List of NCR (NonConformance Report) Defect Cause & Corrective Action Codes

[Marc]

Defect Codes

You want examples of defect codes?

213.4 Excepted track
4.01 Excepted track segment not identified in appropriate record.
4.02 Excepted track segment located within 30 feet of an adjacent track subject to simultaneous operation at speeds in excess of 1 0 mph.
4.03 Excepted track not inspected in accordance with 213.233(C) and 213.235 as specified for Class 1 track.
4.04 Train speed exceeds 10 mph on excepted track.
4.05 Occupied passenger train operated on excepted track.
4.06 Freight train operated on excepted track with more than five cars required to be placarded in accordance with 49 CFR Part 1 72.
4.07 Train with a car required to be placarded by 49 CFR Part 172 operated over excepted track within 100 feet of a bridge or in a public street or highway.
4.08 Failure to notify FRA of removal of trackage from excepted status.


213.7 Designation of qualified persons to supervise certain renewals and inspect track
7.01 No written record of names of qualified persons to supervise restorations and renewals of track under traffic and/or to inspect track for defects, or to pass trains over broken rails or pull-aparts
7.02 Failure of track owner to provide written authorization to qualified designated individuals.
7.03 Failure to use qualified person to pass trains over broken rails or pull aparts.
7.04 Train speed exceeds 10 m.p.h. over broken rails or pull aparts.
7.05 Failure to promptly notify and dispatch person fully qualified under § 213.7 to the location of the broken rail or pull apart.


213.9 Classes of track; operating speed limits
9.01 Failure to restore other than excepted track to compliance with Class 1 standards within 30 days after a person designated under 213.7(A) has determined that operations may safely continue over defect(s) not meeting Class 1 or excepted track standards.
9.02 Failure of track owner to enforce, over Class 1 defects, the limiting conditions imposed by person designated under 213.7(A).
9.03 Unused


213.11 Restoration or renewal of track under traffic conditions
11.01 Proper qualified supervision not provided at work site during work hours when track is being restored or renewed under traffic conditions.


213.33 Drainage
33.01 Drainage or water-carrying facility not maintained.
33.02 Drainage or water-carrying facility obstructed by debris.
33.03 Drainage or water-carrying facility collapsed.
33.04 Drainage or water-carrying facility obstructed by vegetation.
33.05 Drainage or water-carrying facility obstructed by silting.
33.06 Drainage or water-carrying facility deteriorated to allow sub grade saturation.
33.07 Uncontrolled water undercutting track structure or embankment.


213.37 Vegetation
37.01 Combustible vegetation around track-carrying structures.
37.02 Vegetation obstructs visibility of railroad signs and fixed signals.
37.03 Vegetation obstructs passing of day and night signals by railroad employees.
37.04 Vegetation interferes with railroad employees performing normal trackside duties.
37.05 Vegetation prevents proper functioning of signal and/or communication lines.
37.06 Excessive vegetation at train order office, depot, interlocking plant, a car man's building, etc., prevents employees on duty from visually inspecting moving equipment when their duties so require.
37.07 Excessive vegetation at train meeting points prevents proper inspection by railroad employees of moving equipment.
37.08 Excessive vegetation in toe paths and around switches where employees are performing normal trackside duties.
37.09 Vegetation brushing sides of rolling stock.
37.10 Vegetation obstructs visibility of grade crossing warning signs and signals by the traveling public.


213.53 Gage
53.01 Gage dimension exceeds allowable on tangent track.
53.02 Gage dimension is less than allowable on tangent track.
53.03 Gage dimension exceeds allowable on curved track.
53.04 Gage dimension is less than allowable on curved track.
53.05 Gage dimension exceeds allowable for excepted track.


213.55 Alignment
55.01 The alignment of tangent track exceeds the allowable deviation.
55.02 The alignment of curved track exceeds the allowable deviation for a 62-foot chord.
55.03 The alignment of curved track exceeds the allowable deviation for a 31-foot chord.


