33-1-32 POLL for X Air Force Personnel

[surfjax]

Please answer the following questions:

PMEL Experience:

Question: How many of you have in the past accepted the Manufacturers placard on the test equipment as a technical reference for the proper fuse size and rating, and can you give a rough estimate of how many labs allowed for this type of technical reference as justification for the proper fuse size

thanks

[mdbuike]

Actually, I used to, until I had two 436A's and and two 3325's on my bench (many years ago) and the 436's placards said "750 maT 250v" and 750ma 250V" and the 3325A's said "1A 250V and 1.5A 250V".

This led to some intense research (like HP/Agilent never make mistakes) and come to find out, the fast blow for the 436 was correct.  Both were correct for the 3325A's, but depended on the year manufactured (something they forgot to tell thier customers).

So now I verify with current tech orders or comm data, and put it on an AFTO 57 where I found it.

Remember, even paranoids can have enemies.

Mike

[Mike]

Sure I've used the placard many times...knowing it was not the 100% approved source document.

Accepted it as a calculated risk in the interest of time...particularly if the lab did not the comm data available.

I don't think it was ever the "officially approved" lab policy to accept the placards where I worked.

[jimmyc]

So now I verify with current tech orders or comm data, and put it on an AFTO 57 where I found it.

Remember, even paranoids can have enemies.

Mike

even information on an AFTO 57 must be verified by the certifying technician.  fuse values could be option based, or year mfr based, or S/N based.  though there was a problem with a  few 436 markings, it used to be in the TO to verify fuse ratings for just that reason.  When there is a known discrepancy on an item, it should be listed as a warning/caution/note in the TO imo.  this issue became a giant issue at a former employer between verifying that the comm data was the most up to date every time, (to include a sheet stating who was called, date, time, caller...) even though the item was mfr'ed using the old MFR data.  i called agilent a million times asking is rev 1.xxx still the most current pub?  multiply that times how many cal techs in the world (at least 8 ) and you can see they were quickly annoyed.  in the end the placard became the acceptable std unless a discrepancy was found, then it could be noted on an AFTO 57 or AFTO 22 for incorporation into the K pro where it belongs IMO.

from 00-20-14
NOTE
The technician shall verify information entered on the AFTO Form 57 prior to using such information.

[mdbuike]

It's true you should verify the AFTO 57 info, but it sure makes it easier to verify if there is a reference, page, paragraph, etc

Mike

[OlDave]

Actually this thread point out one of the reasons that I am glad to be "former" government.

IMO, the data plate should ALWAYS take precedence. Why you ask? Well, when that unit blows a fuse in the field, in most cases that is the only reference that the owner/user has to work from. He pulls the 500mA fuse out, looks at the data plate that calls for a 600mA fuse and goes "Stupid PMEL Clowns" and replaces it with the specified 600mA fuse and goes about his merry way.

So now you have a customer with not only an over fused piece of test equipment, he is also pissed off because PMEL under fused it in the first place.

I agree that the fuse should be correct per s/n, revision, option, whatever. But the data plate should also reflect that. That is where the AF system falls apart. The PMEL technician goes to all this trouble to

from 00-20-14
NOTE
The technician shall verify information entered on the AFTO Form 57 prior to using such information.

every freaking time, but then fails to follow up and actually correct the real problem which is an incorrect fuse rating on the data plate.

[PMEL Whore]

Wouldn't it be smart if you found the fuse size on the unit to be wrong to use a sharpie and fix it for the next guy.  HP didn't make a mistake with the markings on the 436 but rather changed the fuse rating after the unit was fielded.  I almost exclusively use the manuf marking on the unit, call a roll of the dice but the odds are so low it is to me worth the risk.  Anybody who has been around a while knows about the very small number of items that are like the 436.  If the unit has a slow blow in it and the unit just says 2A I will investigate to find out and then I write it on the unit.  If I see it again, which invariably I will, and it's my writing I am good to go.

