Hi, Kevin,

This is a case of idealism meeting practicality and common sense, I think.
The very small components tend to be passives (res and caps), and unless
you have polarised capacitors, which way up they are is immaterial,
especially if the ident markings are too small to read or non-existant
anyway.

I entirely agree, but in principle only, with your Quality guy, but the
practical position also has to be acknowledged and for reason to prevail. I
have had this sort of argument before myself between Quality and
Production, and the agreement was reached that polarised devices did have
an orientation marking on them for inspection to see. For the others,
orientation was not an issue, and as long as the stock control and issue
for build was assured as correct, the correct part would be fitted. This
understanding and proper, quality-assured control of parts should solve the
dichotomy. I suggest your QA look a little wider than just what they can
see on the board for the solution.
Pete Duncan




                    "PERALTA,
                    Kevin (BREA)"        To:     [log in to unmask]
                    <Kevin.Peralt        cc:     (bcc: DUNCAN Peter/Asst Prin Engr/ST Aero/ST Group)
                    [log in to unmask]>           Subject:     [TN] Inspection
                    Sent by:
                    TechNet
                    <[log in to unmask]
                    ORG>


                    05/12/01
                    03:49 AM
                    Please
                    respond to
                    "TechNet
                    E-Mail
                    Forum.";
                    Please
                    respond to
                    "PERALTA,
                    Kevin (BREA)"






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
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------