213.57 Curves; elevation and speed limitations
57.01 Unused
57.02 Operating speed exceeds allowable for 3-inches of unbalance, based on curvature and elevation.
57.03 Operating speed exceeds allowable for 4-inches of unbalance, based on curvature and elevation.
57.04 Operating speed exceeds allowable for a FRA approved unbalance based on curvature and elevation approved for track contiguous to high speed track.
57.05 Unused
57.06 Maximum cross level on curve exceeds allowable.
Sales Locations
213.63 Track surface
63.01 Runoff in any 31-feet of rail at end of raise exceeds allowable.
63.02 Deviation from uniform profile on either rail exceeds allowable.
63.03 Unused
63.04 Unused
63.05 Deviation from zero cross level at any point on tangent exceeds allowable.
63.06 Unused
63.07 Difference in cross level between any two points less than 62-feet apart on tangents exceeds allowable.
63.08 Difference in cross level between any two points less than 62-feet apart on curves between spirals exceeds allowable.
63.09 Difference in cross level between any two points less than 62-feet apart on spirals exceeds allowable.
63.10 Reverse elevation on curve exceeds allowable.
63.11 Variation in cross level on spirals per 31-feet due to physical restriction on spiral length and operating practices exceeds allowable.
63.12 Difference in cross level within 62-feet between a point on a curve that equals or exceeds 6-inches and a point with greater elevation exceed allowable.
63.13 Cross level differences for six or more consecutive pairs of staggered joints exceeds allowable.


213.103 Ballast; general
103.01 Insufficient Ballast
103.02 Fouled Ballast

213.109 Crossties
109.01 Fewer than minimum allowable number of non-defective ties per 39 feet [not used after 09/21/00]
109.02 No effective support ties within the prescribed distance from a joint.
109.03 Crossties not effectively distributed to support a 39-foot segment of track.
109.04 Fewer than minimum allowable number of non defective ties per 39 feet for tangent and curved track less than 2 degrees [effective 09/21/00].
109.05 Fewer than minimum allowable number of non-defective ties per 39 feet for turnouts and curved track over 2 degrees (effective 09/21/00)
`109.06 Track constructed without crossties does not effectively support track structure.

Another style is: Motor Defect Codes.pdf

Or...

GRADING CODES:

PR = Poor
FR = Fair
GD = Good
VG = Very Good
FN = Fine
VF = Very Fine

Grades refer to the condition of the dust jacket. The book, unless otherwise indicated, equals or exceeds the condition of the dust jacket. For Picture Cover editions or books without dust jackets the grading refers to the book . The number in ( ) indicates the highest series number listed on the dust jacket flap or rear boards of picture cover editions.
SPECIAL DEFECT, FORMAT & GRADING CODES

AC = Applique Cover (Illustration mounted to the board of the book)
AUTO = Autographed by the Author
B&H = Published by Barse & Hopkins
BK# = Book # handwritten on Book Spine
BCP = Blackened Cover Price
BP= Book Plate Present BURT = Published by A.L. Burt
C&L = Published by Cupples & Leon
CMB = Check Marks on Back Cover
CS = Cover Scrape (Usually from a price tag)
D&M = Published by Dodd, Mead & Company
DJ = Dust Jacket
DONO = Donohue
DS = Dampness Stain
FCC = Front Cover Chipping to Dust Jacket
FCF = Front Cover Fading to Dust Jacket or Picture Cover
FED = Front Endpaper Damage
FEM = Front Endpaper Missing
FFD = Front Dust Jacket Flap Damage
FFM = Front Dust Jacket Flap Missing
FL = Frontispiece Loose
G&D = Published by Grosset & Dunlap
INT = Glossy Internal Illustrations Present
IP = Inscription Present on Front Endpaper
L&S = Published by Lee & Shepard
LBE = Library Bound Edition
LL&S = Published by Lothrop, Lee & Shepard
LRE = Library Rebound Edition
LSC = Lower Dust Jacket Spine Chipping
MSS = Minor Smoke Stain to Dust Jacket and/or Book
MTS = Minor Tape Stain
NP = Former Owner's Name on Front Endpaper
OPS = Original Price Sticker Present
OT = Original Text
PB = Paperbound Edition
PC = Picture Cover Edition
PL = Page(s) Loose
RCC = Rear Cover Chipping to Dust Jacket
R&B = Published by Reilly & Britton
R&L = Published by Reilly & Lee
REM = Rear Endpaper Missing
RFD = Rear Flap Damage
RFM = Rear Dust Jacket Flap Missing
RRT = Reverse of Dust Jacket Reinforced with Tape
SB = Spine of Book Slightly Bent
SCH = Dust Jacket Spine Chipping at Top and Bottom
SDS= Slight Dampness Stain to DJ
SSD = Slight Darkening to DJ Spine
SSF = Slight Spine Fading to Dust Jacket or Picture Cover
SF = Severe Spine Fading to Dust Jacket or Picture Cover
SP# = Book # handwritten on Dust Jacket Spine
SS = Severe Smoke Stain to Dust Jacket or Book
SSP = Slight Dust Jacket Spine Chipping
SSD = Slight Dust Jacket Spine Darkening
TS = Severe Tape Stain or Tape Present on Dust Jacket
USC = Upper Dust Jacket Spine Chipping
WA = Wrap Around Illustrated Dust Jacket
WS = Waterstain to Dust Jacket or Book
[$] = Suggested Selling Price Box on Front Cover

