What did the replacement change, Jonas? I mean its observed seating and the sleeve position, not whether the person loading it followed the same instructions.
Replacement tray defeats our improved sleeve pickup
JonasBrown0894 · 6 Apr 2026, 14:51 UTC
20 replies
The replacement sits against the new locator but has a visible gap at the rear stop. The original tray reaches both. We retained them for comparison.
7 pointsWe had a fixture called seated because its front edge reached a stop, while swarf held the back up. Your gap deserves inspection before it becomes evidence that the new locator is wrong.
18 pointsOr evidence that the loader is wrong, which is usually the cheaper theory.
17 pointsWho is checking the two trays and their actual locating faces?
18 pointsTooling and quality. They found a bent rear lip on the replacement that stops it seating. The locating features otherwise match the drawing. It has been removed from the trial.
14 pointsIs that lip something the person changing trays can inspect reliably?
4 pointsNadia, I'd show them a sound tray beside the damaged one first; a photograph of a gap on its own is a poor changeover lesson.
7 pointsThey can see the damaged lip and the seating gap in the side-by-side check. We have added both to the draft, with a stop-and-call instruction rather than a request to push harder.
7 pointsKeep the dimensional check with quality. Recognising this obvious damage is one thing; asking a loader to decide whether every small lip variation is acceptable would be another job entirely.
2 pointsAnd who supplies a sound replacement tray when they stop?
23 pointsJonas, has a second conforming tray actually completed the comparison yet?
14 pointsYes. Tooling checked a second conforming tray and the integrator supervised pickup and receiving release with both sound trays. No miss in those checks. Anika, stores has the checked spare available.
15 pointsDoes the covering loader know where stores put it?
9 pointsYes, she collected it for the comparison. She also rejected the damaged tray in the changeover exercise without being told which one to choose.
9 pointsThat is useful handover evidence. Does the report distinguish the original improvement from this later replacement-tray check?
10 pointsAnd retain the damaged tray's identity with the miss, Jonas. It should not quietly join the successful-tray sample count once the summary is shortened.
18 pointsWhere has the damaged one gone now?
19 pointsQuarantined with its identity and repair decision pending. The report separates the initial runs, damaged-tray miss and the later two-tray comparison. Wider running remains to be observed.
16 pointsMuch easier to teach than improved, see Jonas.
24 pointsAdd to the discussion
Welcome to Application Robot
Everyone can read the forum. Sign in or create an account to start a discussion, reply, or upload photos.
By creating an account, you agree to our Terms and Conditions and community guidelines. Read our Privacy Policy for how your information is handled.