TECHNET Archives

May 2001

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:
Brian Ellis <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
TechNet E-Mail Forum.
Date:
Sat, 12 May 2001 10:04:31 +0300
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (58 lines)
Kevin

This is something totally out of my range of expertise, so I'm probably
talking out of my back side. How would it be if you did the electrical
testing first and then the visual? If the thingummyjig worked
functionally, visual inspection would be limited to the quality of the
solder joints and suchlike and component values would become totally
irrelevant. If it didn't work correctly, then the electrical testing
protocol would tell you on what part of the circuit, possibly down to
the component, the problem arises and the visual inspector could then
see more rapidly whether there was anything visibly wrong.

Just a thought...

Brian

> "PERALTA, Kevin (BREA)" wrote:
>
> We have a situation at our facility in which I feel two inspectors are
> correct from two perspectives. I would like to ask members to submit
> situations and, or fixes to the following:
>
> IPC-A-610 does not mention acceptance criteria for component location
> & identification for components that are too small to identify (e.g.;
> SMT). One inspector does not want to accept something by faith, and
> there's no callout for the ID of a component on an electronic assembly
> that is too small to identify on our blueprint. He would like to
> reject them, and let MRB disposition the rejection, which I feel is
> correct.
>
> Our other inspector will still accept the assembly on the basis that
> testing will confirm if the component is the correct or incorrect one.
>
> From a production supervisor's perspective, the latter is preferred.
> But, from a Quality perspective, the former process should be
> followed. There is no mapped out process for this situation. I
> actually had an engineer tell one of our inspectors, "that if it was
> the wrong component, it would not fit in it's place on the assembly"
> (I think we shipped him off to Alaska)!
>
> I'd appreciate any response sent to me, and would invite any questions
> concerning such situations. Thank you!
>
> Kevin L. Peralta
> Class "A" Instructor
> Senior Quality Systems Analyst
> TRW Aeronautical/Lucas Aerospace

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Technet Mail List provided as a free service by IPC using LISTSERV 1.8d
To unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text in
the BODY (NOT the subject field): SIGNOFF Technet
To temporarily halt delivery of Technet send the following message: SET Technet NOMAIL
Search previous postings at: www.ipc.org > On-Line Resources & Databases > E-mail Archives
Please visit IPC web site (http://www.ipc.org/html/forum.htm) for additional
information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or 847-509-9700 ext.5315
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ATOM RSS1 RSS2