Bruce,
I am dismayed at this approach allowed by management. We are not talking
about
computers or MP3 players here. This is a combat, harsh environment,
lives on the line
situation.
I have seen far to many field problems from hardware that "has passed
all levels of military qual testing including ballistic shock, vibe and
all environmental scenarios (these occur every 100 units)."
The concept of justifying your position with the statement, "In
addition, I have yet to see a card returned from the field (whether it
be the US or Iraq) where this part has been called into question.",
requires
the ability to put at risk the lives and missions of combat personnel. I
find this to be an unacceptable
position. Not only do those boards need to be replaced with properly
designed and built units but the
person and/or persons that authorized this should be relieved of their
positions.
Their are more than enough risks in combat situations. Do not add to them!!!
David A. Douthit
Manager
LoCan LLC
=================================
>But Bill, I agree with your assessment. I think we would have been better
>off with a board re-spin. And I also agree, dead bugs "should" only be for
>prototypes and development. Part of the problem with this board was it was
>first brought into production in 1997. Since that time we here at GD have
>taken great strides to institute a better DFM process. Now if this was
>designed for prototype phase, we would push for, and get in almost all
>cases, a redesign to remove not only dead bugs but any cuts and jumps that
>also might be needed to make the first boards work. Like you said though,
>you have to work slowly to bring the military into new technology. I still
>get asked every time a board is going through design if we can install
>different parts such as BGA's. I'm bringing them along but sometimes it's
>a slow process.
>
>Bruce Stilmack
>GDLS-TO Manufacturing Engineer
>(850) 574-4773
>[log in to unmask]
>
>
>
> "Kasprzak,
> Bill (sys) To: [log in to unmask]
> USX" cc:
> <bkasprzak@MOO Subject: Re: [TN] Dead Bugs
> G.COM>
> Sent by:
> TechNet
> <[log in to unmask]
> RG>
>
>
> 06/19/2004
> 08:17 AM
> Please respond
> to "TechNet
> E-Mail
> Forum.";
> Please respond
> to "Kasprzak,
> Bill (sys)
> USX"
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Bruce,
>
>I'm very familiar with the various reasons why your board was never
>upgraded. (In the military business, it's typically, ".... because we
>qualified the system with the 'dead bug'.")
>
>I'll still contend that a board redesign and a delta qual would still be
>cheaper than installing the 'dead bug' 800 times and counting.
>
>Tell me you're not attaching wires to the resistor pak. This is nuts.
>
>'Dead Bugs' should only be intended for development, prototypes and small
>production orders (<50 pcs).
>
>Bill Kasprzak
>Moog Inc., Systems Group, Process Engineer
>
>
>
>
Bruce D Stilmack wrote:
>But Bill, I agree with your assessment. I think we would have been better
>off with a board re-spin. And I also agree, dead bugs "should" only be for
>prototypes and development. Part of the problem with this board was it was
>first brought into production in 1997. Since that time we here at GD have
>taken great strides to institute a better DFM process. Now if this was
>designed for prototype phase, we would push for, and get in almost all
>cases, a redesign to remove not only dead bugs but any cuts and jumps that
>also might be needed to make the first boards work. Like you said though,
>you have to work slowly to bring the military into new technology. I still
>get asked every time a board is going through design if we can install
>different parts such as BGA's. I'm bringing them along but sometimes it's
>a slow process.
>
>Bruce Stilmack
>GDLS-TO Manufacturing Engineer
>(850) 574-4773
>[log in to unmask]
>
>
>
> "Kasprzak,
> Bill (sys) To: [log in to unmask]
> USX" cc:
> <bkasprzak@MOO Subject: Re: [TN] Dead Bugs
> G.COM>
> Sent by:
> TechNet
> <[log in to unmask]
> RG>
>
>
> 06/19/2004
> 08:17 AM
> Please respond
> to "TechNet
> E-Mail
> Forum.";
> Please respond
> to "Kasprzak,
> Bill (sys)
> USX"
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Bruce,
>
>I'm very familiar with the various reasons why your board was never
>upgraded. (In the military business, it's typically, ".... because we
>qualified the system with the 'dead bug'.")
>
>I'll still contend that a board redesign and a delta qual would still be
>cheaper than installing the 'dead bug' 800 times and counting.
>
>Tell me you're not attaching wires to the resistor pak. This is nuts.
>
>'Dead Bugs' should only be intended for development, prototypes and small
>production orders (<50 pcs).
