I must be behind-the-times on this one. 
Werner Englemaier used to talk about this all the time, and from my memory an analogy might be similar to comparing a simple rivet to a "rivet with ribs". If your goal is a robust product (which a lot of Class 3's are) then it seems like you would want the extra support. (I'm not making a statement, I'm repeating what I was taught). I'm pretty sure I've heard Gary Ferrari recommend keeping them in at least a half a dozen times in his seminars. Aren't the most common failures in boards related to vias?

Maybe I have more learnin' to do on this one, but I'm surprised that NO ONE responded in favor of keeping the unconnected internal pads

Well, since we are talking about vias, I was also advised to require 1mil hole wall plating, even though the standard is 0.8 (I think). But for the same reason, the stronger we can make our vias, the less "most common" failures we will have, right? (At Caterpillar, we want the most robust product we can get for the money) Am I sounding like an old dinosaur now?

but really, is EVERYONE removing unconnected inner layer pads? 
Is "increasing the longevity of drill bits" the dominant theme now?

onward thru the fog,
Jack


.
On Tue, 27 Feb 2018 11:12:22 -0600, Larry <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>Is there any reason I cannot remove non functioning pads on the inner layers for an Class 3 PCB?
>
>Many thanks,
>
>Larry