Does anybody have any information about the Firestone tire problem?

#11
Steven,
However grossly misleading and slanted this situation will have a snowball effect on the entire ISO/QS/TS communuty.
Reminiscent of the days of MIL-Q-9858 when the government would send in the FBI and DCAS to monitor your facility.
If there is even a hint that the registrar or auditor can be held liable for the shortcomings of a company's quality system; watch out, it's going to be a long tough road.
Worst case condtions:
- The big 3 provides a monthly performance report to your registrar.
- The management rep. provides a monthly report to there registrar.
- Public posting of the results contained in the report.
 
Elsmar Forum Sponsor
R

Roger Eastin

#12
I read this article as well (on QS9K getting pulled into the Fireston fracas) and I think if lawyers smell any blood in this, the whole 3rd party registration process will get "centriufged" out of the ISO compliance process!! To some, that may be good news, but it sure will water down the effect of ISO9000/TS16949 compliance. I guess it could water down compliance to any standard, ISO14001 included. The fallout from this situation could be very hard on the ISO community. For one, I hope the lawyers don't go there!!
 

CarolX

Super Moderator
Super Moderator
#14
Sam-

I, too remember the days of MIL-Q-9858 (which is really where ISO9000 came from). DCAS would NEVER "approve" a company to the specification, but would perform audits and find the systems to be either "acceptable" or "unacceptable". This absolved them of any liability.

I always embraced the idea of ISO9000 as a standard for a good quality program. I just could never accept the "approval" process.

Don't we all think the lawyers are going to get their hands on the "approval" process of ISO/QS and use it against Firestone and Ford??!!
 
A

Alf Gulford

#15
I've been reading articles for the past year or so that suggest a company with product problems could be sued for negligence(?) if they could have, but did not, comply with ISO 9000. Now this!

If registrars are going to be included in lawsuits I suspect this will shake out some of the smaller outfits, with the ones left taking out malpractice insurance and passing the costs along to us.
 
S

Steven Truchon

#17
Marc, this is all that the USA Today site would give me without paying $1.50. So I c&p'd it to here.
--------------------------------
Quality auditor OK'd Decatur tire plant
USA Today; Arlington, Va.; Sep 8, 2000; Del Jones;

Abstract:
Lloyd's Register, a 240-year-old company with headquarters in the United Kingdom and 200 offices worldwide, inspected Firestone's Decatur, Ill., plant in 1997 and awarded it the quality seal of approval known as QS-9000.

Bruce Kaster, a lawyer who sues tire companies, says he doubts if Lloyd's will be sued, because companies can hide the truth from auditors. But James Kolka, a lawyer who has written a book about the legal liability of such quality certifications, says there is no reason plaintiffs won't name Lloyd's along with Bridgestone and Ford.

QS-9000 is the automotive subset of ISO-9000, a rigid quality standard well known to manufacturers worldwide. In this case, it saved the trouble and expense of each automaker inspecting Firestone's Decatur plant. Instead, Firestone hired Lloyd's to inspect the plant and verify its process quality for all.
-----------------------------

Look in the USA Today archive section and use qs-9000 as the search within the last 30 days.

Steve
 

Marc

Hunkered Down for the Duration with a Mask on...
Staff member
Admin
#18
From: ISO 9000 Standards Discussion <[email protected]>
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 10:38:44 -0500
Subject: Re: Firestone /../Hellmann/Pfrang/Daniels

From: "Daniels, Beverly" <[email protected]>

Without answering the "should the registrar have detected the problem and rescinded Firestone's QS registration" argument, I do want to address Doug Pfrang's comments about the "low" defect level and the "customer abuse".


Doug wrote:
> Finally, keep in mind that the number of customer complaints
> that triggered Firestone's recall is less than 0.01% of the
> 6.5 million tires that Firestone has agreed to replace, and
> the latter is only a small fraction of the total number of
> tires that Firestone currently has on the road.

Yes this seems like a small number (it's ~ 100 ppm). However, I'd like to calibrate us all on what constitutes a small number in the auto industry (and many other industries) and how these numbers are really larger than we might think.

First: 100 ppm is too large per QS9000 requirements for critical characteristics. They are very tight about this in their specification of Cpk/Ppk requirements.

But more to the point a .01% failure rate in a product grouping (and this is how it's looked at not by looking at the failure rate for the entire product line...) is considered very large in automotive, particularly for the kind of failures (catastrophic product failure and death). Look at eh FMEA forms: they REQUIRE preventive action for any "10" in severity of effect, which means that the failure will be unannounced, the effect unavoidable and a serious safety "occurrence" inevitable should the failure occur. And this requirement for action on a 10 is regardless of probably occurrence level! so the generally accepted practice in the automotive industry is that this .01% is too large. Now, reasonable people know that it's really possible that this failure mode "may" have been "unknown" in any FMEA, but good quality, business or ethical understandings should have led Firestone to taking immediate corrective action to PREVENT the reoccurrence of the failure in future product once the field failure rate was known. And, yes in my time in the automotive industry (and others) I worked on many such low defect / rate high severity issues to correct them. It was an imperative to save lives and save the company from the inevitable litigation and legislative actions if we didn't correct the issues.

