Can you identify the installed fingers and the pair they replaced? Start with what is physically there before deciding which program history applies.
Can't choose which pickup edit belongs with the current fingers
LouisBell0659 · 28 Jul 2025, 20:59 UTC
16 replies
Installed pair has no visible part marks, but the old pair is in a bag with the tool drawing number; stores thinks the replacements came from a different purchase.
4 pointsDoes the purchase record specify the same drawing revision as that bag?
21 pointsIt says same as sample, which is not helping, and the person who sent the sample is away; maintenance is measuring the isolated tool against the current drawing.
10 pointsWas the crooked pickup first reported before the finger change or after it?
7 pointsKeep the mechanical check and the history search separate. An unknown start date does not prevent checking the current assembly. It does prevent claiming a cause from the timeline alone.
0 pointsFirst note I can find is after the change, but it says still leaning, so apparently there was an earlier problem nobody recorded properly.
18 pointsAlso compare the contact pads and mounting arrangement, not just the finger outline. Or rather, identify the complete assembly that the drawing calls for. A matching metal finger with a different pad stack can still put the contact face elsewhere.
9 pointsMaintenance found different pad backing thicknesses across the installed pair; the fingers themselves match the current drawing. Stores has located the specified matched pad assemblies.
12 pointsThat gives maintenance a defined assembly to restore. Who will verify the pickup after replacement, including the accumulated teaching changes? It needs one agreed return-to-use decision, not a mechanical sign-off followed by somebody quietly restoring an old offset.
6 pointsAnd tell the operators which version passed. We don't need another folder of candidates.
5 pointsLouis, did anyone inspect the tray seating while the tool was being checked?
13 pointsYes, tray seating passed its check. Integrator owns the program review and pickup verification after the matched pads are fitted; operators will get the released setup, not the working copies.
19 pointsKeep the unknown earlier fault in the history. Restoring the pad assembly may solve the present lean without explaining every past correction.
9 pointsMatched pads fitted and the reviewed setup passed the loaded-tray checks. Thank you, Dinesh, the backing stack was the detail we had skipped. Earlier lean still unexplained.
21 pointsDid the released version reach nights as well as days?
15 pointsDiscussion closed
This discussion is closed to new replies after six months without activity. Last activity: .