The perforator was returned for evaluation: dhr - there is no indication that the production process may have contributed to this complaint.All test results passed procedural specifications.Failure analysis - the perforator unit was inspected using the unaided eye.The unit had a shifted sleeve that was exposing the pin, likely from a bad weld.Ifu testing procedure was performed.The sleeve had to be shifted back into position and then it passed the spring test and functioned as designed.Functional testing was performed using the same protocol it underwent at finished goods testing prior to release: the unit was found to not perform as intended.In the failure analysis that was performed, the returned unit did not work as intended, the unit successfully drilled two holes in the board then came apart on the 3rd drill hole.Unit was put back together and re-tested but came apart again during drilling after successfully making 5 more holes.The complaint could be verified through failure analysis.Per the complaint background, perforator plunged, got stuck and broke.The complaint was confirmed in the complaint investigation.The failure analysis performed confirmed that the unit had a proud weld which likely caused the unit to fail during surgery.Due to the confirmation of this failure, a corrective action has been implemented to investigate this issue.
|