Steve and David,
The paper doe not propose doign away with date codes. As stated in the
paper, manufacturers will continue to put date codes on parts. What they
ARE trying to do away with is customers demanding components younger than a
certain date code in order to avoid solderability issues due to ageing. The
paper is trying to make the point that in today's mature industry,
solderability issues have been addressed with advances in manufacturing
technology, handling and storage procedures, so the need to specify date
codes as well when ordering parts is not necessary (or should not be
necessary, especially for commercial manufacture). Basically, it seems,
distributors are fed up with having to sort through their stock to select
parts with specifically required date codes, when, they say, all the other
date codes are just as good. The paper is an attempt to highlight the
unnecessary sugar this puts in the petrol that drives a slick supply
system.
Having strictly marked the comprehension test like a good teacher, I'll add
my 2 cents worth. I'm in the Aerospace sector, so the paper does not
strictly relate to my area of business. However, I have had enough
experience, as Steve has, of components from particular date code batches
going sour. If this is a general problem, then the distributors and
manufacturers should be aware and remove faulty batches from the supply
chain stock, but one can never tell. So there are circumstances where being
able to specify particular date codes that are, or are not, suitable is a
necessary option to a purchasing department.
Further, although most of the industry is mature, some of it is not. There
are still firms that do not have, or cannot/will not afford the expense of
putting in expensive handling and storage facilities and procedures. These
companies, it may be argued, should be the first to be put against the wall
when the revolution comes, but nevertheless they're out here. This is not
directly relevant to the paper, as the authors will take the stand that
improper handling and storage that gives rise to solderability issues is
not the problem of the OEM's/distributors. It will be up to the companies
to ensure their handling and storage complies with recommendations given.
The paper does include a number of assumptions about the industry that may
be overlooking genuine problems that could appear if the paper's proposal
is introduced.
I'm taking the paper's contents more as a plea for realism, rather than a
hard plan to ban the stating of date codes as a requirement. It does, after
all, mention get-out clauses, such as contractual requirements that are
placed on a purchaser to only buy parts of specific date codes, so I don't
see it as anything to get too excited about.
So many words for 2 cents - shows what they're probably worth, eh?
Peter
David Douthit <[log in to unmask]> 30/04/2002 08:32 AM
Sent by: TechNet <[log in to unmask]>
Please respond to "TechNet E-Mail Forum."; Please respond to David Douthit
To: [log in to unmask]
cc: (bcc: DUNCAN Peter/Asst Prin Engr/ST Aero/ST Group)
Subject: Re: [TN] Proposed lifting of component date
code restrictions
Jack,
I agree with Steve's comments. The divergence between the commercial and
high reliability electronics is a very serious issue.
Any proposal that effects configuration control must be carefully weighed.
Trying to save money no matter what the cost is a
very easy trap to step into.
Standardizing the date code process is needed.
Use of date codes is needed for "life time" buys of COTS when obsolescence
problems are present.
Configuration control issues can also cause problems with commercial OEMs.
Unless tracking methods are in place part failures by lot would be
difficult to isolate in higher assemblies.
This could create a much larger recall condition.
Just some comments.
David A. Douthit
Manager
LoCan LLC
Jack Crawford wrote:
IPC has become aware that the National Electronics Distributors
Association (NEDA) has posted a white paper discussing the proposed
lifting of date code restrictions and they have requested comments
from end users as well as component suppliers and distributors. The
paper can be viewed at http://www.nedassoc.org/whitedat.html. Comments
can be provided to me on or off net; we'll compile them and forward to
NEDA. If you comment to NEDA directly [log in to unmask], please cc: me
on your reply [log in to unmask]
==========================================
APEX 2003 - the industry's premier trade show in Electronics
Manufacturing, March 31-April 2, 2003, Anaheim, California.
More information on website www.goapex.org
--------
Jack Crawford, IPC Director of Assembly Standards and Technology
2215 Sanders Road, Northbrook IL 60062-6135
[log in to unmask]
847-790-5393
fax 847-504-2393
[This e-mail is confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the
intended recipient, please delete it and notify us immediately; you should
not copy or use it for any purpose, nor disclose its contents to any other
person. Thank you.]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 e-mail to [log in to unmask]: SET Technet NOMAIL
To receive ONE mailing per day of all the posts: send e-mail to [log in to unmask]: SET Technet Digest
Search the archives of previous posts at: http://listserv.ipc.org/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
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
