----- Begin Included Message -----
>From [log in to unmask] Wed Jul 10 16:00 EDT 1996
Resent-Date: Wed, 10 Jul 1996 14:56:58 -0700
Resent-Sender: [log in to unmask]
Old-Return-Path: <simon.ipc.org!nntp.onramp.net!efw![138.32.59.15]!EPPERSON>
Sender: <EPPERSON@[138.32.59.15]>
From: [log in to unmask]
To: [log in to unmask]
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 1996 10:33:11 +0000
Subject: Re: ASM: 610B / 2000A Comparison
CC: [log in to unmask]
X-Confirm-Reading-To: [log in to unmask]
Priority: normal
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail/Windows (v1.22)
Resent-Message-ID: <"d5ffQ.0.cxD.ex_un"@ipc>
Resent-From: [log in to unmask]
X-Mailing-List: <[log in to unmask]> archive/latest/5060
X-Loop: [log in to unmask]
Resent-Sender: [log in to unmask]
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 2109
Dan,
IPC-A-610B is a picture book which, for soldering, is intended to support
the requirements of ANSI/J-STD-001. ANSI/J-STD-001 should be considered as a
replacement for MIL-STD-2000A. I do not know of a cross reference of
differences between '001 and '2000A. I have reviewed '001 and have found that
there is not much difference between Class 3 requirements and '2000A (This is
also true for MIL-STD-275E and IPC-D-275 Class 3). Going to Class 2 does not
offer much relief which would result in cost savings.
MIL-STD-2000A was cancelled without replacement with the intent that the
contractor would specify to the DOD customer the workmanship standards to be
used to satisfy contract requirements. If your customers are anything like
ours, the system level performance, reliability and service environment/life
remain the same as the old MIL-Standard days. That means we still must deliver high reliability products. Going away from MIL-Standards does not make the job any easier or necessarily save tons of money. In fact in some ways it makes the job more difficult. We have an opportunity to tell our customer what our
workmanship standards will be rather than having them dictated to us. But what
are we going to tell them and what test/analysis are we going to perform to
demonstrate that our self imposed requirements will satisfy product performance
requirements? How are we going to flow these new workmanship standards to our
factory and to our subcontractor's factory?
We, as well as our subcontractors, have spent alot of money implementing the
infrastructure to meet MIL-STD-2000A. I have asked numerous people what
requirements in '2000A could we get rid of to save money given that we must
still produce high reliability equipment. I don't get many suggestions. I
am not convinced that going from one set of words (Military) to another
(Industrial) is really going to save our business money.
Jeff Rowe
Lockheed Martin
Date: Tues, 09 Jul 96 17:21:09
From: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: ASM: 610B / 2000A Comparison
To: mx%"[log in to unmask]"
Cc:
[log in to unmask] wrote:
>
> Has anyone performed a detailed comparison analysis or a cross
> reference matrix between the acceptance criteria of IPC-A-610B
> and MIL-STD-2000A?
>
> Thanks,
> Dan
>
> The mail list is provided by IPC using SmartList v3.05
> To unsubscribe from this list at any time, send a message to:
> [log in to unmask] with <subject: unsubscribe> and no text.
Though a different subject, I understand MIL-STD-2000, MIL-STD-454, et
al, are now cancelled. I presume you are involved in an effort with a
contract prior to this action or a follow-on to an existing contract. I
was aware that even MIL-Q-9858 and MIL-I-45208 (including all referenced
documents) were cancelled without replacement in the fall of '95.
Hellooooooo ISO 9001, ANSI's, IPC's, etc., etc.
Lynn M. Perry, Sr.
Aerotek Maxim Group
Lynn,
Thank you for your input. Yes, you are correct in assuming we are engaged
in transitioning existing MIL-SPEC contract requirements to ISO, IPC etc.
Unfortunely, this process seems more difficult than obtaining our
ANSI/RAB ISO 9001 certification which we received a year ago.
Acceptance of IPC-A-610B as a direct replacement for
MIL-STD-2000A doesn't appear to have a lot of Government support.
Thus, my reason for looking for comparison analysis between the two
specifications. Surely, we are not the first defense contractor to
formally address this in the form of contract block change.
Dan Epperson
EFW Inc.
***************************************************************************
* TechNet mail list is provided as a service by IPC using SmartList v3.05 *
***************************************************************************
* To unsubscribe from this list at any time, send a message to: *
* [log in to unmask] with <subject: unsubscribe> and no text. *
***************************************************************************
----- End Included Message -----
***************************************************************************
* TechNet mail list is provided as a service by IPC using SmartList v3.05 *
***************************************************************************
* To unsubscribe from this list at any time, send a message to: *
* [log in to unmask] with <subject: unsubscribe> and no text. *
***************************************************************************
|
