Been receiving some off forum mail, as you would expect and a couple are
below. Kind of started with some kind comments concerning 2000 and chaos. If
feel this is important stuff while feeling regression into the quality, or
lack of it, abyss:
Hi MoonMan,
Are you serious, no incoming inspection?
We run military and high reliability through here, you'd be surprise of the
amount of poor work you can receive even with a CoC. Especially Fab boards,
I know some of our design are not the best, but even the best fails a few
boards every once in a while.
Can I get a soft copy of the article you mentioned on TN?
Thanks,
Dear Moonman,
Could you forward me your article/some information on how to evaluate and
qualify a board supplier and anything else you think would help at incoming
inspection. Love the craic in all your technet answers. Brightens everyone's
day.
Thanks and merry Christmas.
MoonMan response and I'm really doing more than trying to stir some stupid pot:
Thank you and merry Christmas as well. What is craic? Must be a new
technical term from IPC, right?
Please accept the following I sent to some other folks asking your question:
A bit of a stretch? You bet, but that's what DFM/CE is all about. Learned
most of it in my hi-rel military days over the past 35 years. Actually,
never stopped.
It is possible to eliminate incoming. We've essentially done away with 105
so why not go the rest of the way. We talk big talk concerning suppliers but
not enough substance. It's really easy.
Earlier, there was a brief discussion about 2000 and its implications as
well as government control. It started in the 80's and set a quality
declining world on its ass. It required suppliers to exact processes in
accordance with the standard down to the temp/time stuff. Simply, it
demanded those doing business with the government do it right and prove it
so inspections became unnecessary. I've been there and done that. I still
demand no incoming because suppliers do it right. Also, suppliers must
finally LEARN to clearly indicate what is required. Onec of the biggest
offenders is the supplier. There's just no concurrence no matter how much BS
DFM is employed.
Please go to the SMTnet site and retrieve my article about the laboratory
qualification requirements for boards, as well as many others there. I wrote
most of them two years ago while serving time at Celestica. That would place
them in the The Laboratory - A Primary Evaluation and Qualification Factor
to Determine PCB Supplier Process Capabilities by Earl Moon - Proof Of
Design (POD): http://www.smtnet.com/express/199907/. Note, there are others
during this time for about 3 months
Enjoy,
Earl
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
