I think that the lifted lands should be address in the procurement
documentation or master drawing where deviation on a lot or product are more
easily handled.  The proposed change doesn't really change anything or
strengthen the specification but would only cause more confusion.

Dawn Skala
Microsystems Processing Dept.
Sandia National Laboratories
PO Box 969; MS 9401
Livermore, CA 94551

Phone: 925-294-3546


-----Original Message-----
From: John Perry [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Friday, September 27, 2002 2:40 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [IPC-600-6012] Proposed Change to Acceptance Criteria for
Lifted Lands


Colleagues,

IPC would like a task group disposition on the following comment for the
IPC-6012 B Revision effort.

Ted Edwards of Dynaco Corporation has proposed rebuilding paragraph 3.3.4 in
the IPC-6012B 2nd Working Draft relative to allowances for Lifted Lands to
read:

When visually examined in accordance with 3.3, the finished board shall not
exhibit any lifted lands unless agreed upon between user and supplier.

Reason for Recommended Change:  On thick boards with thick plating
requirements, if a HASL finished is used there almost always exists lifted
lands and this statement would mean that they would all have to be scrapped.

Your reply is appreciated.

Regards,

John Perry
IPC