At 12:19 PM 10/29/97, you wrote:
>Not 30 minutes after I mailed a response to Mr. Rogers on the
>specifics of avionics master switches and "aircraft quality parts"
>in general, I've sat down and my desk to review the following
>situation:
>
>I'm evaluating test results on a product that Raytheon is
>purchasing for one of our better customers . . . the US Navy.
>I wrote the specification used to obtain quotations from
>would-be suppliers and ultimately used to write acceptance
>test procedures. I have the results of about a week's worth
>of testing on the desk in front of me.
>
>This product has a microprocessor that controls its
>inner workings. Not unlike the PC upon which I write these
>words, the gizmo comes up ready to go to work when I flip
>the ON switch . . . most of the time. A few of the units
>come up dumb. A reboot by turning the power off and back
>on will sometimes wake 'em up, pressing the front panel
>"RESET" button seems to always wake 'em up.
>
>My specification did not require a front panel reset button
>nor did it prohibit one. The manufacturer's instructions
>do not speak to the use of the reset button . . . but most
>users of computer-based gizmos understand how they are used.
>This piece of equipment is one of a dozen pieces in a test set.
>The older product I'm replacing has NO front panel controls and
>comes to work wide-eyed, bright-eyed and bushy-tailed on power-
>up.
>
>My question to all of you is this. I COULD request that our
>customer revise their operator's manual for the test set
>to "push reset button on box "B" 20 seconds after test set
>power up." This wouldn't be a really big deal . . they're
>going to revise the manual for other reasons associated with
>this upgrade program anyway. We're not even talking about
>a cockpit environment here . . . but it is one piece of
>many pieces on the test set. The start up procedure is
>extensive. Failure of the operator to observe the "check
>list" item could cause needless delay in testing a target.
>
>How do you vote?
>
> ( ) Revise the manual and ship the product as is . . .
>
>
> ( xxx ) Insist that the manufacturer conform to REASONABLE
> EXPECTATIONS for performance even though it was
> NOT explicit in my specification?
>
>Results of the poll to be published in a few days. I'll add
>another item to your consideration. I have a deadline approaching
>that could cost us penalties for failure to make scheduled
>delivery. The customer probably wouldn't object to my request
>for changing the operator's manual . . .
>
>
> Bob . . .
> AeroElectric Connection
>
> ////
> (o o)
> | |
> | Go ahead, make my day . . . . |
> | Show me where I'm wrong. |
> <http://www.aeroelectric.com>
>
>
|