Rick,
Maybe you are not fair . If there is no contact between you and the incoming inspection
department, this is what happens, as they are not seeing the artwork like in the past.
This is precisely the reason why the engineering department   is asked to support the
decisions before a reject is done. I've seen the opposite too.
After receiving the correct instructions, the inspector will not repeat the wrong
decision. Hopefully...
Gaby

"Howieson, Rick" wrote:

> 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
> ##############################################################

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