Failure vs symptom
Record what happened before deciding why. Keep observed symptoms, confirmed failure mechanism and causal conclusions distinct.
Special Processes Institute
sp-i.org
FRACAS Report
FRACAS – Failure Reporting, Analysis & Corrective Action System
Capture failures consistently, protect affected product, investigate physical and systemic causes, control corrective actions through effectiveness verification, identify recurrence and No Fault Found patterns, trend the accumulated failure population and create management-ready FRACAS reports. Designed as a closed-loop reliability and quality improvement system rather than an isolated corrective-action form.
Report Analyse Correct Prevent Recurrence
0
Failure records
0
Open / active
0
Repeat failures
0%
No Fault Found
£0
Recorded failure cost
0
Critical active failures
How FRACAS Works
A disciplined closed-loop system for failure learning and recurrence prevention.
FRACAS is more than a failure database. A useful system provides management visibility over failures, investigations and corrective actions, uses failure and maintenance information to prevent recurrence, and converts accumulated records into reliability, maintainability and quality-improvement intelligence.
ReportCapture the failure
ContainProtect exposure
AnalyseConfirm mechanism & cause
CorrectRemove cause
VerifyTest effectiveness
CloseEvidence-based closure
TrendFind patterns
PreventFeed learning upstream
Physical cause
Explains the immediate technical mechanism: fracture, contamination, thermal overstress, wrong component, porosity, corrosion or other verified mechanism.
Systemic cause
Explains why the management or engineering system allowed the physical cause to exist or recur: weak change control, risk analysis, training, design rule, supplier control or process control.
Escape cause
Where relevant, explain why existing verification or detection controls did not prevent delivery or progression of the failed condition.
NFF is data
No Fault Found should not simply erase the event. Retain symptom, conditions, test coverage and recurrence history so intermittent problems can emerge from trend data.
Close on evidence
Implementation is not effectiveness. Keep corrective action in monitoring until predefined evidence demonstrates recurrence risk has been reduced as intended.
Strong FRACAS: timely reporting, unique records, consistent classification, protected evidence, root-cause discipline, corrective-action ownership, effectiveness criteria, recurrence checks, trend review and feedback into design/process risk controls.
Important: severity scales, investigation depth, closure authority, reportability and reliability calculations must follow the organisation, programme and applicable contractual/regulatory framework. This app provides structured decision support rather than universal mandatory criteria.
Create Failure Report
Record facts before conclusionsFailure Register
Filter, select and review the failure population.
| ID | Date | Product / Part | Failure | Severity | Status | Repeat | Cost | Action |
|---|
Failure Analysis
No failure selectedInvestigation discipline: distinguish confirmed evidence from hypotheses. A human action may be part of the causal chain, but investigate the system conditions that permitted, failed to detect or failed to prevent the error.
Investigation Aide-Mémoire
What failed?
Confirm the failed function, characteristic or requirement. Preserve original evidence before destructive analysis.
How did it fail?
Determine the physical or logical failure mechanism using evidence, not assumption.
Why did it occur?
Trace conditions back through design, manufacturing, supplier, maintenance and organisational controls.
Why wasn't it detected?
Where applicable, determine why verification, inspection, test or monitoring failed to prevent progression or escape.
Where else?
Search common parts, processes, suppliers, software modules, tooling, specifications and product families.
Can it recur?
Corrective action should change the causal system, not merely repair or replace the failed item.
NFF: if the symptom cannot be reproduced, document the test envelope and what has not been ruled out. Repeated NFFs can reveal intermittent or environment-dependent failure patterns.
Corrective Action
Action Health
Effectiveness Verification & Closure
Closure Logic
Effective closure: the failure is understood to an appropriate level, corrective action is implemented, required systemic exposure has been addressed, and predefined evidence supports the conclusion that recurrence risk has been reduced.
Implementation ≠ effectiveness. Installing a new control or issuing a revised procedure is implementation evidence. Effectiveness evidence shows the resulting failure behaviour changed as intended.
Reopen when evidence disagrees. Recurrence, failed verification, new evidence or an invalidated causal assumption should return the case to investigation rather than preserve an artificial closure.
FRACAS Trends & Intelligence
Use the population of records to reveal systemic improvement opportunities.
Failure Mode Pareto
Failure Category
Lifecycle Stage
Cost by Product
Intelligence Summary
FRACAS Review Board
Records that need management or technical attention.
0Critical active
0Repeat active
0Effectiveness monitoring
0NFF / intermittent
FRACAS Management Report
Generated from the current failure population and selected record.
Select Generate Report.