Jack,
I understand what you are saying, but I am in the same boat as Bill. We've got programs working to 25 revs of the same spec and nobody wants to change things around once the contracts are written.
Is there some sort of summary that I can order/get/see that details the changes between B and C?
Thanks,
Eric Kalgren
BFGoodrich Aerospace
Data Systems Division
[log in to unmask]
(505) 938-5139
>>> Jack Crawford <[log in to unmask]> 12/10/99 11:14AM >>>
Thanks for your message, Bill, but please don't shoot the messenger.
IPC staff does not write standards, nor do we promote revision efforts on a whim.
The technical department's staff function for this association which consists of nearly 2,600 member companies is to receive the Standard Improvement Forms--that page in the back of every single document we publish. We share those comments with the industry representatives that make up the technical committees. The members and leaders of the committees provide interpretation of requirements when appropriate, or just "bank" the comments.
At some point it becomes obvious that an amendment or revision is necessary to accommodate changes in technology or correct errors/omissions. When the developing committee determines that revision activity is warranted, they must sell that idea to the Technical Activities Executive Committee (TAEC). The TAEC is made up of all the IPC General Chairs and Chairs Emeritus. The TAEC represents many years of expereince in the electronics industry, and they recognize the impact that revisions have. They don't approve projects without good substantiation (which included first selling off the need to the Vice President of Standards and Technology).
J-STD-001 and IPC-A-610 historically were targeted towards different user groups. Now it is not unusual for companies to build Class 2 and Class 3 on the same lines with products referenced to either or both of these documents. There were some conflicts between the B revisions of both documents--conflicts that reportedly ended up as litigation in some cases.
The 610 Task Group 7-31b falls under the 7-31 Product Assurance Committee. When they were about two years into their revision effort--originally intended primarily to clarify and add new technologies--they became stymied because of the conflicts. They asked the 5-20 Assembly and Joining Committee to open J-STD-001 to revision so that the two documents could be worked together. Resolution of the conflicts would be in the best interest of all the electronics manufacturing industry. Common requirements will reduce training for operators and inspectors and increase understanding. Class 3 requirements are the same whether working to J-STD-001C or IPC-A-610C.
Standard revisions always have been a frustration and a challenge, and I suspect will continue to be so in the future.
Hope this helps with your understanding of the process. Jack
>>> "Kasprzak, Bill (esd) USX" <[log in to unmask]> 12/10/99 09:53AM >>>
Jack,
I am a bit troubled by the news of a Rev."C" J-Std. It is starting to seem
like the IPC has adopted the Microsoft marketing plan with new releases
every so often. You, know Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows 2000 etc. as a
means of generating income.
Can you enlighten us as to what is being voted on? Is this a significant
enough of a change to warrant a revision change?
Whether you realize it or not, you are starting to create the same messy
condition of years past when our shop floor had some programs running under
Mil-Std 454J Req'mt 9, some running under WS6536, some to Mil-S-45743, some
to Mil-Std-2000A etc. All these different specs had different requirements
that required specific knowledge about the applied spec while working on a
job.
You may think that just because you release Rev C, the previous revisions
are superceded. Not so. When Rev C is released, I'll have some programs
running to Rev A, some to Rev B while new programs will mandate Rev C. You
have to understand that, at least on military programs, it is a very
expensive (Drawing Changes and hardware revisions) and time consuming
process (meetings, sign-offs etc.) to change contractual obligations even
for just a Rev letter change. So even though you may update a spec, I still
have to be running to the provisions of the specification imposed at the
time a contract was signed.
So, unless there is a real good reason for an upgrade, I'd like to see you
"cool it" with the revision changes.
Regards,
Bill Kasprzak
Moog Inc.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jack Crawford [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Thursday, December 09, 1999 3:56 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [TN] J-STD-001C STATUS
>
> Wanner, Gary and all--
>
> J-STD-001C has been balloted twice and still required some tweaking by the
> joint IPC/EIA committee. I've finished the edits this morning and will be
> sending it to the committee for a THIRD ballot, probably out the door
> tomorrow. The committee will be meeting to resolve any additional
> comments at the IPC Winter Interim Meetings in Tempe AZ Monday-Tuesday
> January 3-4 2000. We'll know at that time if it's been approved for
> publication. Jack
>
> ==========================================
> APEX - the industry's premier trade show in Electronics
> Manufacturing, March 12-16, 2000, Long Beach, California.
> More information on website www.ipc.org/html/apex.htm
> -----------
> Jack Crawford, IPC Director of Assembly Standards and Technology
> 2215 Sanders Road, Northbrook IL 60062-6135
> [log in to unmask]
> 847-790-5393
> fax 847-509-9798
>
> >>> Wanner Bernhard <[log in to unmask]> 12/09/99 04:57AM >>>
> I'm looking for a new bible (J-STD-001C): does anybody know, when issue C
> would be available?
>
> ##############################################################
> TechNet Mail List 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 web site (http://www.ipc.org/html/forum.htm) for
> additional
> information.
> If you need assistance - contact Gayatri Sardeshpande at [log in to unmask] or
> 847-509-9700 ext.5365
> ##############################################################
##############################################################
TechNet Mail List 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 web site (http://www.ipc.org/html/forum.htm) for additional
information.
If you need assistance - contact Gayatri Sardeshpande at [log in to unmask] or
847-509-9700 ext.5365
##############################################################
##############################################################
TechNet Mail List 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 web site (http://www.ipc.org/html/forum.htm) for additional
information.
If you need assistance - contact Gayatri Sardeshpande at [log in to unmask] or
847-509-9700 ext.5365
##############################################################
|
