TECHNET Archives

August 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:
Jack Olson <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
TechNet E-Mail Forum <[log in to unmask]>, Jack Olson <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 2 Aug 2011 09:29:33 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (44 lines)
Before reading this, know that I am a board designer and not INTIMATELY involved in manufacturing on a daily basis, but in my opinion the 6011/600 criteria is for a different type of inspection process than 001/610. 

There should be some process where the bare boards are evaluated for minimum acceptability BEFORE they are used in an assembly process, but after assembly, the bare board 6011/600 criteria is irrelevant, you have to use the assembly specs. (you probably knew that, but from your email I couldn't tell if you are trying to train the same people for both processes, which are distinctly different). From my experience the 6011/600 people are sitting in the receiving area (unless you fab your own bare boards) and the 001/610 people are out on the floor at the end of the line (or at strategic points along the line). Regardless, both types of inspectors should be trained and certified for their respective responsibilities (I suppose that is just my opinion, but I can't imagine an argument against it!).  

by the way, I think it might be wise to use 6012 instead of 6011 in your documentation (or whichever sub-document is most appropriate for your products), because using any of the 6012/6013/6015/6017/etc automatically includes ALL of the contents of 6011 (paragraph 3.1)

Jack


.
On Thu, 28 Jul 2011 17:05:15 -0700, Phil Bavaro <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>I found a proposal which read as follows:
>
>"Inspection and acceptability of rigid printed wiring boards shall be in
>accordance with IPC-A-600 and IPC 6011 Class 3."
>
>I am trying to use logic here and that may be the root of my problem.
>
>In the same proposal there is a line which reads:
>
>"Inspection and acceptability of electronic assemblies shall be in
>accordance with IPC-A-610 Class 3."
>
>Since we certify our personnel to 610, my logic says we need to certify
>to 600.
>
>Or is there a technical out somewhere that I am missing?
>
>Thanks in advance,
>
>Phil
>

---------------------------------------------------
Technet Mail List provided as a service by IPC using LISTSERV 16.0
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
For additional information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or 847-615-7100 ext.2815
-----------------------------------------------------

ATOM RSS1 RSS2