TECHNET Archives

January 2011

TechNet@IPC.ORG

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Chris Mahanna <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
TechNet E-Mail Forum <[log in to unmask]>, Chris Mahanna <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 6 Jan 2011 09:11:11 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (52 lines)
Steve,
From the IPC perspective, 9252A supersedes 652.  However, ultimately the answer to your question depends upon the transition policy of your individual contracts.
In the absence of transition policy (likely), I would suggest that the prescribed form provided by 9252 gives you better legal standing for a CofC.
You will also find verbiage from IPC/TAEC as to the transition intent.

Yes you should stop stating that you have met 652, because to do so places a cancelled/superseded document, as well as, all of the related policy/procedure in your document control system; that's never fun.

Chris

Chris Mahanna
Robisan Laboratory


-----Original Message-----
From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Steven C Carter
Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2011 8:23 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [TN] IPC Standards

If a Bare PCB manufacturer provides a Certificate of Compliance stating that the PCB was electrically tested per IPC-ET-652 does meeting this standard by default mean that they have also met the requirements of IPC-356? On a related subject, should the vendor stop stating they have met ET-652 and state that they have met 9252A?

 

Thanks, Steve

 



______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or [log in to unmask] ______________________________________________________________________

---------------------------------------------------
Technet Mail List provided as a service by IPC using LISTSERV 15.0 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.aspx?Pageid=E-mail-Forums for additional information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or 847-615-7100 ext.2815
-----------------------------------------------------

______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or [log in to unmask] 
______________________________________________________________________

---------------------------------------------------
Technet Mail List provided as a service by IPC using LISTSERV 15.0
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.aspx?Pageid=E-mail-Forums for additional information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or 847-615-7100 ext.2815
-----------------------------------------------------

ATOM RSS1 RSS2