TECHNET Archives

June 2000

TechNet@IPC.ORG

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Douglas Pauls <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
TechNet E-Mail Forum.
Date:
Wed, 28 Jun 2000 09:57:09 EDT
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (73 lines)
In a message dated 06/27/2000 9:44:12 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:

> I'm gonna rant...

OK.  We'll all duck and cover until the shells pass overhead............

>
>  I know the documentation paper trail can be be daunting with DOD
assemblies,
>  but is correcting the design to specify current assembly standards too much
>  to ask? It can only enhance the assembly reliabilty...

Is it too much to ask?  Heavens no.  Is it too much to expect?  Probably.
You are making an assumption that a current assembly standard is an
improvement over an older assembly standard.  Sometimes this is the case.
Sometimes not.  Lets say, for instance, you have a MIL-STD-2000A or WS-6536E
contract that you have had in place a long time.  The current assembly
standard is J-STD-001, revision C.  Using your assumptions, you would want
designers to change their designs so they would be in line with J-STD-001,
not MIL-STD-2000A, figuring that the newer assembly standard must be better
(hey, new and improved) and result in more reliable product.  I think that
assumption is flawed.  While J-STD-001 has much to recommend it, especially
in the areas of flexibility and tailorability, I don't know that you
necessarily get more reliable product.  I have worked with a number of small
to medium companies who would be much better off with the how-to approach of
the MIL-STD, than with the "figure it out on your own" approach of the J-STD.
 Just my opinion.................

>
>  I am expecting replies from lazy designers that don't want to "buck the
>  system"... I'm saying that to get some people to speak-up.....

And just the other day the designer people were commenting on the ignorance
and bad attitudes of those foolish assembly people......................

Its not a case of being lazy.  As was pointed out by another poster, making a
design change, especially after a contract has been awarded is a great deal
of paperwork.  You have to determine if the benefit of making the change is
worth the hassle of working through the change system.  If the benefit is
"before it didn't work and now it does", then the benefit is worth it.  If
the benefit is moving the company logo because the VP of Marketing wants it
that way, the probably not.

>  Not being derogatory, just trying to get real...

Define real.  No, really,  Define real.  People have been telling me for
years to get real and I have yet to get a good definition.

Hey Jack Crawford, is "real" in IPC-T-50?  Does the TM-650 have a test method
for determining "realness".  What spec do we have in differentiating "real"
from "unreal".

Yup, been hittin' the Mountain Dews again pretty heavy this
morning......................

Doug Pauls
CSL

##############################################################
TechNet Mail List provided as a free service by IPC using LISTSERV 1.8c
##############################################################
To subscribe/unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text in
the body:
To subscribe:   SUBSCRIBE TECHNET <your full name>
To unsubscribe:   SIGNOFF TECHNET
##############################################################
Please visit IPC web site (http://www.ipc.org/html/forum.htm) for additional
information.
If you need assistance - contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or
847-509-9700 ext.5315
##############################################################

ATOM RSS1 RSS2