Also, having studied automotive/consumer warranty for a long time, the actual number of failures is always under-reported by the user and under accepted by the manufacturer...the actual numbers of failures is in all likelihood far higher than .01% - or whatever number is being bandied around today. Especially with tires which have very daunting rules about warranty. They are set up to under report.

Another point inside this one: Mr. Pfrang states that there is only one vehicle that is overwhelmingly involved and this is not completely true (as far as I can tell from all of the public reports). First off it appears that the Explorer is the largest (by far) user of these tires so they would have the largest amount of failures. Secondly it does sound as if there is an interaction between the tires and something with the Explorer that could be making the occurrence rate with the Explorer higher than with other vehicles...certainly the Explorers high center of gravity would make the vehicle more likely to roll when the tire blows (it' a very violent event) So that the Explorer would experience more deaths per tire failure than other vehicles that have a lower tendency to roll. This phenomenon would also lead to a relative under reporting of the tire failure for those vehicles that did not roll and hence did not experience any human damage. (The Ford truck sites, by the way are full of stories of Ford TRUCKS experiencing the tire blowout but not the rolling/death consequence...) Now, of course my "reporting" here is based on publicly available data - if one knows where to look - and that is not the whole truth, nor even the truth in many cases. The point to learn here is that until the lawsuits are settled the true "reported to the entities involved" numbers will be a large matter of speculation. And the true number of incidents will never be known. But .01% is very large for this type of event.


Mr. Pfrang also states:
> Frankly, given the way many drivers abuse their tires --
> chronic underinflation, overloading, squealing tires away
> from stoplights and around corners, slamming on brakes,
> driving off-road, driving on pavement that can range from
> 35 degrees below zero to 160 degrees above, driving 80 mph
> and above (and slamming into potholes and road debris at
> those speeds), hitting curbs, hitting glass, etc. -- I'm
> amazed we don't see far more "premature" tire failures.

Well, this may be true. I hate those dang Customers. They never do what we tell them to do with our product, do they?? The world would be a better place without them! They are the root of all evil and should be shot on sight!!

All sarcasm aside: that's the market boys! and the automotive industry knows it. And MOST products prepare for it. The smart ones do it consistently. The dumb ones lose market share and go out of business. The Customer today expects more and more. They want the product to withstand what they "reasonably" will do with it...and the conditions that are listed above are reasonable. Maybe on the harsh end of reasonable...but still reasonable. And quite a few of the examples are unavoidable conditions of the driving environment in the US and the world...AND my SUV better be able to drive off road - that's what I bought it to do and that's what it's advertised to do and by golly it better do it for the money I paid for it!

Sorry Doug, the above is not abuse. Only those who want to tell the customer the exact conditions of use of their product think that. And they are in severe denial. The vast majority of the auto industry knows it's a fact of life. They may not like it, they may complain about it, but they DO design and manufacture their product to perform in that kind of environment. Cause if they don't - someone else will.

And more to the point: From what has been reported: NONE of the stated conditions above would lead to the type of failure the Firestone are experiencing. (Driving long distances at highway speeds - not an unreasonable expectation - may make the failure occur earlier, but it would still occur). It is an internal manufacturing defect that takes time (actually use) to finally fail. But it's not the use that causes the failure; that's normal and expected environmental stress. It's the manufacturing defect that causes the failure.

Bev Daniels
 

Marc

Hunkered Down for the Duration with a Mask on...
Staff member
Admin
#19
From: ISO 9000 Standards Discussion <[email protected]>
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 11:06:37 -0500
Subject: Q: Can/should product problems influence an ISO registrar audit? /Pfrang

From: "Pfrang, Doug" <[email protected]>

This Firestone matter has raised questions in my mind regarding the extent to which a product failure can or should influence future ISO surveillance audits.

Let's say an ISO-registered company has a well-publicized product failure -- one that gets lots of media coverage. I'm using Firestone as an example, but it need not be a situation where fatalities and a recall are involved. What matters is that the registrar knows about the product failure, and it's a relatively major failure.

Given that ISO registrars perform surveillance audits according to a pre-established schedule, what impact, if any, can or should the product failure have on future surveillance audit? Of course, the registrar will probably want to check the company's CAPA concerning the product failure, but can or should the registrar be allowed to go on a fishing expedition trying to find nonconformities related to that specific product?

Of course, this is precisely what a regulatory body, like FDA, would do (and should do), but is this sort of thing proper for an ISO registrar, and, if so, what is the justification? Keep in mind that the company already knows about the problem, and that the surveillance audit provides virtually no "value added" if it merely identifies quality problems which the company has already uncovered.

Just looking for your opinions.