I try not to get too carried away, unless the fuse is way overated, it is going to blow if there is a catastrophic failure that would cause the right size fuse to blow anyway.

[Mike]

Actually this thread point out one of the reasons that I am glad to be "former" government.

IMO, the data plate should ALWAYS take precedence. Why you ask? Well, when that unit blows a fuse in the field, in most cases that is the only reference that the owner/user has to work from. He pulls the 500mA fuse out, looks at the data plate that calls for a 600mA fuse and goes "Stupid PMEL Clowns" and replaces it with the specified 600mA fuse and goes about his merry way.

So now you have a customer with not only an over fused piece of test equipment, he is also pissed off because PMEL under fused it in the first place.

I agree that the fuse should be correct per s/n, revision, option, whatever. But the data plate should also reflect that. That is where the AF system falls apart. The PMEL technician goes to all this trouble to

from 00-20-14
NOTE
The technician shall verify information entered on the AFTO Form 57 prior to using such information.

every freaking time, but then fails to follow up and actually correct the real problem which is an incorrect fuse rating on the data plate.

Seems sort of silly...

Tech data takes precedence ALWAYS.  It can be updated, changed, corrected, etc. 

Of course, probably the "right" answer is to issue a TCTO (in govt terms) or a App Note to update, change, correct the data plate along with the tech data...but to say the plate takes "precedence" over the tech data?? 

Well...that just makes your commercial lab wrong.  If a company after initially selling a product line finds the fuse to be insufficient...how would propose they get that message out?  What good would it do to send the message out if the original data plate ALWAYS takes precedence?  See the point?

Owner/users should have tech data for their items...

[OlDave]

Yes, I see your point about updates/changes Mike.

And I think you hit the nail on the head that the "right" answer is to correct the data plate along with the tech data. There should be absolutely NO ambiguity about the correct fuse rating in either the tech data or on the data plate. They should BOTH agree.

About owners/users having tech data for their equipment? Well maybe in a perfect world. And maybe it's shoved in a file somewhere a mile or more from the physical location of the item that just popped the fuse.

The point is, the maintenance guy has a flashlight to read the data plate and an assortment of fuses in his tool bag. The company is losing $1000/minute while the line isn't running so lets quit piddling around and get the fuse replaced.

[RichieRich]

23 years in the business some of which I can actually remember...   I can't ever recall a problem because the mfr plate was wrong.  The times I ran across a typo or outright mistake on a cal procedure, T.B., or mfr manual?  Countless.  If they disagreed, I would trust the mfr plate unless I had a good reason to doubt it (i.e. the fuse keeps blowing but there doesn't seem to be a problem). 

[OlDave]

The times I ran across a typo or outright mistake on a cal procedure, T.B., or mfr manual?  Countless.

I just felt that was worth repeating.

[Mike]

The times I ran across a typo or outright mistake on a cal procedure, T.B., or mfr manual?  Countless.

I just felt that was worth repeating.

hmmm...maybe we should just put the cal procedure on a metal plate, attach it to the case.

[pmel68]

June '69 PMEL grad (pmel68 because 2 June, '68 was my enlistment date)

Use the plate unless AGMC is watching. . . . . . . .   :wink:


and yeah, I know they changed the name but that's what it was when I was there

[ventura]

I agree with the guys about the fielded aspect.

I wouldn't give it a second thought unless the fuse was to large for the item.  The fuse is a safety/equipment precaution.  Its not likly that putting in a different fuse will alter an items calibration.

I agree...we anal retentive types can really be our own worst enemy's.

[Nuss]

I guess I'm in the minority here.   I use comm data/ maintenance T. O. / Emailing the Manufacturer 100% of the time.   What sucks is that in my lab we check fuses that I think our a waste of time.   Ex.  53132A Counter doesn't have a fuse that can be checked without removing the case, so we remove the case and check the fuse that is on the power supply board.   Information on the fuse is in no comm data, and agilient's email stated they don't know cause they don't make that board, so I have to use the information printed on the board for that.