OR.... Are you referring to analysis aspects?

 

[alekra]

The closest I would come would be to have a 'detail description' as a field in each database record.
I have a general item code field but I also have a 'Detail' field where I can put in details.

Marc, I´d like you to suggest a way to analyse...

My doubt is how to analyse so many data... In my job, I see a databank in excel and each internal customer needs a different filter of its area related RNC´s... Such confusing, isn´t it?

 

[Marc]

I'll get back with you in the morning on this.

 

[Marc]

Just to 'calibrate' ourselves to the thread starting topic...

The first NCR system implementation is in the machining area. Does anybody have a reasonably sized list of defect, cause & corrective action codes they could post here? I need to populate the database / library of each section of the NCR system.

I don't have a list specific to machining but someone else here may. Also try a Google search: Key words: machining defect codes.

Marc, I´d like you to suggest a way to analyse...

My doubt is how to analyse so many data... In my job, I see a databank in excel and each internal customer needs a different filter of its area related RNC´s... Such confusing, isn´t it?

Well, it depends upon what you have to work with. I can go back to the 1980's when I worked with Westinghouse's WDS (Western Data Services if I remember correctly) database which was a database written for Westinghouse. Getting data out was a pain. I ended up getting a weekly ASCII file exported which I imported into Exstatics for Mac (long ago the company went bust, but it was similar to Statgraphics) if I remember correctly. It was a pain as corporate had to do a special session to send it. And there were about 500 defect codes which was very confusing.

But, back to today - If you set up a database for data collection and follow through (One I programmed back in the early 1990's is Nonconformance Database Front End) - It was the 'front end') you can export the data by making different 'reports' and use Excel for basic analysis. Or you can do extended analysis with Statgraphics or similar data analysis software.

The key is what analysis do you want to do and how complex it is. For many folks Excel is sufficient.

The following is something I found Googleing which might help. It's a promo, but what the heck.

QA/S variable and attribute SPC helps Stihl Inc. cut scrap and defects

Hertzler Systems

In 1988, Stihl Inc. of Virginia Beach, Virginia was already a worldwide leader of reliable and durable chainsaws with a well-deserved reputation for quality. While Stihl didn't necessarily need to improve on this reputation of quality, it did need to reduce the time, labor, and costs associated with maintaining it.

At that time, Stihl Inc. had 27 people in its quality department to inspect and measure a high volume of parts as they came off production lines. They then entered massive amounts of data into a computer spreadsheet system that did simple number crunching and statistics. It was, to say the least, a very labor intensive, time-consuming, and expensive quality assurance process.

Even with all this effort and expense, Stihl could only react to problems they found, not prevent them from happening. As a result, scrap rates and rework were unacceptably high.

"We've always had a good reputation for high quality products," stated Randy Carson, Stihl's Quality Assurance Manager, "but in 1988, we were spending an unacceptable amount of time maintaining a system based on final inspection. Quality has always been of the utmost important to us, and always will, but we realized we needed to find a more efficient and productive system to ensure this high quality."

That same year, Mr. Carson and QA Supervisor David Mitchell began looking for an automated quality management system to detect process and part problems as they happened. "We knew we needed a real-time SPC system," noted Mr. Mitchell. "We also needed an SPC system that tracked attributes in addition to variables, since many of our defective parts were non-dimensional, cosmetic problems within our injection molding area."

