Although you could argue YES for ajax. As it hasnt been accepted into service.
They should have caught it much earlier though.
That’s not QA… 
But I’m glad to hear that someone at HQAC is on it.
Thing is, without the two badges to hand that go at the top, it’s not easy to work out they’re too small by eyeball. I bet even the people who have reported them didn’t notice straightaway.
1 Like
Okay Mr ISO 9000… What approach would you expect the MOD to take, beyond… I don’t know… Specifying a requirement, approving a pattern, and then reporting any defects?
For a start I would expect the supplier to have QAd the product.
Second. For a product of this priority (low). A sampling would be more in order.
Perhaps 1 brassard per 1000?
Reporting once the product has reached the front line customer is a last line of QA.
That’s like tesco relying on its entire QA strategy to be wait until customers return rotten food.
It might work. But it’s the end of the swiss cheese model.
As well all know, this is where the RAFAC would benefit from central stores, online shop and central ordering to a warehouse for onward distribution. QA could be handled centrally by us. Removing such supply inconsistencies.
I would be happy to discuss a technical approach to achieve this and what my QA and auditing strategy would look like in PM.
Am concerned it will bore the majority to tears here.
I could follow that with a session on ISO 27001. I’ll bring the popcorn
2 Likes
You’re assuming that nothing has been done before this step…
Cadets have been wearing brassards for how long? 30 years? In that time how many dud brassards have we encountered?
Haven’t the measurements of them always been fairly random?
1 Like
I do some QA stuff like this for my big boy job.
I do actually agree with you here that the end user reporting fault is the last step in a QA process, and realistically, should never get to that point. If I’m making 1000 parts (something I do regularly) there is a simple process. First part is checked by me and someone else aginst spec. First 10 parts are all fully checked. There after, parts would be checked every 10/50/100 depending on tolerance. Last part of the run, or after any changes were made to the programming/tooling would be checked by a second person.
A lot of what we do is also then checked in a similar fashion by the customer. If we’ve packed 50 parts per box, they’ll likely open each box, take one part out and check it. Or 1 out of every 5 boxes. You get the idea. If something goes wrong along that chain it should be found and never get near the end user.
In this case the manufacturer has not done their part in checking the brassards properly. And IMO it would be good practise for HQAC to open 1 or two boxes per order to check what’s being delivered is correct. No need to check every single item, just a random sample from each delivery.
3 Likes
Too late 
5 Likes
I’ve never looked that closely, but I’d imagine there’s been a fairly wide tolerance.
Sounds like the Tucano wings. Apparently made on wooden jigs which contracted or expanded with the weather. Made re-winging them for potential onward sale uneconomic, rumour has it.
I heard a tale that the tucano line ups at Linton had no two aircraft the same length
Well, we only got them to appease the Brazilians after a little Vulcan hiccup during the Falklands, they were never our first choice. Hence changing them so much at Shorts…
But look, what’s that over in the distance? I fear it may be a faraway topic.
Iffy brassards today. Dodgy Wings tomorrow.
1 Like