TECHNET Archives

January 2014

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:
Phil Bavaro <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
TechNet E-Mail Forum <[log in to unmask]>, [log in to unmask]
Date:
Tue, 28 Jan 2014 21:16:46 +0000
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (21 lines)
I have a question about the intent of IPC-6012 class requirements.

Let's say we have a contractual requirement to design and fabricate PWBs to meet Class 3/A.

But during the design, we unknowingly document some attribute that does not meet 3/A on the PWB drawing (which I call "3/A minus").  An example would be copper thickness in the hole being less than .0015"

Then later I discover that 3/A requirements are more stringent than our design is documented to have.

Is this a problem or does AABUS cover our error?

I would have thought that we are not in compliance with the letter of the contract.

Any comments would be appreciated.
________________________________
 This message and any attachments are solely for the use of the addressee and may contain L-3 proprietary information that may also be defined as USG export controlled technical data. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, use or distribution of its content is prohibited. Please notify the sender by reply e-mail and immediately delete this message and any attachments.

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

ATOM RSS1 RSS2