Fisher & Paykel DishDrawer A6: Spray Arm and Rotor Damage

The report identifies the model and product number, rather than treating every double-drawer dishwasher as the same machine. It describes a spray arm that could no longer seat and operate correctly on the rotor, together with damage at the rotor assembly’s central mounting area. The photographs show the wash chamber, two fault displays and close views of the damaged arm.

There was also considerable buildup around the filter plate and circulation area. The report called for cleaning the sump and checking for broken plastic, glass, food debris or other foreign material before fitting replacement components. The available record does not establish what originally caused the mechanical damage. Deposits and a damaged mounting are separate findings; a photograph alone cannot prove that one caused the other.

Fisher & Paykel’s user guide covering DD24DCHTX9 lists an unseated spray arm or insufficient water pressure among the possible reasons for A6. Its operator-level check is the arm’s seating and free rotation. A code therefore provides a starting point for inspection rather than proving that the complete wash motor has failed.

In this case, physical damage at the spray-arm/rotor connection gave the technician a specific mechanical finding to investigate. F24 was also photographed and recorded in the service report. The public user guide does not provide a detailed F24 service-code definition, so this case does not extend a code interpretation to other models or generations.

The written scope listed a wash-motor rotor assembly and a spray-arm assembly, with replacement labor, sump inspection, reassembly and preventive cleaning. Parts selection still needs the complete product number: a matching family name or similar-looking component is insufficient.

The planned maintenance covered the chamber, filter plate, drain filter, sump and spray passages. Inspection of the other drawer’s arm and rotor, drain system, lid seals and drawer alignment was included as a separate check. Those items should retain their own findings rather than being reported as additional failures simply because they appear in a maintenance checklist.

The service report specified fill, circulation, drain and leak checks, verification of spray-arm operation and a final diagnostic test. Those are the relevant completion records for a circulation repair. Clearing a stored fault or starting a program does not, on its own, document a successful full wash.

The available case record establishes the diagnostic findings and repair scope. It does not include a final operating-test log, so this article does not claim that every fault was eliminated or that both drawers passed a completed repair test. A separate concern about a drawer leak must be investigated on its own evidence.

Send the full model and product number privately, a clear picture of the fault display and which drawer is affected. Describe whether the problem occurs before filling, during washing or while draining. If the other drawer works, record that separately. A short symptom history helps distinguish a wash-circulation concern from a drain or lid-sealing concern.

Let the machine cool and disconnect power before owner maintenance described in its guide. Do not run a damaged or partly assembled appliance. Rotor work and internal electrical diagnosis require appropriate service skills; this case is a diagnostic explanation rather than a disassembly tutorial.