TECHNET Archives

January 1997

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:
"George Franck Jr" <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 22 Jan 1997 09:33:44 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (115 lines)
Dan,

You bring up a good question!   Does IPC have an offical position on the 
continued use of IPC-RB-276?

I hope others take up this discussion.  I am somewhat out of my element 
in this discussion, so I am very interested in how others view it.  This 
is my opinion on the situation.  

I guess I don't understand what obsolete means.  Does it mean that IPC 
no longer prints and sells it?  Does it mean that IPC can sue me and 
make me take any reference to IPC-RB-276 off my drawing documents?  If I 
call out IPC-6011/2 today, how long until those busy bee's at IPC make 
it "obsolete" ?

Basically, I do not give the IPC the authority to dictate what specs I 
can and can not use in my drawings.  I consider them private 
communications between my company and my suppliers.  (I may be dead 
wrong.)  I feel free to use whatever method of communications works 
best.  If I call out Mil-P-28809A, who really cares that it has been 
cancelled?  If I call it out in a contract, can't I still used it in a 
court of law if a supplier is nonconforming?

Now, If the customer wants our drawing package to meet certain criteria, 
 ie all references be current at the time of release, then yes, we will 
have to call out the IPC-6011/2.  So yes, if the customers drawing 
specification tells me I can't use IPC-RB-276, I would gladly comply, 
and with a smile.  But then I would also check to see that the customers 
drawing spec has not been cancelled!  (Rumor has it that one of the 
drawing specs is/was/will be cancelled ... DOD-STD-100 ???)

Again this is my opinion, I do not even know for sure what the company 
policy is, except to give the customer what they want.  How do others 
deal with the shifting sands of calling out requirements? 


George Franck
Raytheon E-Systems
Falls Church Va
[Insert Legal Disclaimer, ad nauseum...]

PS My modem is 14.4.  I was going to upgrade until my son asked what was 
out there on the web which I needed to get 3 time faster.  After a short 
discussion, we bought a mind numbing, stupid game, and I saved well over 
$50.  We sit playing this game for hours, and don't use the modem very 
much.  We are both very happy, however we have each lost at least 15 IQ 
points.

On Jan 22,  6:48am, Dan Lorinser wrote:
> Subject: Re: IPC-RB-276 is OBSOLETE! -Reply
> George,
> Question...should I callout a obsolete spec on a class A released
> drawing? Can I? I bought a 9600 modem a few years back, works fine,
> but I did upgrade it to a 33.6! 
> 
> >>> George Franck Jr <[log in to unmask]> Jan 21, 1997 
> 5:57 pm >>>
> Dan,
> I own a HP235 Calculator which I bought for $235 in 1974.  It is  
obsolete.
>  However, it also still works, and gives reliable results.
> 
> As to IPC-RB-276, I understand it, my suppliers (usually) understand 
it, 
> my designers understand it, my electrical engineers almost understand 
> it, and my inspectors understand it.  The Spec works and the boards 
are 
> reliable.  
> 
> Yes, I will eventually convert to the IPC-6011/2.  I will also replace 
 my
> 1984 Pontiac someday.  However, I am keeping my HP, RPN and all.
> 
> Gak! I must be some kind of an old engineering Geek!  (Did I tell you 
 about
> the time we first swaged wire through phenolic boards for  thru-hole
> connections?  I should have gotten a patent.)
> 
> Any way, my point is, things that work get replaced less quickly than 
> things that do not.
> 
> Thanks for your thoughts
> George Franck
> 
> Legal Disclaimer:
> My company, showing good sense, disavows anything I say.
> 
> 
> On Jan 21, 12:42pm, Dan Lorinser wrote:
> > Subject: FAB: CU/Invar/Cu suppliers -Reply
> > Remember...IPC-RB-276 is OBSOLETE! IPC-6011 and IPC-6012 are the
> > bad boys now unless your vendor isn't up to the new ones yet.
> > Dan Lorinser
> > BFGoodrich Aerospace

-- 

George Franck Jr
Raytheon E-Systems
Falls Church Va.

"The opinions expressed are those of the author, and are not necessarily those of the Raytheon Corporation."

***************************************************************************
* 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.        *
***************************************************************************
* If you are having a problem with the IPC TechNet forum please contact   *
* Dmitriy Sklyar at 847-509-9700 ext. 311 or email at [log in to unmask]      *
***************************************************************************



ATOM RSS1 RSS2