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 · 2026年3月29日 07:33 UTC
主帖中文翻译暂不可用，以下显示英文原文；回复保留原文。 查看英文原文
9 条回复
Compare their identities, intended locating faces and actual seating before changing points again. Where in the transfer did the miss occur after the exchange?
13分回复 NinaAli0240
At the receiving pocket. Housing left the fixture normally, then caught the replacement tray's rim.
4分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?
11分回复 FarahAli0243
Receiving tray position. First tray repeats there; the replacement rocks against one stop.
13分Designer needs that contact and both tray identities. Not another taught nudge.
15分Has the replacement's underside been compared with its drawing? A similarly labelled tray can still have damage or a different locating arrangement.
11分回复 NinaAli0240
Designer found a bent underside tab. Correct tray type, damaged tab. It is held for repair.
1分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.
7分回复 FarahAli0243
Maintenance and production own that comparison. My trial note now includes the damaged-tab finding and the unfinished return checks.
9分讨论已关闭
此讨论已连续六个月没有活动，现已关闭新回复。 最后活动： .