Alain,
Couldn't help but respond to your comment on toys vs hi-rel. We build
space flight boards and very few (i.e. majority) of the receiving
inspectors have a clue to what they are inspecting. You would be amazed
of the 101 reasons I've seen to reject a board. Just a sample, "thermal
pads called etching shorts". Nuff said.
Rick

>-----Original Message-----
>From:  Alain Savard [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
>Sent:  Friday, June 02, 2000 12:47 PM
>To:    [log in to unmask]
>Subject:       Re: [TN] PE: PCB Inspection
>
>Incoming inspection may be required in some instances... It all depends on
>the reliability you require for the boards. I don't think that most company
>dealing with high reliability products will dock-to-stock as eagerly as
>throw-away manufacturer. It also depends on assembly value, sometimes
>inspection may reduce headaches down the road. I've seen board burn in the
>past. These were supp0sed to be excellent board by the CoC... turned out
>they weren't that good.
>
>All processes, no matter what have to make sense. Gather data if and when
>possible. Keep your eyes open. I don't think that the people dealing with
>cheap assemblies, like most toys, are playing in the same ball park as
>people dealing high reliability medical or space equipment.
>
>Just a thought.
>
>Have a great week-end,
>
>
>Alain Savard, B.Sc.
>Chemical Process Analyst
>CAE Electronics Ltd.
>e-mail: [log in to unmask]
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Ed Cosper
>
>Hi all,
>
>I've read a lot of responses from many of you outlining various
>methodologies and philosophies regarding receiving inspection and skip lot
>practices.  So, I thought I'd throw in my 2 cents worth's.
>
>It really boils down to whether or not you trust your supplier.  I believe
>receiving inspections are a necessary non value added costs that should be
>applied only to new suppliers and then only for a predetermined time.
>
>Once a supplier has proven themselves as being able to supply acceptable
>product consistently, then simply move them to dock to stock. Once a
>supplier is moved from Dock to stock  monitor their performance from
>feedback from the floor. I believe Skip lot inspections are a waste of time,
>money, and efficiency.
>
>Typically I have found receiving inspections to be marginally effective
>anyway.  This being exemplified in many instances by the fact the assembly
>floor culls outs more non functional product than do "most" receiving
>inspections.
>
>Receiving inspections also tend to generate rejections that are either
>cosmetic or non functional in nature. These types of rejections many times
>end up getting "bought off" and used as is due to delivery requirements.
>It would be interesting to have some statistics that address the ratio of
>board level problems found by the manufacturing floor verses problems found
>by receiving inspections.
>
>Receiving inspections , in my opinion, are most effective if used in the
>qualification process and then certification review. Checking to see that
>the supplier has provided objective evidence inspecting and measuring the
>product.  i.e. dimensional reports, certs, ect...
>
>Well, that's my two cents worth.. Have a nice day.
>
>Ed Cosper
>
>----- Original Message -----
>
>> we all have different quality requirements and reasons for what we do.
>> maybe its the board vendors we choose to work with, but i do not like just
>> giving them cart blanc.  i guess i've had enough bruises from
>manufacturing
>> when a quality issues arises that's board vendor related (the further a
>> quality issue gets thru a manufacturing process, the more expensive it is
>to
>> correct).  'inspecting the heck' out of a vendor doesn't seem to be the
>way
>> we would like to go.  but, then again, it comes down to choices.  i do
>> appreciate and thank you for the feedback.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>>
>>   Ed Noble writes:
>>
>> "..     consider, at least, changing to a SAMPLING PLAN in your evolution
>to
>> addressing board quality.  that way, you can still 'keep an eye on' the
>> copper plating concern.  from 'inspecting' to 'dock to stock' is quite the
>> change."
>>>
>> Hi Ed!
>>
>> I'd tend to  disagree. Consider that, while you have the opportunity
>> to do a full Incoming/first article, you're getting the most complete
>> and detailed information and feedback in the form of data, to make
>> your dock to stock decision on.
>>
>> Going to sampling/skip lot as an interim state seems to be  more
>> of a period of weaning, rather than a statistically valid step.
>> I think it's a "warm and fuzzy feeling" period.
>>
>> If you're concerned about a vendor, inspect the heck out of their
>> stuff, and get the issues worked. Once they are, and they
>> demonstrated their ability to sustain their process, make the jump
>> to ship to stock while you still have the BES, and most complete
>> data you have regarding their incoming quality.
>>
>> Restpectfully,
>> John
>
>##############################################################
>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
>##############################################################

##############################################################
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
##############################################################