Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | TechNet E-Mail Forum. |
Date: | Mon, 23 Jul 2001 08:47:46 -0500 |
Content-Type: | multipart/mixed |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
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. 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. </DIV>
<DIV> </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. </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. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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.
</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Kathy </DIV></BODY></HTML>
|
|
|