TECHNET Archives

August 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:
"Kasprzak, Bill (esd) USX" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
TechNet E-Mail Forum.
Date:
Thu, 17 Aug 2000 07:50:15 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (83 lines)
Ken:

What does this faction say about rows of radially mounted parts where the
part identification is hidden by the adjacent part?  Do they request new
board designs? What about identification of axial parts formed on automatic
equipment? The numbers will not always be facing up. So then, do you hand
form every part so that the marking faces up? I wouldn't think so.

Here, the operator records traceability data as a board is stuffed (class
3). If normal processing removes the part marking, then the traceability
data along with the test data validates that the correct part was installed.

It makes no sense to remove any part once it is soldered unless test data
indicates problems.

Bill Kasprzak
Moog Inc.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ken Bloomquist [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Monday, August 14, 2000 1:43 PM
> To:   [log in to unmask]
> Subject:      [TN] Component Markings
>
> Good Day Technetters,
>
> I have searched the archives and couldn't find the answer to my question.
>
> J-Std-001, 9.2.2, says that you can not deliberately alter, obliterate or
> remove component markings. It goes on to say that random part marking
> loss...... does not constitute deliberate obliteration. This doesn't say
> if
> the later condition is OK.
>
> We have one faction here that believes components need to have markings no
> matter what. They want us to re-mark or remove and replace any components
> that have had their markings degraded, due to the cleaning processes after
> soldering.
>
> I contend that we are doing more damage by removing and replacing these
> components than just leaving them alone. These Class 3 assemblies are
> tested
> and have traceability to the component level.
>
> Replace, Re-mark or Leave Them Alone, that is the question!
>
> Any information that could help load my cannons would be appreciated.
>
> Thanks in advance for your responses.
>
> Ken Bloomquist
> PRIMEX Aerospace Company
> www.primextech.com
>
> ##############################################################
> 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
##############################################################

ATOM RSS1 RSS2