Thanks,

-- Doug
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
B Does anybody know how to get older versions of Minitab to work in Windows 10? Quality Tools, Improvement and Analysis 9
I Does anybody use Detection in medical device Design FMEA? ISO 14971 - Medical Device Risk Management 18
L Does anybody have quiz's available? ISO 13485:2016 Training Material Training - Internal, External, Online and Distance Learning 2
A Does anybody know in which Standard can this attached Alarm Symbol be found? Other Medical Device Related Standards 3
A Does Anybody use APIS (IQ-FMEA) Software in this forum? FMEA and Control Plans 2
Y Does anybody have any knowledge in Statistical Bin Limit (SBL)? Statistical Analysis Tools, Techniques and SPC 2
T Does anybody know about EN45014? (Replaced by ISO/IEC 17050-1) Other Medical Device Related Standards 1
M Does Anybody have an ISO 22000 internal audit checklist for sharing? Internal Auditing 11
Stijloor Does anybody get a job from listings in the Cove? Career and Occupation Discussions 18
W Preventive 5S - Does anybody have any idea about Preventive 5S? Preventive Action and Continuous Improvement 1
M When is a system not a single device? Does anybody know of a guidance document? ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 11
A IC: 5.15 vs 6.00 sigma - Does anybody here use 5.15 sigma for MSA calculations? Gage R&R (GR&R) and MSA (Measurement Systems Analysis) 3
R Iso/tc69/sc4/wg6n48 - Does anybody here know captioned standard? Statistical Analysis Tools, Techniques and SPC 3
J Does anybody have an audit checklist focused on Manufacturing processes? Manufacturing and Related Processes 8
J Does anybody can give a help about GR&R Gage R&R (GR&R) and MSA (Measurement Systems Analysis) 3
J Does anybody can give me a help about the calcuation about no defect on 6 sigma level Six Sigma 3
S Does anybody have any idea about EAQF94 standards? IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 2
W FPS (Ford production system) - Does anybody have any interesting comments? Customer and Company Specific Requirements 8
N Blueprint reading training - Does anybody have any recommendations? Training - Internal, External, Online and Distance Learning 6
A Does anybody have an audit check list for ISO/IEC 17025 to replace ISO/IEC Guide 25 ISO 17025 related Discussions 14
lanley liao Does all of the suppliers need to integrated into the supplier list qualified of the company? Oil and Gas Industry Standards and Regulations 2
0 To which part of 13485 does this refer? ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 3
A Medical Device Contract Manufacturer - Does the CM need to register with FDA? 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 3
J Records Control - Does each individual record need to be numbered? Records and Data - Quality, Legal and Other Evidence 2
lanley liao Does the customer`s trademark belong to customer-supplied property? Oil and Gas Industry Standards and Regulations 2
H How does a gas turbine work on diesel fuel? Oil and Gas Industry Standards and Regulations 12
G What does performance specification include? US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 1
W Where does a coatings and paint company fall in IATF? IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 5
A How much does a complete biocompatibility test package cost? Other ISO and International Standards and European Regulations 1
M Does the ISO 9001:2015 standard require a disaster recovery plan or emergency response plan ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 16
C Does an accessory need an IFU if it use is discussed in the Parent device IFU? 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 5
S How long does it take to register a product with MHRA? UK Medical Device Regulations 3
M Quality Manual - Where does Revision History Section go? Document Control Systems, Procedures, Forms and Templates 8
U Does *anyone* know a lab that will test to EN 455-4 Medical Gloves shelf life determination? EU Medical Device Regulations 1
A Brexit When does the UK responsible person need to be in place? UK Medical Device Regulations 10
M How does IEC-60601-1 apply to a non-medical device in the patient vicinity? IEC 60601 - Medical Electrical Equipment Safety Standards Series 1
N Does anyone have experience of GB/T 34986-2017? China Medical Device Regulations 1
Z Does anyone have experience with EN ISO 17664 ? IEC 62366 - Medical Device Usability Engineering 9
F Does anyone have an ESD quality/cooler talk to share? Training - Internal, External, Online and Distance Learning 4
A What does this line from MDCG 2020-3 (MDR art. 120 substantial change) mean to you? EU Medical Device Regulations 4
D Change Approval Requirements - Does every change need formal customer approval? Design and Development of Products and Processes 17
T What does AS9100 mean when it says you must establish a process to do X? AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 24
L Does a backdate form format can be changed if wrong revision is used? Document Control Systems, Procedures, Forms and Templates 8
B General Motors and Honda Alliance - What does this mean to suppliers? IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 3
C ISO 13485 :2016 - CAPA - Does every CAPA need to be checked by regulations? ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 9
A Does ISO 9001:2015 cover all the requirements of ISO 10012:2003? ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 6
N FDA UDI - Label vs. Labeling - Does the insert need to include UDI? Other US Medical Device Regulations 1
A Does anyone have a checklist of API Spec 650 13th Edition? Oil and Gas Industry Standards and Regulations 0
D Does Manufacture can submit CE mark application under MDD with NB for his New product after May 2020? EU Medical Device Regulations 3
A What does this sentence "this symbol shall be used in the orientation shown" mean in ISO 780:2015? Other Medical Device Related Standards 4

Similar threads

Top Bottom