John,

I have no objection to this change in wording for 3.3.4 in
the IPC-6012B.

  "When visually examined in accordance with 3.3, the finished
   board shall not exhibit any lifted lands unless agreed upon
   between user and supplier."

Although, the comments about lifted lands always or nearly
always occuring on thicker boards that are HASL finished
does raise the question:  If lifted lands are acceptable on
these thick boards, why are they not acceptable on thin /
standard boards as well ?

Regards,

  Karl Sauter, Staff Engineer
  VLSI/Advanced Component Engineering
  Sun Microsystems Inc.
  (650) 786-7663


----- Original Message -----
From: "John Perry" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, September 27, 2002 5:40 PM
Subject: [IPC-600-6012] Proposed Change to Acceptance Criteria for Lifted
Lands


Colleagues,

IPC would like a task group disposition on the following comment for the
IPC-6012 B Revision effort.

Ted Edwards of Dynaco Corporation has proposed rebuilding paragraph 3.3.4 in
the IPC-6012B 2nd Working Draft relative to allowances for Lifted Lands to
read:

When visually examined in accordance with 3.3, the finished board shall not
exhibit any lifted lands unless agreed upon between user and supplier.

Reason for Recommended Change:  On thick boards with thick plating
requirements, if a HASL finished is used there almost always exists lifted
lands and this statement would mean that they would all have to be scrapped.

Your reply is appreciated.

Regards,

John Perry
IPC