David
It would be nice if combat situations no longer existed, then these
problems would not occur :-)
Yours from Utopia,
Brian
David Douthit wrote:
> 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
> -----------------------------------------------------
>
>
---------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------
|