After an extensive review of SPC software packages, they found what they were looking for. Hertzler Systems QA/S system not only provided an advanced variable system with real-time charting and alarms, it was the only one that offered a comprehensive attribute SPC with multilevel Pareto analysis.

"We took the QA/S demo package and set up a test system in one of our machining centers," said Carson. "The owner of Stihl was visiting from Germany and we wanted him and our vice president of manufacturing to see how this system could help us. Our owner is an engineer and very knowledgeable about our processes and technology in general.

"As I said, this was in 1988 and we had just started bringing computers into the company," noted Carson. "Our original intention was to use the QA/S system in a few critical areas. When the owner and the VP of manufacturing saw QA/S in action, they were so impressed they decided to go right to a full plantwide network system right from the start. This was fine, since the QA/S network system allowed multiple users to share and access real-time data."

"Stihl's management has always been receptive to new technology and automation," Mitchell added. "Our owner is an advocate for using innovative technology to improve productivity. With QA/S, he saw the potential benefits right up front. There wasn't that much of a convincing job that we had to do."

Stihl's in-house plastics injection-molding department produces a variety of dimensionally-critical components, including gears for oil pumps and drive seals. These components have very precise requirements and very tight tolerances. In addition to these parts, the injection molding department also produces the external engine housing for their chainsaws. These polymer housings are prone to cosmetic defects such as short shots, burns, and excessive sink.

"We do more measuring, inspection and testing than any other company in our industry," noted Carson. "The problem we had in the past was being able to process all of this information in a timely manner so we could do something constructive with it. The QA/S variable and attribute SPC system with real-time, on-line information lends itself to the proactive approach we were looking for.

"Once we got this equipment in place, we saw immediate paybacks. We began tracking attribute data in addition to variable SPC data we'd always collected," Carson continued. "We set up defect codes for all of our potential defects in our injection molding department and started doing Pareto analysis."

"We divided our defect codes into two categories -- cosmetic and functional," noted Mitchell. "They're both attribute types of problems, but we prioritize them differently. Excess flash, for example, could be merely a cosmetic issue that may not even be visible to the end user. Functional flash, on the other hand, relates to the assembly of the product. With functional flash, you cannot properly assemble the product, so that gets higher priority."

"We also track defects by causer codes, which we break down into four categories. There's tooling (related to molds), machining ( related to the presses), process (related to process adjustments), and design constraints. So we may have a functional flash that's tooling related, machine related, process related, or design related. It's a pretty complex system, but its been very effective for us. Right away we discovered that about 60% of our problems were tooling related."

"Once we understood this, we were able to provide more resources for tooling maintenance. We have a full tool and die shop here with over 20 tool and die makers in-house. When we tracked tooling problems we found out where we were making mistakes in tool maintenance. We've adjusted our preventative maintenance scheduling accordingly and, in some cases, scheduled shorter production runs."

"In our injection molding process, the majority of the parts go right to our assembly line," Carson stated. "Since we have a JIT (Just In Time) system here, we can't afford problems like line interruptions that we had in the past. When a problem occurs now, we get immediate feedback with QA/S."

"QA/S has been very good for us in terms of tracking down the root cause of problems. For example, we track the parts produced from each cavity of every machine. This means we can identify which cavity on which machine is causing a particular problem."

"This allows us to key in on the process where we needed the most improvement and prioritize it. Plastic injection molding had been our biggest problem area, and where we have seen the most success. With our old system, we had to do lots of final inspections. Due to our success with QA/S in improving our processes, we were able to eliminate our final inspections a number of years ago."

"In the years we've been using QA/S, scrap and rework rates have dropped significantly," Carson said. "As our business has expanded, increasing production capacity 50% over the last eight years, we've seen a significant reduction in the ratio of quality staff compared to production staff. In fact, we've actually reduced quality staff by 25% since 1988. With the old system, we would have had to add quality staff to reflect the growth in production. QA/S has paid for itself several times over just in staff reduction alone."

"The QA/S system was an essential component in us achieving ISO registration earlier this year," Mitchell stated. "QA/S offers all of the statistical process control, inspection and testing tools, and essential quality records we needed for ISO. It all ties back to the corrective action plan that's identified with the different alarms. It really gives you a good closed-loop system for controlling the process and having the evidence that the quality control activities are taking place."

