TECHNET Archives

December 1998

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:
"Kasprzak, Bill (esd) US" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
TechNet E-Mail Forum.
Date:
Tue, 1 Dec 1998 14:44:00 PST
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (52 lines)
Jim:

First off, I'd like to thank you for your responses to my questions.

The example I gave was strictly for illustrative purposes only. It was not
meant to reflect an actual process condition but the joint count and the lot
size were delliberately set to see if I could generate a sampling of
different responses. I only received 2 responses, yours and one from Graham
Collins (Thanks, Graham). The intent of the one defect was to see if the
count for the lot was taken into account for the 0.3% threshold or whether
the single Table 11-1 defect on one board would require that corrective
action be taken because it exceeds the 0.3% threshold.

Both of you used the count of the lot rather than a single board as a basis
for determining the 0.3% threshold for corrective action. What gives you the
indication to consider the entire lot ?  Paragraph 9.1.2 seems to indicate
that a single board is the basis for the threshold limits.

In running a class 3 product, our vehicle for corrective action is a hand
written, press hard, multi-page form that is filled out that requires a
number of signatures. Is this the typical of a way to perform corrective
action response ? I think that this time consuming effort probably would
probably lead to a paperwork overload or "fix" the problem under the table
in order to avoid the paperwork.

Maybe I'm off base here but, it seems to me that touching up a solder joint
or two on a board is the same as hand solder operations that are sometimes
performed after wave soldering or reflow soldering. They are both normal. I
agree that touch-up locations need to be identified so that trend analysis
and problem correction can take place if needed. But, to generate corrective
action reports for single defect occurrences is not very practical. Maybe we
need a simpler corrective action form.

I'd like to hear from the IPC on this one.

Thanks to all who can respond.

Bill Kasprzak
Moog Inc.

################################################################
TechNet E-Mail Forum provided as a free service by IPC using LISTSERV 1.8c
################################################################
To subscribe/unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text in the body:
To subscribe:   SUBSCRIBE TechNet <your full name>
To unsubscribe:   SIGNOFF TechNet 
################################################################
Please visit IPC's web site (http://www.ipc.org) "On-Line Services" section for additional information.
For technical support contact Hugo Scaramuzza at [log in to unmask] or 847-509-9700 ext.312
################################################################


ATOM RSS1 RSS2