>
>Bill Kasprzak
>Moog Inc., Systems Group, Process Engineer
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: [log in to unmask] [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>Sent: Saturday, June 19, 2004 6:38 AM
>To: TechNet E-Mail Forum.; Kasprzak, Bill (sys) USX
>Subject: Re: [TN] Dead Bugs
>
>
>
>We have been installing one dead bug SMT resistor pak on one of the main
>electronic control boxes for the M1A1 SEP tanks since the beginning of the
>production cycle. In this case a change was needed to make the board
>functional, yet no one was willing to spring for an entire board layout.
>This card and the box it goes into has passed all levels of military qual
>testing including ballistic shock, vibe and all environmental scenarios
>(these occur every 100 units). In addition, I have yet to see a card
>returned from the field (whether it be the US or Iraq) where this part has
>been called into question. We have built a total of about 800 of these
>cards and are continuing to outfit the M!A1 with this box (card). So the
>reliability factor, if installed correctly, is a none issue. That being
>said, myself and well as the assemblers hate the fact that we have to
>install the part in this fashion. So good reliability can easily be
>achieved, but a price is definitely paid in assembly time.
>
>Bruce Stilmack
>GDLS-TO Manufacturing Engineer
>(850) 574-4773
>[log in to unmask]
>
>
>
>
> "Kasprzak,
>
> Bill (sys) To: [log in to unmask]
>
> USX" cc:
>
> <bkasprzak@MOO Subject: Re: [TN] Dead Bugs
>
> G.COM>
>
> Sent by:
>
> TechNet
>
> <[log in to unmask]
>
> RG>
>
>
>
>
>
> 06/18/2004
>
> 11:05 AM
>
> Please respond
>
> to "TechNet
>
> E-Mail
>
> Forum.";
>
> Please respond
>
> to "Kasprzak,
>
> Bill (sys)
>
> USX"
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Joe,
>
>A couple of obvious things.
>
>1) If you have a customer that wants to disallow this for production, then
>he's willing to foot the bill for new board layouts. That's good.
>
>2) If it's on the print, that takes precedence over any general rules or
>other edicts. Whether allowed or not, you're obligated to make the parts to
>print.
>
>If "dead bugs" are part of "Production", gosh, I hope the order is very
>small. "Dead Bugs" should be limited to development maybe even prototype
>work. Otherwise, new board layout is needed.
>
>You might want to know why they're suggesting this? I'd be curious.
>
>Good Luck.
>
>Bill Kasprzak
>Moog Inc., Systems Group, Process Engineer
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Kane, Joseph E [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>Sent: Friday, June 18, 2004 10:27 AM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: [TN] Dead Bugs
>
>
>We've talked before about implementing design changes with "dead
>bug" components, where you turn the part upside down, bond
>it to the board surface, and solder wires to the pins.
>
>Of course, this takes more labor, but sometimes it's useful to
>implement a change for a short time while artwork is being updated.
>
>Now we have a customer talking about disallowing this practice for
>production. Anyone have a good reason why dead bugs should be
>outlawed? Are there any specs that prohibit this?
>
>Joe Kane
>BAE SYSTEMS Controls
>Johnson City, NY
>
>---------------------------------------------------
>Technet Mail List provided as a service by IPC using LISTSERV 1.8e
>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 or (re-start) delivery of Technet send e-mail to
>[log in to unmask]: SET Technet NOMAIL or (MAIL)
>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/contentpage.asp?Pageid=4.3.16
>for additional information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or
>847-509-9700 ext.5315
>-----------------------------------------------------
>
>---------------------------------------------------
>Technet Mail List provided as a service by IPC using LISTSERV 1.8e
>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 or (re-start) delivery of Technet send e-mail to
>[log in to unmask]: SET Technet NOMAIL or (MAIL)
>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/contentpage.asp?Pageid=4.3.16
>for additional information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or
>847-509-9700 ext.5315
>-----------------------------------------------------
>
>---------------------------------------------------
>Technet Mail List provided as a service by IPC using LISTSERV 1.8e
>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 or (re-start) delivery of Technet send e-mail to
>[log in to unmask]: SET Technet NOMAIL or (MAIL)
>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/contentpage.asp?Pageid=4.3.16
>for additional information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or
>847-509-9700 ext.5315
>-----------------------------------------------------
>
>---------------------------------------------------
>Technet Mail List provided as a service by IPC using LISTSERV 1.8e
>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 or (re-start) delivery of Technet send e-mail to [log in to unmask]: SET Technet NOMAIL or (MAIL)
>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/contentpage.asp?Pageid=4.3.16 for additional information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or 847-509-9700 ext.5315
>-----------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------
Technet Mail List provided as a service by IPC using LISTSERV 1.8e
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 or (re-start) delivery of Technet send e-mail to [log in to unmask]: SET Technet NOMAIL or (MAIL)
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/contentpage.asp?Pageid=4.3.16 for additional information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or 847-509-9700 ext.5315
-----------------------------------------------------
|
