TECHNET Archives

December 1999

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:
Wanner Bernhard <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
TechNet E-Mail Forum.
Date:
Tue, 21 Dec 1999 20:53:16 +0100
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (131 lines)
Hans and Doug and all (the others, cl.2-, folks)...
... ok, sure, of course (to say that MIL doesn't maintain state-of-the-art
level would be absurd, isn't it?).

BUT the question and its implication concerning the non-MIL-folks are as
follows: facing to MIL-contracts, most "industry"-contracts (e.g. cl. 2)
aren't provided with so a stringent requirement flowdown. The detail
requirements of a refered standard are sometimes "agreed", but neighter
really known nor checked. So, in fact, a industry-contract refering some
IPC-standards often means a "70%-fulfillment" or - worse -"intention".
U didn't agree? c'mon, don't tell me you cl.2-Industry-folks are sure all
related IPC-paragraphs are fulfilled by all your changing!-
sub-sub-...-contractors. The problem is not the outlook of the turtles n'
orangies (nice expression, isn't it? thanks to Steve!), but more "hidden"
aspects, e.g. (if you are applying conformal coating, may be important for
SIR/E-migration or adhereance) do you really know the current used solder
resist type or the fluxer of your sub-sub-contractor? So I think for most
real existing applications the requirement flowdown ends at a sub-sub-stage
(with a more or less well balanced effort/risk-mix).

At the other side exactly such a fuzzy specification ("70%-fulfillment" - or
-"intention") would allow to define a generally applicable set consisting of
"the most important IPC-standards" (in their newest issue) which would
address the most points which going wrong in the real existing industry.
Without the need to refer the applicable issue.
And exactly this would be one of the advantages of such a fuzzy
specification: to be able to refer to the newest available issue of a spec
(now J-STD-001C is available? okydky, lets work C!) without detailed
pre-screen and without sluggish change of all the agreement with all the
sub-sub's. I'm not aware about the degree of penetration of the
IPC-standards in US, but in Europe the application of IPC-standards looks
more likely at a earlier epoche of penetration. So it's important to
introduce the standards step-by step, not as a wheelbarrow loaded with tons
of paper.

I think there are "some (around eight) important IPC-standards" (with
J-STD-001 as causal nexus) allowing to introduce the IPC-tree into the
supply-chain. I'm aware this would not solve all problems, but this spec-set
would simplify the comunication between all: the pcb-manufacturers and
-assemblers, their sub-sub's and consultants.

I would be interest to hear about the IPC-awarness, -fulfilling,
-application in the pcb-industry - assemblers and manufacturer - west of the
Azores.

Bernhard

Merry X-mas and a Happy New Year


post scriptum: Doug, what means SIRGuru? SIR as Surface Insulation
Resistance? Do you are the SIR-pope of half the MIL-planet?
> ------------------------------
>
> Date:    Thu, 16 Dec 1999 08:29:41 EST
> From:    "Douglas O. Pauls" <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: J-STD-001C STATUS
>
> Amen brother Amen.  I felt the same way when I was with NAVAIR.  The
> phrase
> "close enough for government work" really ticked me off because it usually
> put our aviators at risk.  I was glad to see your response.
>
> By the way, an old friend of mine works down at Robins.  F. Michael
> Bratcher
> (or just Mike).  Would you happen to have his e-mail address handy?
>
> Doug Pauls
> CSL
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
                Date:    Fri, 10 Dec 1999 16:54:37 -0500
                From:    Hinners Hans Civ WRALC/LYPME
<[log in to unmask]>
                Subject: Re: J-STD-001C STATUS

                Bernhard,

                Who says the Mil Industry doesn't need state of the art?

                I see pilots and flight crews (almost) everyday.  They don't
know me, but I
                adopted them the day I started working here.  In my eyes,
they are family
                and deserve nothing less than cutting edge.  I'd rather my
pilots have state
                of the art avionics than whomever they fly against.

        ----------------------------------------------------------

                        Date:    Fri, 10 Dec 1999 21:28:51 +0100
                        From:    Wanner Bernhard <[log in to unmask]>
                        Subject: Re: J-STD-001C STATUS

                        Bill,

                        In my view it is of fundamental importance to reform
such standards now and
                        then (version B has been issued 1996). For example
now I'm looking for a
                        version C containing a current table 3-1, because it
will be easier to
                        explain the fundamental requirements to our
suppliers.
                        IPC has to consider also the needs of the
"non-MIL-Industry" which is
                        looking to a standard reflecting the technical state
of the art.
                        So I think (with view to the necessary ballot loop)
it's a adequate
                        intervall of re-publication.

                        Bernhard

>

##############################################################
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
##############################################################

ATOM RSS1 RSS2