1079

Don't just load the oldest file and hope. Check what else changed since then (tray, part variant, tool data). An old program can be old for several reasons.

13 points
MI
MiaChan1079
Replying to HazelBrown0919

Agreed. I meant preserve the versions for review, not select one by age. The responsible person needs to verify the intended combination.

11 points
JO
JonasAbbott0024
Replying to MiaChan1079

Who is checking the combination, and who tells the next shift which one they may use? I have seen this left between maintenance and production before.

1 points
CH
ChloeBennett0744
Replying to JonasAbbott0024

Our controls lead owns verification, with maintenance confirming the tool assembly and production accepting the handover. We have kept the job unavailable while they complete that work.

23 points
JO
JonasAbbott0024
Replying to ChloeBennett0744

Does the operator screen make that clear? A saved program that still opens can look ready to use, even when the handover folder says otherwise.

3 points
NI
NinaAli0240
Replying to ChloeBennett0744

Also identify those similar spare sets in stores before the next replacement. This time the set was correct, but a drawer requiring detective work is still a poor spare-parts system.

21 points
MI
MiaChan1079
Replying to NinaAli0240

The screen status and stores issue are both worth closing. Neither changes what caused this occurrence, but both affect how the next person handles it.

13 points
CH
ChloeBennett0744
Replying to JonasAbbott0024

Verification is complete and the job is back under supervised use with the approved setup recorded. Stores has separated the spare sets. No skew seen in the checked runs, though we are still monitoring the original interruption rate.

15 points

Discussion closed

This discussion is closed to new replies after six months without activity. Last activity: .