"We also use Hertzler System's GageTrol program for our calibration," noted Carson. "It also helped us in the ISO audit. Calibration and control of measuring and test equipment is one of the primary reasons why people fail the audit. The auditor had run into GageTrol at other companies, and when he saw we were using it, he said he knew we'd meet the ISO requirements. In fact, the auditor specifically identified our injection molding process and our calibration system as being exemplary in his final report."

"If we wouldn't have had these systems in place, it would have delayed our successful registration by at least six months," Carson noted. "It took us 18 months from the start of our ISO project to the conclusion. I think it would have taken us in the neighborhood of 24 months to do without QA/S and GageTrol. By having these mature systems in place, with trained and experienced people, ISO was very simple and straightforward for us."

"We're pretty proud of our organization here," noted Mitchell. "Since 1988, our overall customer approval ratings have gone up dramatically. We're continually expanding our market share and sales have risen each year. Another positive sign is that many of our employees has been here a long time. I believe that's because of the work environment we have here."

"The fact that we're an innovative, technology-based company with visionary management helps us maintain our leadership in the marketplace," added Carson. "Our use of QA/S is a good example of this innovative approach to solving problems and moving forward."

 

[alekra]

Thank you very much, Marc!!!

The text and the database were exactly what I was looking for!!! I´ve found also in my searches in the cove a c/p access database that seems to be easy and really nice.

Now I have a lot of work and data to organize...

Sorry if I´ve "discalibrated" someone, but some subjects are so amazing that we go and go... Sorry!

And thanks again!!

 

[RoxaneB]

Bom dia, Alekra!

While I am unable to attach a copy of our NC log, I can outline the set-up.

Each entry has it's NCR # as an identifier in the log, which is hyperlinked directly to the report. The log is set up to show the initiator and initiator department, as well as recipient and recipient department.

Our classification is broken down to:

• PR = Product
• PS = Process
• IA = Internal audit
• EA = External audit
• ENV = Environment
• H&S = Health and Safety
• BMS = Business Management System

We then include columns for details (which match what is written on the report) as well as a field for regular status updates. The status column allows us to quickly filter for NCRs that are either Pending or Closed. There are columns for date of initiation and date of closure. And lastly columns for Days Open and Days to Close.

Most of these columns allow us to quickly filter for whatever we want and allow for easy analysis.

Unfortunately, the system does not allow me to filter easily for all PS NCRs regarding the reheat furnace, for example. For that, I would filter for PS and then manually review each item. Same for PR...especially with over 300 products, to set up the criteria would be rather cumbersome and not very useful.

We will, however, be implementing a new database in 2006Q1. The initial screen is the electronic report form and there is a field for specific product and process information. This will allow for easier report generation.

 

[Rios oxnard qe]

SEEKING A LIST OF MANUFACTURING ASSEMBLY DEFECTS? i AM TRYING TO CREATE A LIST FOR OPERATORS TO USE TO HELP COMPLETE A REJECT TAG FORM. tHANKYOU.

 

[Clausterphobic]

SEEKING A LIST OF MANUFACTURING ASSEMBLY DEFECTS? i AM TRYING TO CREATE A LIST FOR OPERATORS TO USE TO HELP COMPLETE A REJECT TAG FORM. tHANKYOU.

Hello Rio,

I'm not sure what are you looking for. Assembly defects usually depends on what are you manufacturing. can you be more specific? Are you looking for visual defects?

i AM TRYING TO CREATE A LIST FOR OPERATORS TO USE TO HELP COMPLETE A REJECT TAG FORM. tHANKYOU.

i believe, instead of creating a list for the operators, the operators SHOULD be the one providing you the list!!! They have the first hand information on what type of abnormalities they see in the line and you will the one to validate them if they are really rejects based on your "quality standards" on what is a good product.

In case you are manufacturing electronics parts/modules/equipments, electrical defects should be defined by your electrical and design engineers.

You can also include in your list products which failed in your final testing and inspection and as well as reliability failures which may have been incurred during process.

hope this help.

EMTT

 

[wslabey]

Great discussion. I asked for a list of NCR defect codes for machining and found none so we created it ourselves. It drilled down to four levels of detail. The same applied to cause codes. The lists have to be organized into a hierarchy to pull meaningful information from the data.

Also, it helps to make the system easy to use and available throughout the organization for NCR initiation.