Is it correct to have a detection (error proofing) in subsequent operation?

AndrewK

Involved In Discussions
Hello

i'm new in this FMEA world and i am reading and watching videos to get more knowledge also i took some courses but i still have lots to learn. I know here there are many experts and i woud appreciate a lot your help in this doubt i have.

Checking a pfmea i noticed that in one operation we have 100% visual detection for an omission part, but in the next station we have a vision camera for that omission... as far as i know, we should have the error proofing where the failure mode can occur, thats my first doubt, the second one is the next:
we have like this the fmea

St FM FE FC PREVENTION DETECTION
10 Omission of bushing .......... .......... .......................... Visual by operator
Vision camera (St 20)

20
Installation Spring omission ....... .. ....... . . ..................... Vision camera
of other components
My concern is if we should put in the st 10 the error proofing of the st 20, or only the one that we have there (Visual by operator)?
Depending on process organization of course you may have double visual control . If no technical prevention possible i would put some "Operator certification" as preventive measure, assuming that only specific qualified operator can prevent failure to occur. Anyhow it will not decrease Detection ratingon that point. If camera is detecting and locking parts it might be threathed as 4 in my opinion. But it depends on machine functions and reliability
 
Top Bottom