Investigation results for the returned platform as follows: visual inspection of the platform was performed.Both top cover wire strands were found to have been cut, thus confirming the reported complaint of the head restraint being damaged.The bottom and front covers were also found to have been cracked.From the condition of the platform, the physical damages appear to have been due to normal wear and tear.Functional testing was performed and the platform performed as intended with no user advisories or warnings exhibited.In addition, the reported issue of the lifeband not retracting as intended could not be reproduced.Load cell characterization was performed and found that load cell module 1 was not functioning normally with its output signals found to be fluctuating.Load cell module 1 was replaced to remedy this issue.Consistent with the reported information indicating no error messages occurred, the review of the platform's archive data showed no user advisories on the reported event date.However, there were multiple user advisory (ua) 7 (discrepancy between load 1 and load 2 too large) codes found on other dates.The ua 7 codes found in the archive are attributed to the previously identified defective load cell module 1.Based on the investigation, the parts identified for replacement were the following: the top cover, front cover, and load cell module 1.In summary, the reported complaint of physical damage to the head restraint was confirmed and attributed to wear and tear.The issue of the lifeband not retracting as intended could not be reproduced.Functional testing showed the platform performed as intended.Unrelated to the reported complaint, the platform archive data review showed multiple ua 7 codes occurring on dates other than the event date.Load cell characterization identified the cause to be a defective load cell module 1.Following service, including replacement of the damaged parts and the load cell module, the device passed all testing criteria.
|