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:
"Stadem, Richard D." <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
TechNet E-Mail Forum <[log in to unmask]>, Stadem, Richard D.
Date:
Tue, 28 Jan 2014 22:00:13 +0000
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (36 lines)
You are not in compliance with the letter of the contract if you do not have a deviation or some other documented authorization to prove AABUS.
Do not depend on the customer signoff of the fabrication drawing to be sufficient, because of the industry standard order of precedence in the documentation hierarchy.
First comes the contract requirements, P.O. notes, then the fabrication print notes, then any exceptions to any referenced industry standards listed within a Statement of Work or a document detailing PWB Fabrication Requirements (exceptions and additions), then finally applicable standards. Something needs to be documented and approved by the customer somewhere within the technical data package to allow the thinner wall, in this example.
If you have a gentlemen's agreement with the customer, then document the requirement with a note on the fabrication drawing approved by the customer, as a minimum, and make sure the TDP has a list of revisions for each Configuration Management Item (CM), which would include the TDP for each assembly to be produced (assembly drawing, fabrication drawing, schematic, BOM, firmware list, CAD file, etc, by revision or issue number).

-----Original Message-----
From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Phil Bavaro
Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2014 3:17 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [TN] IPC-6012 Class requirements

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] ______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________
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