Does anybody have any information about the Firestone tire problem?

A

Andy Bassett

Hello Marc

Do you or does anybody have any information about the Firstone problem. I can see the message at the top of one of your pages, but unless i am doing something wrong it doesnt lead to any other info.

Actually, thinking about it, does anybody have ANY examples like this which could support or help to justify the implementation of procedures in a company. I would tend to circulate them inside sceptical organisations if i feel i need additional support

Regards



[This message has been edited by Andy Bassett (edited 23 August 2000).]
 

Randy

Super Moderator
The best one I can think of Andy is the Challenger Shuttle Booster situation in 1986.

There were some procedures in place (found to be inadequate and ignored) and a failure occurred. This may be similar to the tire issue.
 
A

Andy Bassett

Thanks for the info Randy

But do you know where it is possible to get hold of the facts/reports/articles for either situation.

Regards



------------------
Andy B
 

Randy

Super Moderator
Firestone is probably sitting on everything right now because of the legal issues. They did have a similar occurance 20 something years ago with the "Radial 500" tires. I even worked a fatality accident when I was a police officer involving those tires.

As for the Challenger, you can get a bunch off the "Net" because it is public information. It's well known that NASA and Morton Thiokol (the booster maker) had to totally revamp their quality and safety procedures because of that mess.
 

Marc

Fully vaccinated are you?
Leader
The picture was not a link - not supposed to lead to anything.
 
J

Jim Biz

Just 2 cnts worth ... If even part of the "RUMORS" that are leaking out have a speck of truth to them ....


Would anyone want to bet that there are at least one or two QA guys sitting around explaining why/how/when they should have addressed the problem to a bunch of production supervisors & other management types that could have been turning a blind eye to information supplied to them??

- Last RUMOR I heard was that the cost will be over 3.5 billion before this is over - would have supported a raft of quality programs and saved a raft of lives. Now- there are Rumors that they have known - or should have know for quite awhile - similar "problems" were related to them from oversea's long before it turned up here in the states.

I hesitate to use the word "RISK" but IMHO ... apparently someone or some group knowingly took a big risk and now there is payment required.
 
J

Jim Biz

Did everyone hear the latest?

Ford President on CNN news last night 8/31/00 - explaining they were inquiring with Goodyear & Michilen for possible help in supplying replacments?..

Stating "they were monitoring" the Firestone situation on a day by day basis..

according to "The Media"

Firestone is on the edge of loosing a 100 year old supplier/customer relationship.
 

Marc

Fully vaccinated are you?
Leader
Firestone is on the edge of a 15,000 foot ledge no matter what happens from here on out. Big boo boos have been made.
 

Marc

Fully vaccinated are you?
Leader
>From [email protected] Tue Sep 12 21:19:08 2000
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 21:46:44 -0400 (EDT)
From: Greg Gogates [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: External documents - tires, pressures & calibration
Sender: [email protected]

Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 09:59:50 -0500
From: Jay Warner <[email protected]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: Greg Gogates [email protected]
Subject: Re: External documents - tires, pressures & calibration

Dear ISO17025 people,

This posting below was made in early July, before the Firestone/ Bridgestone tire issues hit the public & congressional fan. In some ways, I feel the comments about tire pressure were prescient.

Bridgestone contends that low tire pressure and excessive speed are major contributing causes of tread separation.

Whether or not you (or the data) agree, maybe an occasional check of tire pressure combined with an occasional check of the speedometer would be a good thing for "a useable mode of transport for the purpose intended."

And calibration of the pressure gauge should be included in the debate, as well. Just what is the uncertainty of that air pressure gauge at the gas station, anyway? Not to mention the uncertainty of the air pressure "when the tire is cold" vs. when it is checked. Bridgestone and Ford are debating a difference in pressure of 4 psi, as if the precision of the measurement was smaller than 1 psi.

Jay

Greg Gogates wrote:

> Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2000 16:20:32 -0500
> From: TSmith <[email protected]>
> To: Greg Gogates <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: External documents re2
>
> Greetings Phil,
>
> I like this thread. It brings tears to many peoples eyes. One must assume
> when we impose this Doc Control Issue that the client has a need to maintain
> the most current revision Test equipment with the most current mods that
> warrant the most current printed and published manuals for the instrument.
> In the same light, when was the last time you called the automotive
> manufacturer of the car you drive to obtain the most current ownners manual
> revision for your model car or truck. I hope that if you are still driving
> with out the most current owners manual, that its still a useable mode of
> transport for the purpose intended. ? Humm. But never fear. When the day
> comes that you get stopped for a traffic ticket. (equal to observing a test
> that you didnt do so well on), the officer wont ask for your most current
> copy of your owners manual to justify the stated tire pressure in the manual
> is 38 lbs. and your spare tire was 37lbs.) It didnt make you go faster did
> it. Anyways just laugh this one off and lets focus on making good
> measurements.
>
> The Duke

--
Jay Warner
Principal Scientist
Warner Consulting, Inc.
4444 North Green Bay Road
Racine, WI 53404-1216
USA

Ph: (262) 634-9100
FAX: (262) 681-1133
email: [email protected]
web: https://www.a2q.com

The A2Q Method (tm). What do you want to improve today?
 
S

Steven Truchon

Last week in USA today an article appeared regarding QS9000. This of course follows in the wake of the Firestone situation. The article tended to lean toward an invalidation of the effectiveness of QS9000 as a quality system and I think that the average reader would accept this implication.
The article reads QS9000 as an extension if ISO9000, then goes on to explain an example of an un-named plant being audited for ISO9000 where the auditors spent most of the day "outside smoking cigarettes". They go on the explain that Ford didnt require any onsite inspections of Firestones plants or systems because Firestone was QS9000 registered.
I found the article grossly misleading and slanted.

Did anyone else catch this one?
 
Top Bottom