TECHNET Archives

July 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:
Kathy Kuhlow <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
TechNet E-Mail Forum.
Date:
Mon, 23 Jul 2001 08:47:46 -0500
Content-Type:
multipart/mixed
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (1411 bytes) , TEXT.htm (1844 bytes)
I prefer to have the inspectors refresh train on the minimum requirements annually.  I also am always looking for good photo's that I can put out to the inspection group of minimum acceptable.  The IPC-610 Rev C has some really good photo's and I back up this with actual photo's.  I make a lot of the minimum acceptable photo's and get lots of copies.  I have been doing this since I first became an IPC-610 C instructor.  I also include these in my outside training that I do for the local tech colleges.  

A couple of things that are in place here are: 
1. I double check defects noted by performing secondary inspections periodically and on all first builds.  
2. If a defect is questioned the person making the rejection has to prove in the IPC-610 why it is a defect exactly by clause.  

I have an inspector that is always looking for the mole hill.  I appreciate her toughness because the processes before her know that she will be looking at everything with a fine tooth comb and they do perform better knowing that.  I also like the fact that she is so thorough in her inspections and everything gets questioned.  Luckily she also really understands the minimum requirements and applies the criteria correctly. She provides a tremendous amount of feedback for borderline processes.  This allows us to really utilize minimum acceptable as a process improvement opportunity.  

Kathy 



<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" http-equiv=Content-Type> <META content="MSHTML 5.00.2614.3500" name=GENERATOR></HEAD> <BODY style="FONT: 10pt Haettenschweiler; MARGIN-LEFT: 2px; MARGIN-TOP: 2px"> <DIV>I prefer to have the inspectors refresh train on the minimum requirements annually.&nbsp; I also am always looking for good photo's that I can put out to the inspection group of minimum acceptable.&nbsp; The IPC-610 Rev C has some really good photo's and I back up this with actual photo's.&nbsp; I make a lot of the minimum acceptable photo's and get lots of copies.&nbsp; I have been doing this since I first became an IPC-610 C instructor.&nbsp; I also include these in my outside training that I do for the local tech colleges.&nbsp; </DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>A couple of things that are in place here are: </DIV> <DIV>1. I double check defects noted by performing secondary inspections periodically and on all first builds.&nbsp; </DIV> <DIV>2. If a defect is questioned the person making the rejection has to prove in the IPC-610 why it is a defect exactly by clause.&nbsp; </DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>I have an inspector that is always looking for the mole hill.&nbsp; I appreciate her toughness because the processes before her know that she will be looking at everything with a fine tooth comb and they do perform better knowing that.&nbsp; I also like the fact that she is so thorough in her inspections and everything gets questioned.&nbsp; Luckily she also really understands the minimum requirements and applies the criteria correctly. She provides a tremendous amount of feedback for borderline processes.&nbsp; This allows us to really utilize minimum acceptable as a process improvement opportunity.&nbsp; </DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>Kathy </DIV></BODY></HTML>

ATOM RSS1 RSS2