I have a problem with a (railroad) maintenance company:
Does a defect which is noticed later after a normal maintenance service, during a general monitoring/inspection activity, need to be approached as a nonconformity, and a nonconformity record (a CAR form) filled?
(E.g., a defect noticed in a railways junction or a bolt not well tightened).
What about if the causes are due to the normal use of the material/equipment; is it still considered a nonconformity requiring a CA?

Your views on this will be most welcomed.

Thank you.
Henrique Silva

My first thoughts are yes - a CA should be raised.

If a fault is found after the maintenance activity, that should have been picked up by that activity, then the system has failed (with potentially disasterous consequences ??).

Also if a fault is found due to normal wear and tear in between maintenance activities then the frequency should be increased, or the maintenance activity looked at to see if it can be improved - so again a CA would be a good way to progress this and make sure it happens.

I agree with the exception of the normal wear and tear situation which becomes a preventive action. But, as is pointed out above, many use their corrective action system to address preventive actions.

To the first a definite CA, one of the things CAs do are to protect you, as a company in a sense. To the second could go both ways as a PA (in a trend sense) may need to do PM more often. As a comment, I feel if you have a trend you have a problem and a CA. As a CA are the trains running at the designated rail limit?